Human well-being, morality and the economy: An Islamic perspective

Kader, Haithem Article Human well-being, morality and the economy: An Islamic perspective Islamic Economic Studies (IES) Provided in Cooperation with: Islamic Development Bank Institute, Jeddah Suggested Citation: Kader, Haithem (2021) : Human well-being, morality and the economy: An Islamic perspective, Islamic Economic Studies (IES), ISSN 2411-3395, Emerald, Bingley, Vol. 28, Iss. 2, pp. 102-123, https://doi.org/10.1108/IES-07-2020-0026 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/316471 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Human well-being, morality and the economy: an Islamic perspective Haithem Kader Islamic Finance, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar Abstract Purpose –This study argues that in order to address the problems associated with the modern market economy at their core, such as persistent poverty, growing inequality and environmental degradation, it is imperative to re-assess the well-being and moral philosophy underpinning economic thinking. The author attempts to offer a preliminary way forward with reference to the Islamic intellectual tradition. Design/methodology/approach –This study employs content analysis of classical and contemporary Islamic texts on human well-being and economic ethics to derive a conceptual well-being model. The paper is structured in four sections: section one provides an overview of relevant secondary literature on moral economic approaches; section two outlines the main well-beingframeworks; section three discusses the concept of human well-being in Islam informed by the Islamic worldview of tawh _  ıd, the Islamic philosophy of saʿ adah, and the higher objectives of Islamic Law (maq as . id al-Shar ı ʿ ah); and finally, section four discusses policy implications and next steps forward. Findings –A conceptual model of human well-being from an Islamic perspective is developed by integrating philosophical insights of happiness (saʿ adah) with an objective list of five essential goods: religion (D ın), self (Nafs), intellect (’Aql), progeny (Nasl) and wealth (M al) that correspond to spiritual, physical and psychological, intellectual, familial and social, and material well-being, respectively. Research limitations/implications –Further research is needed to translate this conceptual model into a composite well-being index to inform policy and practice. Practical implications –This model can be used to review the performance of the Islamic finance sector, not solely in terms of growth and profitability, but in terms of realising human necessities, needs and refinements. It can also provide the basis for the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) countries to jointly develop a well-being index to guide national and regional co-operation. More generally, this study highlights the need for research in Islamic economics to be more firmly rooted within Islamic ontology and epistemology, while simultaneously engaging in productive dialogue with other moral schools of economic thought to offer practical solutions to contemporary challenges. Originality/value –This study offers three aspects of originality. First, by outlining well-being frameworks, it highlights key differences between the utilitarian understanding of well-being underpinning modern economic theory and virtue-based understandings, such as the Aristotelian, Christian and Islamic approaches. Second, it provides a well-being model from an Islamic perspective by integrating the Islamic worldview of tawh _  ıd, the Islamic philosophy of saʿ adah, and the higher objectives of Islamic Law (maq as . id al-Shar ı ʿ ah). Third, it proposes an ethical framework for informing economic policy and practice. Keywords Well-being, Moral economy, saʿ adah,Maq asid Paper type Research Paper 1. Introduction The meaning of well-being and the means towards its improvement have been at the heart of intellectual enquiry from ancient philosophical and religious traditions, to modern natural and social sciences. While the improvement of human well-being can be considered a IES 28,2 102 JEL Classification —B0, O1, P4. KAUJIE Classification —B0, B3 © Haithem Kader. Published in Islamic Economic Studies. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and noncommercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1319-1616.htm Received 13 July 2020 Revised 21 September 2020 Accepted 13 February 2021 Islamic Economic Studies Vol. 28 No. 2, 2021 pp. 102-123 Emerald Publishing Limited e-ISSN: 2411-3395 p-ISSN: 1319-1616 DOI 10.1108/IES-07-2020-0026 primordial individual and collective goal, its precise meaning and the means of achieving it have differed. A basic definition of well-being is “the state of being comfortable, healthy or happy”(Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2018). Some of the most prominent understandings of well-being in the Greek, Christian and Muslim traditions include eudaemonia,felicitas and saʿ adah, as discussed by the likes of Aristotle, Aquinas and al-Ghaz ali, respectively.At the core of these understandings is the belief that living well entails living virtuously. In turn, economic activity is understood as being embedded in the domains of morality and ethics. However, with the rise of the utilitarian philosophy in Europe in the 19th century, well-being became synonymous with individual hedonistic pleasure and desire-fulfilment. This facilitated the process of the economy becoming disembedded from the social and ethical realms through the process of commodification (Polanyi, 2001). Furthermore, market incentives such as profit-seeking, crowd out non-market values, such as altruism, causing market economies to produce market societies where material values dominate all aspects of life (Sandel, 2012;Satz, 2010). This study argues that in order to address the problems intrinsic to the modern market economy at their core, such as persistent poverty, growing wealth inequalities and environmental degradation, it is imperative to re-embed the economy within a moral wellbeing philosophy. It attempts to offer a preliminary way forward with reference to the Islamic intellectual tradition through content analysis of classical and contemporary Islamic texts. 2. Literature review This study is informed by moral approaches to economic thinking that challenge the dominant epistemology underpinning the modern economics discipline. In Ethics and Economics (1987), Amartya Sen criticises the “engineering approach”of neoclassical economics, which adopts a positivistic epistemology and avoids directly addressing ethical problems. He questions certain fundamental concepts within economics, such as the concept of rational choice, which holds that maximisation of self-interest is rational to the exclusion of anything else. He also finds fault with concepts such as Pareto optimality, economic efficiency and utility-maximisation in modern welfare economics. He argues that utility–judged in terms of the metric of subjective happiness and desire fulfilment–is an insufficient criterion for assessing well-being: “while happiness and the fulfilment of desire may be valuable for the person’s well-being, they cannot –on their own or even together –adequately reflect the value of well-being”(Sen, 1987, p. 47). Furthermore, he argues that ethical considerations can impact on economic behaviour which are unaccounted for in mainstream economics informed by utilitarianism. Sen seeks to address these problems through the capabilities approach which places emphasis on unlocking human freedoms as opposed to raising utility. It integrates the Aristotelian notion of human functioning, focusing on what a given human being is or does [1]. It has generated a vast literature, in both theoretical and practical studies, and informed the human development approach which was adopted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). However, a potential limitation of this approach is that well-being remains somewhat vague and subjective, especially from the perspective of a religious tradition, such as Islam, which details human nature and the requirements for living a good life (hayat tayyiba). The moral economy approach is a related body of scholarship inspired by Karl Polanyi’s insights. Emphasising the human being’s social nature, Polanyi argues that “man’s economy, as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships”(Polanyi, 2001, p. 48); the dominant “transactional modes”prior to the creation of the modern market economy were based on reciprocity, redistribution and house-holding to meet sufficiency, rather than on competitive profit-seeking. Scholars of moral economy carried Polanyi’s arguments forward against the economic orthodoxy by emphasising the interplay of values, culture, history and institutions Human wellbeing, morality and the economy 103 in economic life (Baum, 1996). Similar to Sen’s approach, the moral economy approach is considered a “(loosely) Aristotelian economic theory in opposition to rights-based arguments that at present command the horizon of normative economic theorising”(Booth, 1994, p. 653). Booth (1994) clarifies the meaning of “moral economy”as a type of enquiry into economics which recognises how moral dispositions, values and norms influence and are influenced by economic activities (Booth, 1994). This approach acknowledges that all economies are moral economies in a broad sense, given that they are influenced by a range of norms, values, commitments, conceptions of the good and well-being. Yet, its exact nature depends on the particular worldview, conception of well-being and moral philosophy. It therefore, brings ethics to the forefront of economic theorising. Islamic economics literature can be considered as a branch of moral economy thinking informed by the Islamic worldview. According to Wilson, Islamic economics is “a distinct school of thought, with a coherent set of ideas, both moralistic and proscriptive”(Wilson in Peil and Van Staveren, 2009, p. 283). There isa general agreement among Islamic economists that the overarching goal of the economy is to realise inter-temporal well-being – encompassing this temporal life and the everlasting hereafter–commonly denoted by the term fal ah (lit. “success”). For example, according to Muhammad Akram Khan (1994) fal ah is a multi-dimensional concept which has various spiritual, economic, cultural and political dimensions. Similarly, Umar Chapra uses the concept of fal ah to denote “real well-being of all the people living on earth”which includes material components of well-being, such as income and wealth, as well as its spiritual and non-material components (Chapra, 2008a,b, p. 1). To achieve fal ah Islamic economists have developed an axiomatic approach to define the framework in which economic activity takes place (Asutay, 2007). For example, Naqvi (1981) outlines four axioms: tawh _  ıd–unity, ʿadl wa ih _s an –equilibrium and beneficence, ikhtiy ar – free-will and fard –responsibility. Ahmad proposes tawh _  ıd–God’s Oneness and Sovereignty; rub ubiyyah –“divine arrangements for nourishment and sustenance and directing things towards their perfection”;khil afa –man’s role as vicegerent of God on earth, including his roles and responsibilities, and; tazkiya –“growth towards perfection through purification of attitudes and relationships”(Ahmad, 1980,1994, p. 20). Mirakhor and Askari use walayahh,– “unconditional, dynamic, active, ever-present Love of the Supreme Creator for His Creation”; kar ama –man’s dignity and intelligence; meethaq –the primordial covenant between man and the Creator and khil afa –the agent-trustee relationship (Mirakhor and Askari, 2010). All of these approaches provide somewhat complimentary conceptual foundations of an Islamic economy. These axioms are combined with the various moral rules and principles from the Shar ıʿah that pertain to the economy to inform how an Islamic economy may be actualised. However, scholars, such as Sardar (1985), have questioned the rationale behind the selection of axioms. Sardar argues that Islamic economics must go beyond a narrow discpline, to “an integrated field destined to become a pillar of Muslim civilisation”(Sardar et al., 2003, p. 43). This endeavour requires awareness of classical Islamic economic thought to gain insights from Muslim scholars throughout the centuries who successfully integrated the Islamic worldview and moral philosophy in their analysis of economic matters (El-Askhar and Wilson, 2006;Islahi, 2014;Aydin, 2010,2013). In this regard, Adi Setia consults the genre of mediaeval ethico-juristic treatises to set a sound metaphysical and philosophical basis upon which to conceptualise an “Islamic Gift Economy”as a sphere where private interest is integrated into public interest and economics is conceived as the “science of earning and provisioning for the common good”(Setia, 2009, p. 165). In particular, Ibn Khald un’s“science of civilisation”(ʿilm al-ʿumr an) provides a highly relevant multidisciplinary approach that integrates elements of political economy, moral economy and institutionalist approaches (Kahf, 2003;Alatas, 2006;Asutay, 2007;Chapra, 2007;Askari et al., 2015). A number of applied studies attempt to derive an Islamic human well-being model from the maq as . id al-Shar ıʿah tradition (Anto, 2011;Syed Ali and Hasan, 2014; IES 28,2 104 Ahmed and Kasri, 2015;Ramli et al., 2015;Amir-Ud-Din, 2014;Amin et al., 2015). However, a problem with these applied studies is that the available data used to construct the well-being index does not adequately represent the theory. For example, Amir-Ud-Din utilises existing databases, such as the Pew Research Center’s data to gauge religiosity. Yet, he acknowledges that the data available does not reflect the meaning of the preservation of religion in maq as . id theory. This raises concerns discussed by Abozaid and Dusuki (2007) and Setia (2015) about superficial understanding and improper application of maq as . id theory in Islamic economics and finance. In turn, it renders some of the “Islamic”maq as . id models of human well-being as almost indistinguishable from conventional utilitarian-based models (ibid). It is necessary, therefore to clarify how the maq as . id tradition can inform an Islamic well-being and moral economy approach. 3. Well-being and moral frameworks To clarify the Islamic perspective of well-being, it is first necessary to outline the main wellbeing frameworks in the literature on human well-being. Well-being theorists distinguish between objective list theories (OLTs) of well-being and utilitarian theories of well-being (Parfit, 1984;Brey, 2012;Fletcher, 2016). They are discussed in turn. 3.1 Objective list theory OLTs of well-being hold that there are certain goods that are non-instrumentally good for people and contribute to their well-being, regardless of whether they desire them or not. Hence, they recognise objective conditions of people rather than subjective experience of pleasure or fulfilment of subjective desires (Brey, 2012). OLTs are usually pluralistic, involving a range of goods called “basic goods”which enable a person to satisfy their basic needs. A person’s well-being depends possessing an adequate amount of goods on the list, such as knowledge, health, friendship and so on. It is up to the theorist to decide what goods are included in the list (Fletcher, 2016). While a “basic goods”approach is valuable–especially for poverty studies, arguably the perfectionist approach is more valuable for informing a holistic well-being approach as it seeks to include goods on the list that contribute to the perfection of human nature. According to Brey, “perfectionism constitutes the most influential explanatory OLT”(2012, p. 20). Whether it is based on secular or religious grounds, it holds that it is the human being’s intrinsic nature and end–or telos–that defines what is good or bad for him. One of the most widely known perfectionist theories is Aristotle’s theory of eudaemonia which holds that the happy life is a virtuous life attained through the perfection of our nature as rational and social animals (Brey, 2012). Other perfectionist theories of well-being include the Christian and Islamic approaches. Although utilitarianism is the dominant well-being theory underpinning mainstream economics, OLTs have been revived in recent years by neo-Aristotelian thinkers. OLTs are associated with teleological, deontological and virtue ethics moral frameworks [2]. 3.2 The utilitarian well-being approach In contract to OLTs, utilitarianism is informed by hedonistic and desire-fulfilment theories of well-being. Hedonism holds that “the only thing that is fundamentally intrinsically good for us is our pleasure; and the only thing that is fundamentally intrinsically bad for us is our own pain”(Heathwood, 2010 in Fletcher, 2016, p. 248). Although hedonism was less popular in philosophical circles in the pre-modern world, it became the dominant well-being philosophy in Europe through the thought of enlightenment scholars, such as Jeremy Bentham (d. 1832) and John Stuart Mill (d. 1873). In contrast with the pre-modern teleological understanding of happiness, according to Bentham, happiness is equivalent to pleasure (“the principle of Human wellbeing, morality and the economy 105 utility”). The goal of life rests in the maximisation of happiness, which is the only intrinsic good. Similarly, in his seminal text Utilitarianism (1836), Mill reduced morality to “the greatest happiness principle”as maximising pleasure and minimising pain. As Griffin notes, “Bentham and Mill used ‘utility’both to explain action and to set a moral standard; they used its empirical role in arguing for its moral role”(Griffin, 1986, p. 12). Utilitarianism as a moral theory holds that morality only has instrumental value in so far as it contributes to utility. Furthermore, both Bentham and Mill were advocates of methodological individualism–a moral position widely held by scholars of the Enlightenment–whereby the general welfare was possible only if each individual was free to pursue happiness in his own way (Khan, 1994, p. 129). This moral theory has dominated economic theorising, although it has been criticised. According to Wight (2015):“By ignoring non-consequentionalist ethical frameworks and insisting that all actions reflect only utility based on preference satisfaction, economists construct an extremely limited way of assessing social achievement”(Wight, 2015, p. 116). Hence, we find two highly influential and distinct well-being frameworks. While the modern economics discipline has adopted the utilitarian approach, arguably the dominant approach associated with pre-modern religious and philosophical traditions –including the Islamic tradition –is the OLT. The next section clarifies the Islamic well-being perspective with reference to philosophical studies of happiness (saʿ adah), maq as . id al-Shar’  ıah and mediaeval treatises about economic ethics. 4. Human well-being from an Islamic perspective 4.1 The Islamic worldview The Islamic perspective of well-being is informed by the Islamic worldview that is conveyed by the concept of tawh _  ıd–Unity, or Oneness of God. As a worldview “tawh _  ıdis a general view of reality, of truth, of the world, of space and time, of human history”(al-Faruqi, 1992, p. 10). It is a God-centric teleological worldview which holds that all things are created with a natural purpose and function by God–the only true Deity (Ihah) and Lord (Rabb) of creation. It implies unity and harmony of dimensions of life–the soul and the body, worship and work, the spiritual and the material, state and society, freedoms and responsibilities and therefore aligns with the human being’s natural disposition (fitrah). According to Al-R aghib al-Is . fah ani (d. 1108 CE), the tawh _  ıdic worldview is informed by three major principles known as the “purposes of creation”(maq as . id al-khalq): worship ( ʿ ib adah), stewardship (khil afah), and moral and material development ( ʿ umr an)(al-Is . fah a;ni, 1980, p. 31). These three concepts can be considered meta-ethics, or foundational axioms, that inform a Muslim’s connection to God and inject life with meaning and purpose. While ʿ ib adah, includes ritual acts of worship, such as prayer and fasting, it can be understood as “a comprehensive term for all that God loves and that pleases Him of speech, inner and outer actions”(Ibn Taymiyyah, 1999, p. 29). It entails willing servitude to God alone out of love (Al-Qaradawi, 2006, p. 182). The innumerable textual references that emphasis the centrality of worship makes it beyond doubt that it is the raison d’^ etre of man’s existence and the ultimate test upon which his salvation lies (Al-Fasi, 2014, p. 14). Hence, ʿ ib adah is of central importance to the believer’s life and their worldly and otherworldly well-being. The image of man as a humble servant ( ʿ abd) of God stands in stark contrast to the view of man as “homo dominus”who is the master of his destiny and free to exploit the world’s resources as he wishes. While worship of God can be considered as the ultimate purpose of human existence, its meaning can only be actualised by fulfilling the role of stewardship (khil afah). The Qur’an states that God entrusted man as a steward (or custodian, or vicegerent) on earth to carry out His Will. Having accepted this trust man becomes personally responsible (mukallaf) and accountable for fulfilling his obligation (takl ıf) through knowledge ( ʿ ilm), capability to act (qudrah) and free will (ikhtiy ar)(Al-Attas, 2015, p. 6). Specifically, it entails upholding justice IES 28,2 106 upon the earth (Q. 38:26). As all wealth belongs to God, the natural environment comes under man’s custodianship (Q. 24:33). This negates the possibility that man can be faithful to God, while at the same time contributing to bloodshed, plunder and destruction of the earth’s resources for the sake of his material gratification as is intrinsic to the neoliberal economic order (Nasr, 1997, p. 19). Hence, stewardship entails responsibility towards God and His Creation by maintaining justice. The third higher objective– ʿ umr an (also ʿ im arah al- ʿ ardh, or simply ʿ im arah)–carries meanings to live, to build upon and beautify the earth. ʿ Umr an may be considered the metaethic governing economic activities related to earning and provisioning resources (kasb and inf aq). ʿ Umr an contains a core moral component related to values, such as justice, peace and freedom, without which material development cannot materialise. The expansion of material goods in the absence of moral values would lead to the opposite of ʿ umr an, namely, corruption (fas ad), destruction (tadm ır) and conflict (qit al), as the Qur’ an details in numerous verses. Ibn Khald un used the term ʿ umr an to refer to various aspects of human settlement, including sciences, occupations and trades with positive moral connotations [3]. Hence, while ʿ umr an has been associated with contemporary concepts, such as human and material development, as well as civilisation-building, it has a core moral dimension and is rooted in the Islamic worldview (Malkawi, 2013, p. 127). Hence, the tawh _  ıdic worldview and the three higher purposes of creation can be considered the foundational axioms that guide individual and collective behaviour of Muslims to achieve holistic well-being. 4.2 Well-being and moral virtue The exact meaning of well-being that economic activity seeks to realise can be understood with reference to classical Islamic philosophical insights of happiness (saʿ adah)andthe higher objectives of the Shar ıʿah (maq as . id al-Shar ı ʿ ah). While Islamic economists commonly use the Qur’ anic concept of “falah”which means “success”, the concept of saʿ adah or happiness, is more commonly discussed in classical Islamic scholarship on inter-temporal well-being –especially within the Islamic ethics and maq as . id traditions. Muslim scholars, such as al-F ar abi (d. 950 A.D.), Ibn Miskawayh (d. 1030 A.D.) and al- Ghazali (d. 1111), wrote extensively on the concept of saʿ adah by integrating Aristotelean and Platonic concepts of well-being with the Islamic worldview. For them, saʿ adah does not simply refer to subjective happiness but is a comprehensive concept that includes happiness, prosperity, success, perfection, blessedness and beatitude (Ansari, 1963, p. 319). It may therefore be equated with a good life (hay at tayyiba), or holistic well-being. Al-F ar abi states, “happiness (saʿ adah) is an intrinsic good [...] there is nothing beyond it that is greater than it that a human being can achieve”(Al-F ar abi, 2016,p.61).Theyheldthat saʿ adah can be realised through attaining a range of necessary and sufficient goods for the completeness of life. Necessary goods include “goods of the body”and “external goods”, such as health, fame, wealth, power and friendship (Ansari, 1963,p.327).Thesegoodsmust be accompanied by virtues, which refer to the disposition, or goods, of the soul from which beautiful actions (af’ al jam ıla) proceed to realise saʿ adah. According to Ansari: “Miskawayh fully endorses Aristotle’s view that perfect saʿ adah includes to a considerable extent, besides intellectual wisdom and moral excellence, soundness of health and senses, wealth, friends, good name and social success”(Ansari, 1963, p. 327). Hence, they followed a perfectionist objective list theory of well-being [4].Furthermore, these scholars recognised that human beings cannot achieve saʿ adah on an individual basis but must co-operate. Al-F ar abi highlights that both the words for assistance (mus aʿadah) and happiness (saʿ adah)sharethesameetymologicalroot(s-a-d), showing the intimate connection between altruism and well-being. Miskawayh connects happiness to love, Human wellbeing, morality and the economy 107 friendship and co-operation: “people must love each other, for each one finds his own perfection in someone else, and the latter’s happiness is incomplete without the former” (Ibn Miskawayh, 2001,p.14).Al-F  ar abi and Miskawayh held that collective virtuous action is necessary to produce a “virtuous city”. These philosophical insights on saʿ adah emphasis that living virtuously is essential in order to live well. For further conceptual and methodological clarity, saʿ adah can be elaborated through maq as . id theory. 4.3 The higher objectives of the Shari ʿ ah Based on a holistic reading of the Shar ıʿah, scholars such as al-Ghaz ali and al-Sh atib ı, found that the Shar ıʿah aims to preserve and promote five essential goods (al-dhar ur ıy at al-khams)– Religion (D ın), the Soul (Nafs), Intellect ( ʿ Aql), Progeny (Nasl) and Wealth (M al). Al-Ghaz ali states: “all that involves the protection of these five essentials (us ul) is an interest (mas . lahah), and all that leads to their absence is a harm (mafsadah), while its prevention is an interest” (Al-Ghazali, 2012, p. 174). These goods are termed “essentials”because the absence of any one of them will lead to severe impairment of well-being, whether in this life or in the hereafter (Al-Rays uni, 2010). These five goods constitute general (ʿ amm) categories which contain innumerable instrumental “specific”(kh as) goods, which in turn contain various “partial” (juzi) goods. Together they are “complete”as they capture the holistic nature of inter-temporal human well-being, namely, spiritual, physical and psychological, intellectual, social and material well-being, respectively. Goods differ in their scope, function and the extent to which they contribute to well-being. Due to the relative scarcity of resources, the realisation of one good may limit one’s ability to achieve the other. Hence, trade-offs must be made between certain goods. Therefore, al- Ghaz ali and al-Sh atibi elaborated upon a methodology of precedence based on a tripartite hierarchy of necessities (dhar ur ı at), needs (h aj ı at) and refinements (tahs ın ı at). According to maq as . id theory, necessities refer to goods whose absence will cause overburdening hardship to life, if not its termination altogether (Al-Rays uni, 2010). Necessities are universal, irrespective of context as their absence will lead to excessive hardship for people, regardless of place and time. Needs include goods whose absence will cause difficulty and hardship to life, yet to a lesser degree as compared to the level of necessity. Needs are context specific, differing according to time and place. Refinements are those goods that enrich and add value to life. In opposition to these categories of goods are “bads”or “luxuries”that upset the natural balance in the human and natural world (al-miz an) and harm well-being. Hence, at the core of the Islamic understanding of well-being is the notion of balance between goods, their interconnectivity and levels of priority. This comes from the recognition that man has a dual nature–both physical and spiritual-that needs too be nourished without causing deficiency or excess in any of the core components. From the aforementioned discussion, a conceptual model of well-being is presented that captures the holistic nature of human well-being through the five “essential”goods–religion, the self, the intellect, progeny and wealth, respectively–according to the three levels of priority, as illustrated in Figure 1. below. These goods capture the holistic nature of intertemporal human well-being, namely, spiritual, physical and psychological, intellectual, familial and social, environmental and material respectively. They are basic, universal (i.e. they apply to all people), indispensable (ie, their loss causes serious harm), interdependent, and are final in the sense that each contains a range of instrumental goods. Through the methodology of prioritising goods according to necessities, needs and refinements, economic activity can promote the existence (wuj ud) of these goods and prevent their loss (ʿadam) at different levels of priority. The next section details the various goods that contribute to realising the five essential goods. IES 28,2 108 4.4 The five essential goods 4.4.1 Religion ( D ın). Religion has provided a core component of individual and collective human well-being for as long as man has existed. Religion broadly refers to belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power and can be a particular system of faith or worship (Oxford, 2018). Both the inner dimensions (b atin) and outer dimensions (th ahir) constitute religion (d ın). The inner dimensions relate to faith and spirituality that are contained in the metaphysical heart (qalb) and manifest in moral and ethical traits, such as truthfulness, patience, reliance, God-consciousness and so on. The outer dimensions relate to religious practice, such as rites of worship and performing good deeds. Hence, both the inner and outer dimensions need to be preserved and promoted to enable spiritual well-being to flourish. At the level of necessity comes “the five pillars of the religion”(ark an al-d ın), including faith (expressed in the testimony or shah adah), the daily prayers (s . al at), fasting (s .  awm), alms-giving (zak at) and pilgrimage (hajj). They are named pillars because they are obligatory injunctions, without which the religion would dissipate. The testimony of faith is a formal statement based on sincere belief from the heart. Faith includes knowledge of God–His Names and Attributes, His Messengers, Revelation and faith in the “Unseen Realm”(al-_ gayb). Of all the Islamic rites, the most central are the five daily prayers (Nasr, 2004, p. 130). The prayers function to rejuvenate the soul through remembrance of God, protect from vice and provide solace from challenges of worldly life. Prayers performed in addition to the five daily prayers (i.e. those that are supererogatory and correspond to the legal category of “recommended”or mand ub) can be considered as being within the category of needs or even refinements. Falling short of the level of necessary worship will lead to a deficiency in spiritual well-being, while going beyond the level of refinement may compromise other aspects of well-being. Fasting during Ramad an is an obligatory rite, during the holiest of Islamic months, for those who have the physical capacity to perform it. Keeping voluntary fasts in addition to the obligatory fasts can be considered as being from the needs and refinements. The third pillar–alms-giving (zak at)–is prescribed upon those who possess more than a minimum amount of wealth (nis .  ab) as specified in the fiqh texts. There is also obligatory spending (nafaqah) for dependants, such as the obligation upon a married man to take care of the needs of his wife and children. Performing charitable acts beyond this amount Figure 1. The Islamic concept of human well-being Human wellbeing, morality and the economy 109 such as blockchain, mobile banking and electronic payment systems, can enhance financial inclusion if used wisely. Hence, grounding the Islamic economy within the Islamic worldview and moral philosophy that is guided by the well-being model can allow it to fulfil its original purpose and regain credibility and provide genuine solutions to problems, such as persistent poverty, growing inequality and environmental degradation. Figure 2 summarises the key components of the Islamic economy. Finally, this study highlights the need for collective efforts to support the development of a composite Islamic well-being index which accurately measures each dimension of well-being as accurately as possible. While previous attempts to develop maq as . id-based well-being indices are valuable and informative, the use of available data from a range of indices as proxies makes them unreliable measures as they do not reflect the concepts contained in the Islamic well-being perspective. These problems have been highlighted by the authors of these indices, such as Amir-Ud-Din (2014). Thus, a way forward can be for the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC)–as the largest Islamic multilateral organisation with a membership of 57 states–to support the development of an Islamic well-being index and to assist data collection efforts in Muslim communities. Such an index would be extremely useful for governments and policymakers to measure policy effects over time and for crosscountry comparisons. Clearly, such an index would provide a more representative measure of well-being from an Islamic perspective compared to existing indices, such as the Human Development Index (HDI). A next step for further research is to collect data for each of these Figure 2. A diagrammatic conceptualisation of the Islamic economy IES 28,2 116 components by conducting surveys in order to construct a well-being model that is truly representative of the Islamic well-being philosophy as outlined. 6. Conclusion This paper has argued that it is necessary to reassess the well-being philosophy underpinning economic thinking. An Islamic conceptual model of human well-being has been developed by integrating the tawh _  ıdic worldview, the philosophical insights of sa‘ adah with an objective list from the maq as . id tradition based on the five essential goods: religion (D ın), self (Nafs), intellect (’Aql), progeny (Nasl) and wealth (M al) that correspond to spiritual, physical and psychological, intellectual, familial and social, and material well-being, respectively. It has presented a methodology for prioritizing goods at three levels, according to human necessities, needs and refinements. While this well-being philosophy differs from the dominant utilitarian philosophy underpinning mainstream economics, it aligns with neo-Aristotelian and religious approaches based on a perfectionist objective list theory of well-being which consider living virtuously to be at the heart of living well. Hence, these approaches can come into productive dialogue to address common challenges posed by the global market economy and propose more ethical forms of market organisation and institutions, such as employee-owned companies and co-operatives. This dialogue can encourage the revival of the not-for-profit sector and foster critical introspection of the Islamic banking and finance industry. Finally, a collaborative effort is required to turn this model into an Islamic well-being index as a tool for policymakers and as a goal for national and regional co-operation, particularly between OIC member countries. Notes 1. Functionings relate to things a person may value being or doing while capabilities are the various sets of functionings that a person can achieve. 2. Deontology refers to “duty-”,or“rule-”based ethics with an emphasis on duty and moral obligation to some set of rules. It may come from secular reason, such as Kantianism, or religious law, such as divine command theory. The latter is associated with religious traditions which see moral life in the light of divine commandments, whereby that which is ethically, or morally “good”is that which God commands, while that which is “wrong”or “bad”is something forbidden by God (Rachels and Rachels, 2003, p. 50). This suggests a position of ethical objectivism, whereby some moral principles have universal validity. 3. Al-F ar abi uses a derivative of the term ʿ umr an,“al-ma ʿ m ura”to refer to human settlement upon the earth (Al-F ar abi, 2016, p. 69). 4. The Islamic philosophy of sa‘ adah also bears resemblance to the Christian perspective of human well-being as outlined by two highly influential Christian theologians –Augustine (d. 430 C.E.) and St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 C.E.) in the concepts of beautitudo and felicitas. See: Lauinger in Fletcher (2016). 5. Ibn ’Ash ur (2006) differentiates between individual and societal interests, giving those interests that are concerned with the community priority over those that were concerned with individuals. References Abdel Mohsin, M.I., Dafterdar, H., Cizakca, M., Alhabashi, S.O., Abdul Razak, S.H., Sadr, S.K., Anwar, T. and Obaidullah, M. (2016), “Financing the development of waqf properties: classical principles and innovative practises around the world”,Palgrave Studies in Islamic Banking, Finance, and Economics. Abozaid, A. and Dusuki, A.W. (2007), “A critical appraisal on the challenges of realising Maq as . id al- Shar ıʿah in Islamic banking and finance”,IIUM Journal of Economics and Management, Vol. 15 No. 2. Human wellbeing, morality and the economy 117 Ahmad, K. (1980), “Economic development in Islamic framework”, in Ahmad, K. (Ed.), Studies in Islamic Economics, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation and Jeddah: International Centre for Research in Islamic Economics, King Abdul Aziz University. Ahmad, K. (1994), Islamic Approach to Development: Some Policy Implications, Institute of Policy Studies, Islamabad. Ahmed, H. (2011), “Maq as . id al-Shar ıʿah and Islamic financial products: a framework for assessment”, ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, Vol. 3 No. 1. Ahmed, H. and Kasri, R. (2015), “Assessing socio-economic development based on Maq as . id Al- Shar ıʿah principles: normative frameworks, methods and implementation in Indonesia”,Islamic Economic Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 73-100. Al-Attas, S.M.N. (1978), Islam and Secularism, International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation (ISTAC), KuaIa Lumpur. Al-Attas, S.M.N. (2015), “On justice and the nature of man: a commentary on Surah al-Nisa”,Surah Al- Mu’minum, IBFIM, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 12-14, 23. Al-Dimashqi, J. (2011), The Indicator to the Virtues of Commerce, Translated by Adi Setia, IBFIM, Kuala Lumpor. Al-F ar abi, M. (2016),  Ar a Ahl al-Mad ına al-F adhila wa Madh ad atih a, Hindawi Foundation for Education and Culture, Windsor. Al-F ar uqi, I.R. (1992), Al Tawh ıd: Its Implications for Thought and Life, International Institute of Islamic Thought, Herndon, Virginia. Al-F as ı,ʿA. (2014), Maqas . id al-Shar ıʿah al-Islamiyyah wa Makarimaha, Dar al-Gharb al-Isl am ı, Beirut. Al-Ghaz ali, A.H. (2012), Al-Mustas . f a min ʿIlm al-Us .  ul, Muasasah al-Risalah, Beirut. Al-Ghaz ali, A.H. (2015a), The Alchemy of Happiness, Kimy a al-Saʿ adah. Al-Ghazali, A.H. (2015b), Essential Ihya Ulum al-Din (translated by Karim, F.), Vol. 2, Islamic Book Trust, Selangor. Al-Isfah ani, R. (1980), Al-Thar ı’a Ila Mak arim al-Shari’ah,D  ar al-Sa‘ adah. Al-Qaradawi, Y. (2006), Al-Islam Hadh ara al-Ghadd, Maktaba Wahba, Cairo. Al-Qaradawi, Y. (2007), Fiqh al-Awlawiyyat, Maktaba Wahba, Cairo. Al-Raysuni, A. (2010), Nathar ıyyah al-Maq as . id ʿinda al-Im am al-Sh atibi,D  ar al-Kalimah li al- Nashr wa Tawz ıʿ, Cairo. Alatas, S.F. (2006), “Islamic and the science of economics”,inThe Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Islamic Thought, Blackwell Publishing. Amin, R.M., Yusof, S.A., Haneef, M.A., Muhammad, M.O. and Oziev, G. (2015), “The Integrated Development Index (I-Dex): a new comprehensive approach to measuring human development”, in El-Karanshawy, H.A., et al. (Eds), Islamic Economic: Theory, Policy and Social Justice. Doha, Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation, Qatar. Amir-Ud-Din, R. (2014), “Maq as . id Al-Shar ıʿah: are we measuring the immeasurable?”,Islamic Economic Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-32. Ansari, M. (1963), “Miskawayh’s conception of Saʿ adah”,Islamic Studies, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 317-335, (September 1963). Anto, M.D. (2011), “Introducing an Islamic human development index (I-HDI) to measure development in OIC countries”,Islamic Economic Studies, Vol. 19 No. 2, 2011. Ashraf, A. (1988), “Bazaar-mosque alliance: the social basis of revolts and revolutions”,International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 1 No. 4. Askari, H., Iqbal, Z. and Mirakhor, A. (2015), Introduction to Islamic Economics: Theory and Application, Singapore, Wiley. IES 28,2 118 Asutay, M. (2007), “A political economy approach to Islamic economics: systematic understanding for an alternative economic system”,Kyoto Journal of Islamic Area Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 3-18. Asutay, M. (2013), “Islamic moral economy as the foundation of Islamic finance”, in Cattelan, V. (Ed.), Islamic Finance in Europe: Towards a Plural Financial System, Edward Elgar. Aydin, N. (2010), “Subjective well-being and sustainable consumption”,International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, Vol. 6 No. 5. Aydin, N. (2013), “Redefining Islamic economics as a new economic paradigm”,Islamic Economic Studies, Vol. 21 No. 1. Baum, G. (1996), Karl Polanyi on Ethics and Economics, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal. Booth, W.J. (1994), “On the idea of the moral economy”,American Political Science Review, Vol. 88 No. 3. Brey, P. (2012), “Well-being in philosophy, psychology and economics”, in Brey, P., Briggle, A. and Spence, E. (Eds), The Good Life in a Technological Age, Routledge, pp. 15-34. Chapra, U. (2007), Muslim Civilisation: The Causes of Decline and the Need for Reform, The Islamic Foundation, Leicester. Chapra, U. (2008a), “Ethics and economics: an Islamic perspective”,Islamic Economic Studies, Vol. 16 Nos 1 and 2, Aug. 2008 and Jan. 2009. Chapra, U. (2008b), “The Islamic vision of development in the light of Maq as . id al-Shar ıʿah”,The International Institute of Islamic Thought. El-Ashker, A. and Wilson, R. (2006), Islamic Economics: A Short History, Brill, Leiden, Boston. El-Gamal, M. (2006), Islamic Finance: Law, Economics and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Essid, M.Y. (1995), A Critique of the Origins of Islamic Economic Thought, E.J. Brill, Leiden, New York, London. Fletcher, G. (2016), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-Being, Routledge Handbooks. Griffin, J. (1986), Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance,Oxford University Press. Hallaq, W. (2014), The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity’s Moral Predicament, Columbia University Press, New York. Heathwood, C. (2010), “Welfare”, in Skorupski, J. (Ed.), Routledge Companion to Ethics, Routledge. Ibn Ash ur, M.A. (2006), “Ibn Ashur: treatise on maq as . id Al-Shari’ah”,The International Institute of Islamic Thought. Ibn Khald un, A. (1969), The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, Translated by Rosenthal F., Princeton University Press. Ibn Miskawayh, A. (2001), Tahth ıb al-Akhl aq wa Tath ıral-Aʿar aq, Maktaba al-Thaqafa al- D ıniya, Cairo. Ibn Taymiyah, A. (1999), Ibn Taymiyyah’s Essay on Servitude, Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution. Islahi, A.A. (2014), History of Islamic Economic Thought: Contributions of Muslim Scholars to Economic Thought and Analysis, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northhampton, MA. Kahf, M. (2003), “Islamic economics: notes on definition and methodology”,Review of Islamic Economics No. 13, pp. 23-47, 2003. Khan, M.A. (1994), An Introduction to Islamic Economics, International Institute of Islamic Thought, Islamabad. Kuran, T. (2000), “Islamic influences on the ottoman guilds”, in Çiçek, K. (Ed.), The Great Ottoman- Turkish Civilization, Vol. 2. Lapidus, I.M. (1988), A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Human wellbeing, morality and the economy 119 Malkawi, F.H. (2013), “Manth uma al-Qiyam al-‘Uly a: al-Tawh ıd al-Tazkiya, al-‘Umr an”,The International Institute of Islamic Thought, Jordan. Mirakhor, A. and Askari, H. (2010), Islam and the Path to Human and Economic Development, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Naqvi, S.N.H. (1981), Ethics and Economics: An Islamic Synthesis, The Islamic Foundation. Nasr, S.H. (1997), Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man, ABC International Group, Chicago. Nasr, S.H. (2004), The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity, HarperOne, San Francisco. Oxford Living Dictionaries (2018), “Well-being”, available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/wellbeing (accessed 21 September 2020). Parfit, D. (1984), Reasons and Persons, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Peil, J. and Van Staveren, I.V. (2009), Handbook of Economics and Ethics, Edward Elgar, Massachusetts. Polanyi, K. (2001), The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Beacon Press, Boston. Rachels, J. and Rachels, S. (2003), The Elements of Moral Philosophy, McGraw-Hill, New York. Ramli, R., Ghafar Ismail, A. and Tasrif, M. (2015), M-dex among the Islamic Countries, Roundtable Policy Discussion on Maqasid Shariah, KUIS, 2015. Sandel, M. (2012), What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, Penguin. Sardar, Z. (1985), Islamic Economics: From Partial to Axiomatic Approach in Islamic Futures: The Shape of Ideas to Come, Mansell, London. Sardar, Z., Inayatullah, S. and Boxwell, G. (2003), Islam, Postmodernism and Other Futures: A Ziauddin Sardar Reader, Pluto Press. Satz, D. (2010), Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets, Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (1987), On Ethics and Economics, Blackwell Publishing. Setia, A. (2009), “The Islamic Gift economy: a brief conceptual outline”,Islamic Gift Economy and Selected Articles, and Waqf Institutions, Friday Forum, Durban. Setia, A. (2011), “Mu’ amalah and the revival of the Islamic gift economy: a brief conceptual outline and programmatic framework”,Islam and Science, Vol. 9 (Summer 2011) No. 1. Setia, A. (2015), “Freeing Maq as . id and Mas . laha from surreptitious utilitarianism”,Paper presented at the International Conference on the Applications of Maqasid Al-Shar ıʿah (Objectives of the Shar ıʿah) in Governance and Public Policy,Organisedbythe International Institute for Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS), Kuala Lumpur, 15–16 June 2015. Syed Ali, S. and Hasan, H. (2014), Towards a Maqasid al-Shariah Based Development Index, Working Papers 1435-18, The Islamic Research and Teaching Institute (IRTI). Wight, J.B. (2015), Ethics in Economics: An Introduction to Moral Frameworks,Stanford University Press. Zaman, N. and Asutay, M. (2009), “Divergence between aspirations and realities of Islamic economics: a political economy approach to bridging the divide”,IIUM Journal of Economics and Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-96. Further reading Ahmad, K. (2000), Islamic Approach to Development –Some Policy Implications, Institute of Policy Studies, Islamabad. IES 28,2 120 Al-Basri, ʿA. (2012), The Book of Insight into Commerce, Translated by Adi Setia. IBFIM. Al-Buti, S. R. (2011), Min Sunan Allah f ıʿIb adihi, D ar al-Fikr. Al-F ar abi, M. (2012), Tah _s ıl al-Saʿ adah, Maktaba al-ʿAsriyya, Beirut. Al-F ar abi, M. (1985), al-Tanb ıh _ ʿala Sab ıl al-Saʿ adah, Dar al-Man ahil. Al-Lubudi, A. (2012), The Virtue of Working for a Living, the Legal Rules of Earning, the Ethics of Livelihood, Translated by Setia A and Lock N.M., IBFIM. Al-Najj ar, A.M. (2008), Maq as . id al-Shar ıʿah bi Ab ad Jadida, Dar al-Gharb al-Isl am ı. Al-Shayb ani, M. (2001), The Book of Earning a Livelihood (Kitab al-Kasb), Translated by Adi Setia. Annas, J. (1987), “Epicurus on pleasure and happiness”, University of Arkansas Press, Philosophical Topics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 5-21, Ancient Greek Philosophy (FALL 1987). Aquinas (2014), Summa Theologica, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Catholic Way Publishing, London. Arabi, S.H. (2016), “Well-being orthodox theories and Islamic views”,International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 190-204. Aristotle (2014), Nicomachean Ethics, Translated with introduction and notes by Reeve, C.D.C, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis. Asutay, M. (2011), “An introduction to Islamic moral economy (IME)”,Presented at the Durham Islamic Finance Autumn School 2011, Durham Centre for Islamic Economics and Finance and ISAR-Istanbul Foundation for Research and Education, Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul, 19–22 September 2011. Bakar, O. (2014), Islamic Civilisation and the Modern World: Thematic Essays, UBD Press, Darussalam. Black, R.A. (2006), “What did Adam Smith say about self-love?”,Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 9 No. 9, Spring, pp. 7-34. Bowles, S. (2016), The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives are no Substitute for Good Citizens, Yale University Press, London. Çizakça, M. (1998), “Awqaf in history and its implications for modern Islamic economies”,Islamic Economic Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 43-70. Cook, M.A. (2014), Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East: From the Rise of Islam to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fakhry, M. (2004), A History of Islamic Philosophy, Columbia University Press, New York. Fine, B. (2013), Economics –Unfit for Purpose: The Director’s Cut, SOAS Department of Economics Working Paper Series, No. 176, The School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Friedman, M. (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Furqani, H. and Haneef, M.A. (2008), “Methodology of Islamic economics: typology of current practices, evaluation and the way forward”,Paper Presented at the 8th International Conference on Islamic Economics and Finance, QFIS, Qatar Foundation. Gharipour, M. (2012), The Bazaar in the Islamic City, The American University in Cairo Press, Cairo. G€ otz, N. (2015), “‘Moral economy’: its conceptual history and analytical prospects”,Journal of Global Ethics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 147-162. Haneef, M.A. and Furqani, H. (2011), “Methodology of Islamic economics: overview of present state and future direction”,International Journal of Economics, Management and Accounting, The International Islamic University of Malaysia, Vol. 19 No. 1. Hodgson, G.M. (1992), “The reconstruction of economics: is there still a place for neoclassical theory?”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 26 No. 3, Sep., 1992. Ibn Ab ıal-Duny a, A. (2016), The Restoration of Wealth (Isl ah al-M al), IBFIM, Kuala Lumpor. Inwood, B. and Woolf, R. (Eds), (2013), “Aristotle: Eudemian ethics”,Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press. Human wellbeing, morality and the economy 121 Keen, S. (2011), Debunking Economics: The Name Emperor Dethroned, Zed Books, London. Kuran, T. (1995), “Islamic economics and the Islamic subeconomy”,The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 155-173, Fall 1995. Macfie, A.L. (1959), “Adam Smith’s moral sentiments as foundation for his wealth of Nations”,Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 209-228, Oct., 1959. Marshall, A. (1890), Principles of Economics, Macmillan and Co, London. Miskawayh, A. (2011), “Tahdh ıb al-Akhl aq, Manshurat al-Jamal”, available at: narjes-library.com. Mitchell, T. (2005), “The work of economics: how a discipline makes its world”,European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 46, pp. 297-320. Mitchell, T. (2008), “Rethinking economy”,Geoforum, Vol. 39, pp. 1116-1121. Moosa, E. (2004), “Muslim ethics?”, in Schweiker, W. (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Religious Ethics, Blackwell Publishing. Naqvi, S.N.H. (2003), Perspectives on Morality and Human Well-being: A Contribution to Islamic Economics, The Islamic Foundation, Leicester. Nasr, S.H. (1993), The Need for a Sacred Science, SUNY Press. Nelson, J.A. (2012), “Poisoning the well, or how economic theory damages moral imagination”, The Oxford Handbook of Professional Economic Ethics, Oxford University Press. Oslington, P. (2014), The Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pack, S.J. (2010), Aristotle, Adam Smith and Karl Marx: On Some Fundamental Issues in the 21st Century Political Economy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northhampton, MA. Polansky, R. (2014), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Raworth, K. (2017), Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sandel, M.J. (2013), “The moral economy of speculation: gambling, finance, and the common good”,The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Delivered at the University of Utah, Feb 27th 2013. Sen, A.K. (1977), “Rational fools: a critique of behavioural foundations of economic theory”,Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 6 No. 4. Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Setia, A. (2014), “Waqf and the civic economy”, (Winter 2014), Islamic Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 2, The Centre for Islamic Studies. Originally published as “Waqf, Civil Society and Civil Economy”in AWQAF, Vol. 18 (2010), pp. 13-38. Skidelsky, R. and Skidelsky, E. (2012), How Much Is Enough: The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life, Allen Lane. Smith, A. (2002), The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, in Haakonssen, K. (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tawney, R.H. (1926), Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study, John Murray, London. Tripp, C. (2006), Islam and the Moral Economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Van Staveren, I. (2001), The Value of Economics: An Aristotelian Perspective, Routledge, London. Wight, J.B. (2009), “Sociability and the market”,Forum for Social Economics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 97-110. Wight, J.B. and Morton, J.S. (2007), Teaching the Ethical Foundations of Economics, National Council on Economic Education, New York. Zaman, A. (2009), “Islamic economics: a survey of the literature II”,Islamic Studies, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 37-63, Spring 2010. IES 28,2 122 Zaman, A. (2009), “Islamic economics: a survey of the literature I”,Islamic Studies, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 525-566, Winter 2009. Corresponding author Haithem Kader can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Human wellbeing, morality and the economy 123