Intra-systemic and Inter-systemic Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-Model of Ethics and the World-System

Abstract

There is a meaningful difference between the understanding of the ideas of methodology and methods in socio-scientific studies. In reference to the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-knowledge-induced worldview, this handbook has argued and proved that there exists a distinct contrariness in the philosophy of science between Islam and the occident in respect of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-knowledge-induced worldview. This difference is centered on the critical relevance of Tawhid as the divine and most exclusive law of the Qur’an as the socio-scientific episteme in contrariness to the human-concocted foundation of rationalism in all other philosophies of science. This contrariness also pervades the fields of shari’ah and its fiqi groundwork that are misconstrued as the Islamic law. Likewise, the distinction is also with respect to the project of Islamization of knowledge having no substantive derivation, formalism, application, and sustainability in accordance with the Tawhidi episteme as the qur’anic law. However, when we invoke the field of method and methodical treatment of the methodological differences, two opposite inferences arise. Firstly, in the case of methods relating to the Tawhidi episteme, there is methodical use to study the Tawhidi abstraction, formalism, application, and sustainability of the entire epistemic framework. In such a case, there arises no problems of adopting such methods as technicalities. Secondly, in case where methods are used in response to methodological differences, then such methods have their origins in their differentiating epistemic origins in socio-scientific problems. In such a case, the resulting methods need to be scrutinized, reformed, or rejected and changed to meet the disparate epistemic demands of Tawhidi and non-Tawhidi epistemes. We have explained for such issues by invoking the example of the mathematical treatment of input-output analytic and the concepts of intra-system and inter-systems study of problems and issues in the light of the Tawhidi methodological worldview.

Introduction

The determining cause for regenerating the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-knowledge-induced methodological worldview in the conscious continuum of knowledge, space, and time dimensions is the endogenous and automatic reproduction of resources. Such augmented resources establish the principle of pervasive complementarities and thereby the nonexistence of the marginal rate of substitution. The rest of the properties associated with the primal Tawhidi ontology of unity of knowledge follows in logical prevalence to produce the plenty in life-fulfilling regime of socio-scientific sustainable development that enhances the level of planetary wellbeing. The methodology that underlies such resource augmentation and sustainability with the Tawhidi ethical induction is the result of analytical thought put into application. An analytical methodology referred to here is the input-output analysis of inter-sectoral flows of goods and services in the production of the national output.

• Let X_i denote the total output of the ith sector, i = 1,2,…,n.

• Let x_ij denote the flow of produced goods or services from the ith to the jth sector; i,j = 1,2,…,n.

• We write the ratio, x_ij/X_j = a_ij, to mean a unit of production, “a_ij” of the jth sector total output to produce the output of the jth sector.

• The material equation of inter-sectoral equilibrium flows of output is given by X_i-Σ_j=1ⁿa_ijX_j = x_i, value-added of the jth sector; i = 1,2,…,n.

• Σ_i=1ⁿx_i denotes the national income.

All the above expressions are devoid of the evolutionary learning parameter “θ(ε)).” Therefore, no ethical, technological, and human potentiality inducing effects are transmitted into the economic growth parameters as shown. The induction of the above-mentioned formulas by the evolutionary learning parameters implies that each of the inter-sectoral flows of goods and services enhances all the productive variables. In order to enhance the productive and sustainable features of the economy, induction by learning parameters is necessary. The study of the Tawhidi methodological worldview has shown that ethical endogeneity is the foundation of resource multiplication. Such resource augmentation by {θ(ε)} is thereby the cause and effect in the input-output model. The resulting formulas now transform in the following ones: The material equation of inter-sectoral equilibrium flows of output is now given by [X_i-Σ_j=1ⁿa_ijX_j](θ(ε)) = x_i(θ(ε)), value-added of the jth sector; “i” = 1,2,…,n. [Σ_i=1ⁿx_i](θ(ε)) denotes the national income. Linked to these sectoral value-added is the evaluation of the wellbeing function in respect of the wellbeing function in its distinctive context of the Tawhidi law of unity of knowledge applied to the inter-sectoral complementarities between value-added. Further details can be formalized. Here is the qur’anic (Qur’an 23:18) declaration regarding the abundance of resources that is possible in respect of the Tawhidi law augmenting resources: “And We send down water from the sky according to (due) measure, and We cause it to soak in the soil; and We certainly can drain it off (with ease).”

The worldview of balance, equilibrium, and wellbeing conveyed by the Qur’an in all aspects of life and in relation to the cosmic world continues to be reflected in this verse. Here the mundane reference to the benefit derivable from rainwater is focused upon. The keynote in the verse is that of “due measure.” In this regard, the same rainwater, which is seen to be of such great utility to mankind in sustaining life and commerce through primary production, and through this in creating inputs for all other sources of production, is shown to become destructive if the balance is not maintained. The purpose of creation, which is to reflect the munificence of God in the order of things, is based on balance. Hence, the natural balance in rainwater for the benefit of mankind is used here both as a specific and as a generalized example of wellbeing, abundance, balance, and purpose.

The verse then goes on to show that the balance and utility of rainwater are the result of systematic percolation of the water in the soil to cause wellbeing and growth: “and We cause it to soak in the soil; and We certainly are able to drain it off with ease.” Such relations of resources to their balance in the order of “everything” signal the ethical function of the Tawhidi law, which is embedded in “everything.” Thereby, had it not been for this control and determination by the Tawhidi functioning, then the balance of resources in generating planetary wellbeing would not be possible. The Tawhidi law and the goodness and ethicality that emanates from it are seen here to yield a generalized system of relationships between the inputs (rainwater) and its transformation into use (“due measure”). The input-output model with knowledge induction input-output coefficients is denoted by the gross output of water in nature, followed by its inter-sectoral use, and finally the resulting diversity of output in the form of sectoral value-added. The result is the sustainable national income, which is produced by way of the underlying complementarities between sectors and by the production relation using instruments and means such as systematic percolation of water into the earth. The inherent concept of flow in the interaction and transformation functions through the device of natural functions thus becomes the derivative of the qur’anic ahkam that can be derived for the most generalized case out of the specific case of rainwater mentioned in this verse.

The scientific meaning derivable from the above verse extends through the natural science domain into economic and social fields. It also lays the groundwork for the subsequent deductive extension of knowledge into the entire universal relationships that establish themselves uniquely across disciplines through input-output functions. The centerpiece of these functions is to generate balance, purpose, use, and continuity in the experiential world-system, as in the robust plane of thought.

In the latter sense, the above-mentioned verse also points to the unifying result, which points out that indeed the laws of natural science and the social sciences are not disparate entities in terms of the unique Tawhidi methodology. The integration between universal systems that takes place based on the unique principles of purpose, balance (evolutionary equilibrium), and wellbeing is true of all disciplines. Since the essence of the divine law is the precept of oneness of God (Tawhidi precept and field), therefore, the universal relationships within (intra-system, that is, within given period of time) and across systems (inter-systems, that is, intertemporally) must be substantively explained by the inter-variate cause and effect in the Tawhidi (IIE(θ(ε))-model.

The epistemic meaning of the above verse revolves around the explanation of the intra-system and inter-system relationships of interaction, integration, and continuity through creative evolution (Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))), through the methodological operation of the divine law. The resulting input-output inter-variate relations are further developed in terms of the extensive order of input-output relations.

Tawhidi Resource Model Applied to a Mix Between Natural and Social Sciences

We characterize the inputs by the vector, I = {x_N,x_S;θ}(θ(ε)), where, x_N denotes the input vector of the natural science system. In modern physics, these would be variously called as fundamental particles, waves, or gravitational fields. x_S denotes the input vector of the socio-economic system. One may identify some of the elements of this vector as labor, capital, and land. In this Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-system, the above verse mentions about rainwater. Each of these vectors is conditioned by the knowledge variable {θ(ε)}, which is formed out of an epistemic circular-causation and continuity model of Tawhidi-IIE(θ(ε)), as developed throughout this handbook. The x(θ(ε))-vectors are thus made dynamic in this input system by the knowledge-flows, θ(ε)-parameters.

Let the output vector be denoted by O = {x_N′,x_S′;θ′}(θ(ε)). Here, x_N′ denotes the vector comprising knowledge-induced production of x_N into more of the same, such as the generation of energy fields by means of energy fields. Besides this reproduction of augmented identities, there is also continuity of material output arising from augmented fields of diverse complementarities. Likewise, for x_S′ we would have sustainability of natural resources, human resources, and capital of all vintages. Plus, there will be outputs corresponding to socio-economic conditions of employment, income, price stability, trade, specialization, and economic growth.

The link between O and I is the transformation function, which takes two integrated parts. The first part comprises the system of intra-systemic relationships that convert I into O, and through the epistemic circular-causation and continuity model regenerates the interactive process between O and I through knowledge induction (f₁). The second part comprises the system of intra-systemic relations through the same principle of the Tawhidi epistemic model (f₂). These ideas now need to be further elaborated upon.

We note the representation:

$$ {\mathrm{f}}_1\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right):\left[\mathbf{I}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{N1}},{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{S1}};{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{1}}\right)\mathbf{\to}\mathbf{O}\left({{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{N1}}}^{\prime },{{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{S1}}}^{\prime };{{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{1}}}^{\prime}\right)\mathbf{\to}\mathbf{I}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{N2}},{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{S2}};{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{2}}\right)\mathbf{\to}\mathbf{O}\left({{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{N2}}}^{\prime },{{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{S2}}}^{\prime };{{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{2}}}^{\prime}\right)\right]\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)\to $$

(4.3.1)

Hence, the continuity through interaction via knowledge induction is shown in the conversion of inputs into outputs and so on. This chain of compound (°) mappings can be rewritten as

$$ {\mathrm{f}}_1\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)=\left[.\dots {}^{{}^{\circ}}{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{n}}}^{{}^{\circ}}{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{n}}}^{\prime {}^{\circ}}{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{n}-1}}^{{}^{\circ}}\dots {{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}}^{{}^{\circ}}{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}}^{\prime {}^{\circ}}\dots {}^{{}^{\circ}}{\mathrm{F}}_1\right]\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right); $$

(4.3.2)

where,

$$ \left[{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}:\mathbf{I}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}},{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Si}};{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{i}}\right)\to \mathbf{O}\left({{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}}}^{\prime },{{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Si}}}^{\prime };{{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{i}}}^{\prime}\right)\right]\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right); $$

(4.3.3)

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}}^{\prime}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right):\left[\mathbf{O}\left({{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{N}\mathbf{i}}}^{\prime },{{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Si}}}^{\prime };{{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{i}}}^{\prime}\right)\, \to \, \mathbf{I}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{N},\mathbf{i}+\mathbf{1}},{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Si}+1};{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{i}+\mathbf{1}}\right)\right]\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right);\\ {}\mathrm{i}\, =\, 1,2,\dots \mathrm{n},\dots \end{array}} $$

(4.3.4)

in accordance with the sequence of mappings comprising finite or indefinite composite mappings. It is implied in these relations that x-vectors must be generating intra-system and inter-system interrelationships through knowledge induction that is not dichotomized between systems but is pervasive and thus universally unifying.

These inter-systemic functional relations are denoted by

$$ {\mathrm{f}}_2\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right):\left[{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{N1}}\left(\boldsymbol{\uptheta} \right)\mathbf{\to}{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{S1}}\left(\boldsymbol{\uptheta} \right)\mathbf{\to}{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{N2}}\mathbf{\to}{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{S2}}\mathbf{\to}\mathrm{etc}.\right]\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right) $$

(4.3.5)

$$ \mathrm{Thereby},{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{i}}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right):\left[{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}}\mathbf{\to}{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Si}};{{\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{i}}}^{\prime }:{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Si}}\mathbf{\to}{{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}}}^{\prime },\mathbf{etc}.\right]\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right) $$

(4.3.6)

$$ \mathrm{That}\ \mathrm{is},{\mathrm{f}}_2\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)=\left[\dots \cdotp {\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{n}}\cdotp \dots \cdotp {\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{i}}\cdotp \dots \cdotp {\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{1}}\right]\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right) $$

(4.3.7)

Now from a combination of the above-mentioned mappings, we obtain,

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}\left[\left\{\mathbf{I}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}},{\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{i}}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}}\right);{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{i}}\right)\Big]\;\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)\right\}\subset \left\{\mathbf{O}\left({{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}}}^{\prime },,,{{\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{i}}}^{\prime },\left({{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}}}^{\prime}\right),\Big\},;,{{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{i}}}^{\prime}\right)\right]\;\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right.\right\};\\ {}\mathrm{i}\, =\, 1,2,\dots \end{array}} $$

(4.3.8)

and

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}}^{\prime}\left[\left\{\mathbf{O}\left({{\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{i}}}^{\prime}\left({{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}}}^{\prime}\right),{{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Si}}}^{\prime };{{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{i}}}^{\prime}\right)\right\}\subset \left\{\mathbf{I}\left({{\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{i}+\mathbf{1}}}^{\prime}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Ni}+\mathbf{1}}\right),{\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{Si}+\mathbf{1}};{\boldsymbol{\uptheta}}_{\mathbf{i}+1}\right)\right\}\right]\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right);\\ {}\mathrm{I}\, =\, 1,2,\dots \end{array}} $$

(4.3.9)

These results show that

$$ {\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}\left[{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}}^{\prime}\right]\subset {{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}}^{\prime}\subset \mathrm{I}\left(\mathrm{i}+1\right).\mathrm{We}\ \mathrm{write}\ \mathrm{this}\ \mathrm{as},{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}}^{\prime {}^{\circ}}{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}\subset {{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}}^{\prime}\subset \mathrm{I}\left(\mathrm{i}+1\right). $$

(4.3.10)

$$ \mathrm{Hence},{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{n}}}^{{}^{\circ}}{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{n}}}^{\prime {}^{\circ}}{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{n}-1}}^{{}^{\circ}}\dots {}^{{}^{\circ}}\, {\mathrm{F}}_1\subset {{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{n}}}^{\prime {}^{\circ}}{{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{n}-1}}^{{}^{\circ}}\dots {}^{{}^{\circ}}\, {\mathrm{F}}_1\subset \dots \subset {\mathrm{F}}_1. $$

(4.3.11)

Clearly, if any one of the functions F_i or F_i′ is discontinuous in either x_Ni or x_Si, then the above chain of mappings will become undefined eventually. Therefore, both G_i and F_i must be continuous functions in the extended fields within and across systems.

But what does it mean to have extended continuity across intra-systems and inter-systems? There is no such equivalence of meaning in non-Tawhidi philosophy of the sciences, which are based on multiplicity concepts of divided aspects of a unified reality. Thus, there are deep discontinuities in the premises of micro- and macroeconomic theory, between the classical liberal economic theory and Marxist theory; as between relativity and quantum theories, between large-scale structure and thermodynamic theory of the universe, and among the various natural and social sciences. This is the consequence of the methodological independence of the sciences and their reductionist nature.

In the Tawhidi precept and field, the intra-system and inter-system connection between the sciences is made possible by the pervasiveness the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε)-model of knowledge derived from the divine law. The imminent kind of knowledge flow is a conscious realization of balance, goodness, wellbeing, and abundance in the resources of nature, which must be sustained and regenerated. When knowledge ceases to evolve along the unifying worldview, so also the above-mentioned chain of functions. They all become discontinuous and the systemic interconnections fail to exist. Thus, there is a one-to-one necessary and sufficient implication between the pervasiveness of knowledge and the organic complementarities of the diverse world-systems.

But how does this interconnectedness show up across the natural and the social systems? The approach is not a mechanical one. In the case of ethical exogeneity, ethical considerations of the social sciences remain extraneous. Consequently, the social sciences are influenced exogenously by ethical considerations. Similar is the case of ethical exogeneity in the natural sciences.

On the other hand, the substantively endogenous interconnection between the natural and socio-economic systems vis-à-vis ethical considerations can be formulated as follows: The balance of the universe in its large- and small-scale structures is based on the functional character of the epistemic application of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model. An example here would be to the allegory of rainwater in its impact by “due measure” as the principle of balance, purpose, and abundance that sets up a unique way of perceiving knowledge-induced complementarities between the life sciences and the socio-economic sciences.

In recent times, the idea of the field in physics has been used to develop the idea of interactive fields based on symmetry. Weinberg writes, “the essential reality is a set of fields…all else can be derived as a consequence of the quantum dynamics of those fields.” However, the nature of the fundamental particles replacing the pervasiveness of knowledge as the input and output of the universal system loses its interconnection between relativity large scale and the quantum small scale, thus giving rise to the problem of irreconcilability of grand unified fields.

Likewise, there is no knowledge exchange between the natural system and the socio-economic order. The absence of knowledge-based input-output organic interrelationships can be explained as above. Consequently, the kind of symmetry or balance that is invoked by the unification of diverse systems based on knowledge loses its potentiality amid a limited orientation provided to it in terms of material content. Pagel writes on this aspect of symmetry: “A symmetry implies that something does not change -- an invariance of the world. Invariance implies conservation of something, and in the case of the internal symmetries it implies the conservation of various charges. We learn that the symmetries of multicomponent fields imply that the fields possess charges that are conserved in their interactions.”

It may finally be noted with respect to the universalizing influence of intra-system and inter-system relations that any phase of functional relationships can generate connections between the natural and social systems. Hence, by collecting all such possibilities in reference to the formalism done above, we can write as union of sets, ∪[x_Ni(θ(ε)_i)] ⇔ ∪ [x_Si(θ(ε)_i′)].

Now say that g[∪(x_Ni(θ(ε)_i)] ⊂ ∪[x_Si′(θ(ε)_i′)]; h[x_Si′(θ(ε)_i′)] ⊂ ∪[x_Ni(θ(ε)_i)], with g°h≠I, the identity vector. This result implies that the causal effect of knowledge induction on systems may not be identical to one another. As knowledge interaction, denoted by “i,” proceed on, lim(i→n*)[θ(ε)_i]= θ(ε)* ⊂ T(θ(ε)), the Tawhidi hyper-topology. Then, g[x_N(θ(ε)*)] = x_S(θ(ε)*); h[x_S(θ(ε)*)] = x_N(θ(ε)*). This means that a unique limit of knowledge actualization will unify diverse systems to the level of that knowledge attainment. {θ(ε)*}-values then evolve in the Tawhidi hyper-topology. The degree of symmetry, balance, and purpose is conveyed by the target of {θ(ε)*} and the concomitant functional relationships defined within a Tawhidi field of intra-system and inter-systems.

Toward a Generalized Theory of Balance, Symmetry, and Purpose, by the Tawhidi Methodological Worldview

The previous mentioned verse on allegorical matters like the smoothness of the sea and the benefits of the rainwater percolating in the productive earthly venue can now be generalized to explain the universal conditions of balance, purpose, and symmetry, in the context of the underlying socio-scientific explanations. The universal and unique nature of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model of systemic unification at once unifies all systems. Only the nature of problem specificity under study would vary between diversity, not so the substance of the Tawhidi law, its underlying principles, and the axioms governing them. If this encompassing worldview of Tawhid as law is not correctly articulated, upheld, and rationally explained in the scientific systems, then the logical consequence is seen to be the breakup of the world-systems into compartments of disciplines, thoughts, and explanations, each remaining insulated from the other. Hence, the moral and ethical purview of the socio-scientific order is never realized from within the exogenously ethical or ethically benign understanding of reality. This is the ethically dysfunctional philosophy of “de-knowledge” characterizing the non-Tawhidi worldview that we have examined in terms of its contrariness to the Tawhidi worldview of unity of knowledge.

All present days’ natural and social science philosophies have inherited from dissociated philosophies concerning socio-scientific development. The sciences thereby have remained divided and un-unified, principally because of the humanly concocted axiomatic premise, which bears its methodology as bundles of disparate theories for divided fields of socio-scientific systems. Reducibility takes the natural sciences to the level of matter; it takes the social sciences to the level of the individual. This nature of the methodological philosophy of the social sciences is mentioned by Nagel: “In particular, there is a long-standing divergence in professed scientific aims between those who view the explanatory systems and logical methods of the natural sciences as models to be emulated in social research, and those who think it is fundamentally inappropriate for the social sciences to seek explanatory theories that employ ‘abstract’ distinctions remote from peculiar experience and that require publicly accessible (or “intersubjectively” valid) supporting evidence.”

The methodological uniformity between the nature of the physical world and the social world through the singular unifying force of Tawhidi philosophy of unity of knowledge means that the nature of generating knowledge by the epistemic circular-causation and continuity model, and explaining reality by means of this inherent philosophical content, remains unique for all systems. In the above-mentioned verse, this unison of the qur’anic worldview is shown by reference to the blending of rainwater through due measure for cosmic balance and purpose.

From Intra-system to Inter-system to the Cosmic Generality of the Tawhidi Law

Explanations of the deepest meaning of prevalence of the Tawhidi law as derived in the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model are of universal and unique nature. The generalized theoretical foundation of the Tawhidi methodological worldview in “everything” is possible by the interpretive use of ta’wil of qur’anic verses. In respect of these universalizing perspectives, the ta’wil interpretation of qur’anic verses projects the grandest truth of socio-scientific reality. This holism encompasses theory, application, and conscious learning in unity of knowledge in the continuum of knowledge, space, and time dimensions. In light of such ta’wil vastness of explaining the qur’anic verses in the vastness of socio-scientific diversity to bring about systemic planetary wellbeing, the following verse (Qur’an 23:21) declares: “And in cattle (too) you have an instructive example: From within their bodies We produce (milk) for you to drink; there are, in them (besides), numerous (other) benefits for you; and of their (meat) you eat.”

The message of purpose, balance, and wellbeing is instilled in the primary resources of the life-fulfilling ethically induced vector by the Tawhidi law, {z(θ(ε))}, and continues in reference to the above verse. Here the reference to cattle is yet another allegorical way of signifying the great benefit that is embalmed in creation for man, only if the universe is studied, harvested, and utilized in the purposive way as directed by the Tawhidi law. In any other form of its use, there can be no fundamental concept, and thus no practice of sustainability if the primacy of ethical endogeneity remains silent. The reference to cattle in this verse as a primary resource capable of rendering great benefits and sustenance to mankind is deeply implicative of the sustainability characteristic of the created world. In other words, in this pure and appropriately managed created world, the objective criterion of planetary wellbeing replaces the entire axioms of economic rationality in terms of its resource scarcity. Now questions remain: How can then the science of economics, the entropy theory of thermodynamics, and chaos theory as examples depict reality as being based on scarcity, competition, and hedonic economic activities?

The answer to the above question lies on the license that mainstream socio-economics provides to the individual to exploit the market order solely for hedonic pleasure. The production menu is then made to respond to and in turn to regenerate the hedonic consumption pattern. The idea of sustainability in this picture of economic activities is lost in the face of the subjugating power of a hedonically controlled socio-scientific menu. A cursory reference to excessive consumption wants in the West against the recent call for sustainability of world resources can be easily seen from published statistics: “The industrial world’s one billion meat eaters, car drivers, and throwaway consumers, are responsible for the lion’s share of the damage humans have caused common global resources. Over the past century, the economies of the wealthiest fifth of humanity have pumped out two-thirds of the greenhouse gases threatening the earth’s climate, and each year their energy use releases three-fourths of the sulphur and nitrogen oxides causing acid rain. Their industries generate most of the world’s hazardous chemical wastes, and their air conditioners, aerosols sprays, and factories release almost 90% of the chlorofluorocarbons destroying the earth’s protective ozone layer. Clearly, even one billion profligate consumers is too much for the earth.”

Global capitalism causes and is born out of this pattern of market exploitation in the name of all the disguised evils, such as delivering economic returns to the economic activity of wants rather than needs. Yet there remains no logic in the idea of consumer wants. All that is feasible and admissible for the consumer basket of goods and services is that of needs. Levine writes on the place of preferences based on needs: “The relation of need to preference requires us to distinguish decisions based on deliberation and explicit reasons from decisions based on hidden reasons and the absence of deliberation. We use the terms impulse to refer to needs we feel but do not know. The kind of society we live in is dependent on the scope we allow for impulse. If that scope is too narrow, our sense of our freedom erodes; if it is too great, we become impulse-driven agents subject to irrational forces and the influence of others. In this second case, by yielding to impulse we give our self-determination.”

In Hayek’s terms, the very usage of the idea of the social in a market environment is seen tantamount to limitation of human freedom. Hence, Hayek derides the concept of the social in market economy. Besides the well-known classical and neoclassical stand on the supremacy of individual preferences as the starting point of the economic order, the above two cases also point to the adverse effect that individual preferences for wants hold in the socio-economic order. Consequently, the institution of private enterprise and the menus of production that accentuate the accumulation of capital for the continuation of private property rights in the sense of individualism become instrumental in sustaining and regenerating the pattern of hedonic economic activity and private property rights. Competition amid such a milieu of market exchange becomes an inviolable primal claim and cannot therefore be subject to sharing, distribution, and conservation – at least not under the existing capitalist legal rules. This is a notion that is upheld in Nozick’s idea of the entitlement as ownership of originally claimed resources, as well.

When such aspects of the legal, institutional, and market order prevail over the promotion and sustaining of individualism, then primary resources become incapable of providing sustenance in a life-fulfilling development regime for the legitimacy of distribution. Participatory development sharing does not exist. Consequently, society does not form institutions to promote these values. In the above verse, the utility to be derived from cattle being one of social benefit for the individual, derived from this primary resource, means that attainment of wellbeing is the essential objective.

When so understood, the created world is capable of engendering wellbeing to the consumer just as in the above-mentioned qur’anic verse, the cow is made to supply the benefit of milk, a blissful input to output for generating sustainable wellbeing. Likewise, a diversity of social benefits flows. From this, the individual derives its own wellbeing in society at large. In this regard, the above-mentioned verse points to the principle of complementarity with diversity: “There are in them, besides, numerous other benefits for you.”

Diversity represents here the extension of growth derived from sustainability. The verse declares that this diversity and the subsequent growth and welfare potential are generated from the primary resources, such as milk, hide, and the service of conveyance derived from cattle. The message here is a deep one. It points to the priority of the primary sector in all the economic activity linkages. Thus, manufacturing, services, and secondary industries are linked with the sustenance and primacy of the primary sector. Such linkages take place through feedback between the various economic sectors in terms of the focus on moral sustainability of economic activities of life-fulfilling needs, opposed to economic wants.

In recent times, E.F. Schumacher thought of such a sustainability perspective. In earlier times, the Physiocrats through their Tableau Economique treated the agricultural sector as the primal sector to build up linkages in the economy. The Tableau Economique was a forerunner of Leontief’s input-output table.

The technical rules (ahkam) derivable from the above-mentioned verse is that the primary resources are to be made the center of sectoral linkages in a framework of participatory sustainable development. This means also that needs and not wants are to be made the sole purpose of socio-economic activity in a society for upholding the social rights by which the individual gains its self-determination. Through such socio-economic arrangements, the goal of sustainability is established on grounds that abundance pervades in the natural order, if that order is treated by the responsible harmony of man with creation. This guidance cannot be attained in the non-Tawhidi philosophies of the ego. It can only be derived from the roots of submission of the individual to the divine ontological primacy of unity of knowledge, which in turn forms the individual and social patterns of behavior and planes of thought.

The epistemic meaning of the above-mentioned verse rests on the ahkam presenting a distinctive qur’anic model of sustainability based on the above-mentioned precepts derivable from the qur’anic verse (Qur’an 23:21) by interpretation using ta’wil. This is different from mainstream thought on sustainability and its attention to life-fulfilling needs as the socio-economic development model at the present juncture of sustainable development paradigm.

Specific Socio-economic Development Properties Discovered by the Practice of Ta’wil

Three aspects of socio-economic activity determined under the primal guidance by the Tawhidi law are brought out in the above-mentioned verse. First, the extraction of milk from cattle is equivalent to production and consumption of social goods by utilization of the blissful resources that feed into generating wellbeing. Such a social good is characterized by the essence of diversity in economic activities and the satisfaction of life-fulfilling needs that at once convey benefits and sustain solidarity and balance in a sustainable development environment.

The concept of solidarity in the context of social good implies moral entitlement and equitable distribution of resources and output. This is made possible by the continuous circulation of resources through a diversified range of socio-economic menus of graduated baskets of basic needs. The Islamic ethicized market economy, which we have described in detail earlier, is now invoked in terms of the diversified nature of socio-economic menus reinforcing distribution amid a graduated basic-needs regime of development.

We now formalize this model in the following way: Let the Islamic ethicized market economy be defined by EM:

$$ \mathrm{EM}\Big(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)=\left\{\mathbf{C},\, ,\mathbf{P},\, ,\mathbf{D};\, ,\mathbf{R},\, ,\mathbf{W},{\left(\mathbf{\ge}\right)}_{\mathbf{I}}\mathbf{\cap}{\left(\mathbf{\ge}\right)}_{\mathbf{M}},\mathbf{p},\boldsymbol{\uptheta} \right\}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right) $$

(4.3.12)

where C is the consumption, P production, D distribution, R resources, W wealth (including income), and p price vector. Each of the variables is endogenously induced by the Tawhidi knowledge parameter, θ(ε)-values. Thus, the relation (≥) is converted into a dynamic social choice operator under the influence of θ(ε)-values, which in turn is formed, revised, and perpetuated by the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-learning process in an institution (polity) and market setting experiencing the shura-tasbih practice.

The resource augmentation to attain sustainability in participatory development rests on the effective functioning of the comprehensive program of the principle of pervasive complementarities. Such a program is required to be extensive across various sectors and economic, social, and scientific activities, for each part must reinforce the fullness of attainment of the endogenous ethical basis of enhancing the culture of consciousness and intensification of the derived Tawhidi methodological worldview embedded as the epistemic foundation of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model. As pointed out earlier, the analytical method appropriate in explaining such a model of participatory sustainable development with ethical induction, meaning commitment to the Tawhidi centricity of epistemic unity of knowledge, is actualized. We explain the imminent sectoral ethicized linkages between flows of output and the underlying variables of goods and services in the following way. The characterization of sectoral linkages between life-fulfilling goods and services is best commenced by focus on the primary sectors. Yet the manufacturing and service sectors are kept active in the wider sectoral linkages in support of the focus on the primary sectors. Thereby, the mobilization of resources, labor, capital, technology, financial instrumentation, and institutional co-operation between the private and public sectors must all be simultaneously enhanced in the light of the participatory design of sustainable development. The very inherent commitment, consciousness, and actualization of justice such as balance, objectivity, and purpose of planetary wellbeing are to be actualized. The meaning of ethics and morality as was defined throughout this work in respect of their qur’anic meaning is based on the degree to which complementarity is extended in the choices of the good things of life, while avoiding the false choices. These attributes are cause and effect of the conscious continuum of Tawhidi unity of knowledge. In this respect, there is the episteme of unity of knowledge embedding “everything” as the Tawhidi methodological worldview. It is reflected in the holism of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model. The epistemic consequences of the input-output result of sectoral flow of outputs and the flows of goods and services arise. The ethicized embodiment of appropriate technology to establish the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model is endogenized along with the parametric induction in unity of knowledge. All these properties are brought out in Table 4.3.1.

Table 4.3.1 An input-output structure with the primacy of the primary goods and due linkages

Each of the variables shown in Table 4.3.1 is induced by θ(ε)-knowledge parameter, meaning the Tawhidi epistemic value of unity of knowledge.

The symbols denote the following variables:

• L_a(a) denotes labor in the agricultural sector retained in the agricultural sector.

• L_m(a) denotes labor in the agricultural-related manufacturing activities.

• L_s(a) denotes labor in the agricultural-related service activities.

• L_o denotes other labor in productive activity.

• L denotes total labor = L_p + L_o.

• K_a(a) denotes capital in the agricultural sector.

• K_m(a) denotes capital in the agricultural-related manufacturing activities.

• K_s(a) denotes capital in the agricultural-related service activities.

• K_o denotes other capital in productive activity.

• K denotes total capital = K_p + K_o.

• R_a(a) denotes resource available in the agricultural sector.

• R_m(a) denotes resource available in the agricultural-related manufacturing activities.

• R_s(a) denotes capital in the agricultural-related service activities.

• R_o denotes other capital in productive activity.

• R denotes total capital = R_p + R_o.

• X_aj, j = a,m,s denote intermediate sectoral flows of goods and services emanating from the agricultural sector.

Society may begin anywhere in the sequence of interrelationships between polity and market with respect to the economic activities as shown and yet realize EM (economic management). Thus, for example, C → P → D, through the connecting θ(ε)-values, or P → C → D, is possible when the economy is spanned by firms (participatory enterprises) that enhance choices, production, and marketing, of appropriate kinds of goods. Indeed, a mudarabah (Islamic profit-sharing institution under socio-economic participation) functions on this principle. It is also possible that D → C → P, when in a mudarabah/musharakah (equity participation) which encompass the ideal form of the Islamic economy, the profit shares earned as distribution of output are channeled back to regenerate the social control of economic activities. In each of these cases, the stakeholders are together the earners and entrepreneurs, vice versa, in a mudarabah/musharakah system.

The connecting variable in all these Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-transformations is the knowledge inducing and enhancing θ(ε)-values. Thus, θ(ε)-values play a more fundamental role than prices in such an economic system. This is due to the fact, as explained in the epistemological meaning of the previous verse, that knowledge is endogenously found in both the input and the output of such a system amid the epistemic circular-causation and continuity model of Tawhidi unified reality. Hence, if an item is not determined as a social good in the substantive meaning of such a good in EM, then it is not delivered. That is, such an item is neither in consumer demand nor in the production menu. It is an unwanted good in Tawhidi choices of the good things of life (halal at-tayabah). Consequently, no prices are formed for such unwanted items. Thus, the determination of prices follows that of social goods in EM. Such a relationship is written as

$$ \uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\to \left(\mathbf{C},\, ,\mathbf{P},\, ,\mathbf{R}\right)\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)\to \mathbf{P}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)\to \left(\mathbf{D},,,\, ,\mathbf{W}\right)\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)\to \left\{\left(\mathbf{C},\, ,\mathbf{P},\, ,\mathbf{D},\, ,\mathbf{R},\, ,\mathbf{W}\right);{\left(\mathbf{\ge}\right)}_{\mathbf{I}}\mathbf{\cap}{\left(\mathbf{\ge}\right)}_{\mathbf{M}}\, ,\mathbf{P},\, ,\boldsymbol{\uptheta} \right\}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)\to {\uptheta}^{\prime }\ \mathrm{conscious}\ \mathrm{continuum}\ \mathrm{in}\ \mathrm{Tawhidi}\ \mathrm{IIE}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)-\mathrm{learning}\ \mathrm{processes}\to \mathrm{etc}. $$

(4.3.13)

In the above chain of interrelationships and socio-economic evolution within intra-systems and inter-systems, it is seen that θ(ε)-values regenerate new θ(ε)-values, which in turn continue to define the socio-economic activities. This is the essence of diversification through choice of social goods and the perpetuation of such goods in a graduated (evolutionary) basic-needs regime of life-fulfilling development. Both of these are aspects of sustainability of resources (R), consumption and production (C,P), distribution (D,W), and hence price stability (P).

The central role of primary resources is now seen to be obvious in the above-continued cycle of socio-economic activities. This is because nothing else can meet the test of a social goods basket under knowledge induction, and the principle of sustainability does not apply to any other form of good but the life-fulfilling ones. If it is possible, let a manufacturing good (Mf) replace the social good in the cycle described above. It is well known that the production of this good would require mobilization of primary resources R in the first place. But R cannot be mobilized unless Mf itself is a social good, although in the manufacture category. If now, Mf does not give rise to the sustenance, that is, conservation, benefit, and productive capability, then it does not meet the goal of sustainability. Mf then falls out of the basket of social goods. The only possibility for Mf then is to regenerate goods for sustainability as just described. Such a manufacture becomes an intermediate good used as inputs toward the further consumption, production, and distribution of basic needs and similar kinds of social goods in the manufacturing category. Hence, in all intents and purposes, Mf must be a throughput of production for contributing to sustainability. What is true of manufacturing good is equally true of other forms of goods.

The Wellbeing Equivalence of Input-Output Method in the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-Model

In the general form of the socio-economic activities involving all forms of sustainable goods and resources in the input-output (Table 4.3.1), we proceed as follows. Firstly, we need to understand that under the impact of “θ(ε)” on the input-output coefficients, a_ij(θ(ε)); i,j = 1,2,…, the increased effect of the principle of pervasive complementarities implies 1 > a_ij(θ(ε)) > 0; da_ij(θ(ε))/dθ(ε) > 0; i,j = 1,2,…,. Thereby, {x_ij(θ(ε))} > 0; i,j = 1,2,… with X_i(θ(ε)) > 0. Connected with these results is the necessary condition that resources, R(θ(ε)), must remain continuously augmented under the impact of θ(ε)-values. That is, dR(θ(ε))/dθ(ε) > 0. The event vector of the wellbeing function for the case of input-output version of the wellbeing function is denoted by

$$ \mathbf{z}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)=\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{a}},\mathrm{xa},\mathrm{La}\left(\mathrm{a}\right),\mathrm{Lm}\left(\mathrm{a}\right),\mathrm{Ls}\left(\mathrm{a}\right),\mathrm{Ka}\left(\mathrm{a}\right),\mathrm{Km}\left(\mathrm{a}\right),\mathrm{Ks}\left(\mathrm{a}\right),\mathrm{Ra}\left(\mathrm{a}\right),\mathrm{Rm}\left(\mathrm{a}\right),\mathrm{Rs}\left(\mathrm{a}\right)\right)\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right). $$

This vector can be further extended by including wealth, distribution, and price variables. The extended vector of life-fulfilling sustainable development become the choices of the evolutionary intra-system and inter-system learning processes of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model. The wellbeing evaluation function can now be formalized, subject to the circular-causation relations between the variables. Finally, from a constructed table of all the variables including the parametric weights of the θ(ε)-values, the evaluated wellbeing indicator can be formulated. In the light of the above verse, the principle of diversity, growth, and sustainability is reflected in the connection made between the primary socio-economic activities (“From within their bodies We produce milk for you to drink”) and diversification through growth and utility (“there are in them, besides, numerous other benefits”), for the wellbeing (benefit) of all.

Sustainability that has become a concerning issue of modern days’ conservation and protection of human and natural environment is a goal that can only be attained in the knowledge-based model. It treats the individual within the social whole including the abstraction that breeds the revolutionary episteme of Tawhidi unity of knowledge. This worldview does not arise from the methodological individualism as shown by the liberal socio-economic model. The reason for this is the primacy that is given to market by global capitalism or the primacy given to the state in the management of resources and distribution by socialism. Both the worldviews are based on methodological individualism and competition for scarce resources. These are the attributes of the “de-knowledge” methodological worldview.

Instead, the knowledge-based model is a unifying and integrating model derived from the interaction, integration, and evolutionary learning dynamics between diversities of choices of the good things of life, while avoiding the unwanted ones or reconstructing the reformable regrettable ones. The embedding knowledge parameter is formed and guided by the primacy of the Tawhidi law as the primal ontology. Thereby, the classical idea of competition gives way to the sharing of resources, goods, and services in a participatory socio-economic environment. Institutions like government as polity, the private sector, and the public sector give way to the hierarchy of decision-making processes governed by the attributes of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model.

The Principle of Pervasive Complementarities in the Good Things of Life: The Consciously Derived

The principle of pervasive complementarities by itself complements with the other important properties of the Tawhidi epistemic worldview, namely, purpose, balance, consciousness, the sustainable reproductive universal capacity, and the Hereafter as the Be all and the End all of existence. These attributes are reflected in the objective criterion of planetary wellbeing. Such universal conditions of the sure reality pervade the moral, material, and the socio-scientific domains. By virtue of such common features of the cross-disciplinary fields, centered on the substantive meaning of morality and ethics, the ontology of unity of knowledge persists in the res extensa and res cogitans of conscious continuum in knowledge, space, and time dimensions. The Tawhidi epistemic worldview thereby upholds its supreme existence as the universal, unique, consistent, formal, and applied socio-scientific analytical methodology. Regarding this overspanning nature of the Tawhidi worldview, the Qur’an (23:27) ascribes the moral history of creation to the principle of pervasive complementarities and all its supportive elements: “So We inspired him (with this message): Construct The Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance: then when comes Our command, and the fountains of the earth gush forth, take you on board pairs of every species, male and female, and your family - except those of them against whom the Word has already gone forth: and address Me not in favour of the wrong-doers; for they shall be drowned (in the Flood).”

This verse deals with God’s instruction to Prophet Noah and his disciples to flee from the impending place of destruction with the productive belongings of life. The revealed narrative is instructive of the arrangement of resources and livelihood preceding moments of disaster. The verse points out that God has instructed in the divine law, for all to be self-reliant (“Construct the Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance”), to be forward looking to try in warding off disasters (“then when comes Our command, and the fountains of the earth gush forth, take on board.”), and to organize the capabilities based on due ownership of blissful productive worth (“take on board pairs of every species, male and female”).

The above-mentioned verse (Qur’an 23:27) then goes on to emphasize the divine injunction on taking up means of protection and due ownership: “take on board…your family.” The verse denies refuge to those who forsake the divine law, for the resources of the universe are to be strictly allocated in the good directions as unraveled by human understanding of the Tawhidi law across its profound study comprising knowledge, space, and time dimensions. If allocation is so strictly prescribed, it is illogical to allocate any of it toward evil (unwarranted, unsocial, and false) actions. If resources are allocated in the direction of evil, social costs will increase and will be destructive. Thus, there can be no allocation into “bads” in the qur’anic worldview of resource allocation. The verse says in this regard, “except those of them against whom the Word has already gone forth: And address Me not in favour of the wrong-doers.” Finally, the prowess of good is bound to defeat all manifestations of evil. This is a universal guarantee that is mentioned in the verse. The condition of truth always and permanently defeating falsehood comes about with the deepening of the divine law in social conduct: “For they shall be drowned in the Flood.”

The productive regeneration of communities is brought out in the above-mentioned verse in terms of the pairs of species of diverse kinds. Here a figurative implication is made to more general facts. That is, the universe is perpetuated; its systems regenerated; truth and knowledge enhanced; and justice protected against all contrary oppositions by the mutuality that ensues under the principle of organic complementarities. The principle of pervasive complementarities in respect of its close affinity with the Tawhidi episteme of unity of knowledge is itself of divine essence. This principle provides the methodological structure of Islamic philosophy of science in the areas of science, economy, society, and the cosmos. The pairs of good choices in the light of the principle of pervasive complementarities occur as organic symbiosis in the conscious continuity of knowledge, space, and time dimensions. The idea of the pairs of things therefore is directly opposite of the mainstream socio-scientific postulate of marginalism by substitution or dualism of entities and inter-variate relations, either of the category of matter or spirit. Linked to the principle of pervasive complementarities is the property of simultaneity, unification, and justice as balance. All together these attributes combine to generate sustainability in complementary relations between economic growth and social justice and similar organic entities to define the objective criterion of planetary wellbeing in the Islamic philosophy of science.

In the perspective of the principle of pervasive complementarities, the concepts of Tawhidi precept and field form pairs. They work together without marginalism, conflict, competition, and dualism. The epistemic analytics of circular-causation and continuity feature of the Tawhidi unified reality is based on the property of organic unity between pairs of polity and the ecological order working in unison on the basis of the symbiotic nature of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model.

We have noted various examples of inter-entity complementarities by their organic participatory properties and structures in deriving theory from the foundation of the Tawhidi law. As an example, production is a complementary process of use of factor inputs, such as labor, capital, land, and other resources. In this vector of variables, the role of technology in enhancing the depth of complementarities between entities is included. This idea of global complementarity of production is in sharp contrast to the neoclassical economic idea of substitution by inter-entity marginalism. Sustainability is another example of organic unity between the blissful choices determined by the Tawhidi law based on organic pairing. Institutional advancement is the result of integrating ethics in the market/ecological participation. The frontiers of new thought in the sciences lie in the study of unification of the small- and large-scale structures of the universes in the natural and social sciences. This project is impossible in liberal philosophy.

Productive capacity is thus the outcome of knowledge induction, the only element that cements the pairs together for the good outcome of planetary wellbeing. Productivity considering the above-mentioned verse (Qur’an 23:27) is thus to be understood as creation by means of the fusion of the divine law with the experiential world-system of morals, matter, and thought. This is universally true and is unique across metaverses as complementary systems. It binds systems together both in their intra- and inter-systemic wholes. Such a precept of productive capacity contrasts with the one given in mainstream economics in terms of either marginal productivity theory, which entails marginal substitution principle in resource allocation, or in terms of average productivity, which entails a basic relationship with the neoclassical production function based on factor substitution. In the case of average productivity, the basic theoretical implication is based on the marginalist substitution between factors of production.

Why Evaluation of the Wellbeing Objective Function Replaces the Maximization of the Production Function in the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))?

All mainstream socio-scientific disciplines are based on the objective criterion of maximization of certain sensate postulates of self- and speculative analytical concoction. Thereby, the foundation of human fictive philosophy of science has entered all socio-scientific doctrines of mainstream studies fully. The most critical premises of these doctrines have been drawn from the rationalist background of the dichotomous worldview. They are all based on the differentiated view of the a priori reasoning of the moral order and the a posteriori reasoning of the worldly order. In the latter case, the place of morality and ethics remains outside its endogenous role in a unified worldview of moral and material orders prescribing to the abstraction, formalization, and applied embodiment of the socio-scientific disciplines taken up as complementary ensembles. Hence, the nature and analytical understanding of the impact of consciousness remains forever outside the objectivity of mainstream philosophy of science. Kurt Hubner expressed his idea on the nature of the evolving scientific domain: “Often the occurrence of the new is more readily analogous to the genesis of a completely differently interpreted world, the contents of which are changed so as to be partly more extensively developed and partly more narrowly viewed.” Thus, the growing rejection of foundationalism of mainstream sciences and the rise of the new worldviews are changing the landscape of science from narrowed absolutism to evolutionary relativism. The substantive theory of the Tawhidi foundation of the socio-scientific domain formalized and applied by the episteme of unity of knowledge and its concomitant emergence in the principle of pervasive complementarities along the moral/ethical consciousness plane of the philosophy of science remains a revolutionary profundity.

The epistemic meaning of the above-mentioned verse (Qur’an 23:27) revolves around the understanding of complementarities and how it formalizes the metaverses of the socio-scientific disciplines in the framework of the knowledge-induced input-output tabulation. From such a formalization of the principle of pervasive complementarities across diversity emanates the subsequent idea of mutually exclusiveness of good and bad in the resource allocation plane of Islamic political economy.

The starting point is to understand that in the knowledge-induced productive system, the idea of a production function cannot exist either in its static or dynamic form. The reason for this is that such an objective criterion would not yield predictive results for organizing production in the framework of a consciously learning evolutionary worldview of science. Rather, it is the knowledge of qur’anic ahkam with respect to the moment-to-moment evolution of knowledge in a decision-making framework internal and external to the firm that the determination of menus of production arises. Prices are then accordingly determined in the framework of the endowed impact of the episteme of unity of knowledge.

Let us take an example here. The production of social wants would both optimize the producer profits in the framework of maximizing the physical production of output and its pricing over that of a menu for production of needs. Such a choice of production menu would be acceptable in liberal economic theory in terms of economic rationality. In fact, any interference with such an existing situation will be construed as encroachment upon individual liberty and market-oriented freedom of action. But in the knowledge-based worldview, the rationality of economic actions would emanate from the premise that the interactive process between polity and the market system that ensues, and in which the individual finds himself as a coherent entity, exchanges knowledge as to the most preferred choice. Such a choice involves considerations of social costs and benefits and of private costs and benefits. But since the individual is a part and parcel of the social whole through the knowledge interactions that proceed, therefore, private benefit is proportional to social benefit; private cost is proportional to social cost. Hence, complementarities of the two kinds of costs and benefits are established.

This kind of resource allocation is unlike the neoclassical treatment of social and private costs and benefits, which are shown to exist in perpetual trade-off. Abidance with the axiom of economic rationality in the sense of complementarities, therefore, implies arrangement of the consumption and production environments such that increasing social benefits/social cost ratio implies increasing private benefit/private cost ratio and vice versa.

This means that p_s.B_s/r_s.C_s = k.[p_P.B_P/r_P.C_P], in the sense of vector multiplication, with p_s, p_P denoting social and private price vectors for benefits (B_s, B_P), respectively, corrected by the discounting (profit-sharing ratio) and growth rate. “r_s” and “r_P” denote price vectors for social and private valuation of costs (C_s, C_P) in these cases, respectively. “k” is a scalar constant. Now since each of the variables is a function of θ(ε)-variables, therefore, such a θ(ε)-value can be computed adaptively as the above equality gets to be established progressively with the progress of economic adaptation. In the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model of evaluation of the wellbeing function, subject to the inter-variate circular causation, economic adaptation is characterized as dynamic evolutionary equilibrium. These equilibrium vectors of evaluated variables are caused by simulation with refixing of inferences according to choices of coefficients that are induced by {θ(ε)}-choices. The adaptive and interactive process as signified in the ethicized economy, EM(θ(ε)), will ultimately self-regulate all θ(ε)-variables to a common value. Conversely, a form of adaptation of the social cost and benefit values with private cost and benefit values will result on responses received by adjusting the θ(ε)-values.

The concept of productive relation is thus linked with the valuation of the adaptive process that proceeds between the polity and the market system in terms of knowledge formation. Such interactions are much wider. They comprehend the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-fields of epistemic reformulation of mainstream socio-scientific fields by the morally conscious worldview. In the economic and social fields, the reformulation by the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε)) can take grounds on rethinking of constitutional economic and social theory, unlike James Buchanan’s neoclassical economic case. Furthermore, since B_s can be interpreted as net output (net national income), therefore, it follows from the form of complementary relations in terms of θ(ε)-values, as explained earlier, and that the only variable, which determines productive relations, is the continuous formation and reinforcement of the consciousness of unity of knowledge.

It is now logical to examine how the complementarity principle becomes the single most controlling factor in every productive relation, resource allocation governing socio-economic activities. If there is just one variable, such as the knowledge variable, dynamic and pervasive across socio-economic systems, then there cannot be but a simultaneous and complementary movement in all variables that are of the essence of a “good” and a rejection of all entities of the essence of “bad.” But since it is either the rejection of good or the marginalist substitution of “good” for “bad,” that is at issue here, therefore, no smooth surface of a mix of menus between good and bad can exist in the process of transition of the economy to its EM(θ(ε))-state. All that we have in respect of allocation of resources is either a trajectory showing simultaneity in the evolution of all goods or the rejection of bad by good. The evolution of such trajectories varies according to their slopes, which denote the intensity of θ(ε)-variables impacting upon the socio-economic variables, upon the planes of scientific thought. But the choice of two distinct trajectories does not imply the same degree of productive realization anywhere.

The qur’anic ahkam on the topic of productivity, complementarities, and certainty of the knowledge evolution process based on the Tawhidi law, all formed based on the above-mentioned verse (Qur’an 23:27), points to the sure realization of systemic robustness, predictability, security, and stability. Sustainability is thereby established on the primacy of the moral plane simultaneously complementing with the material plane. In this regard, the verse says: “So We inspired him with the message…except those of them against whom the Word has already gone forth: And address Me not in favour of the wrong-doers; for they shall be drowned in the Flood.”

No Logical Basis for the Marginalist Postulate of Substitution

Our preceding discussion on the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model affirms the central principle of pervasive complementarities and rejects the postulate of marginalism in resource allocation. There is no logical basis for the cases: substitution between “good” and “good,” between “good” and “bad,” and between “bad” and “bad” in the sense of the marginal substitution postulate that pervades neoclassical economics. The neoclassical economic postulate of substitution is replaced in its entirety by either the principle of complementarities or terminal rejection of bad against good. This is shown in the above-mentioned verse (Qur’an 23:27) as a natural consequence of the Tawhidi law finding its expression in creation. The marginal substitution principle on the other hand is impediment to the universalizing of the knowledge function. Hence, all resources and productive relations used by the neoclassical school are aberrations of reality. Consequently, they cannot hold truth. The technological advancement function described by all mainstream economics in production menu, therefore, has no manifestation of knowledge as understood in terms of the theory and practice of the tenets of unity of knowledge in the context of the world-system. Such mainstream technological functions may be characterized as technocratic functions needed to perpetuate the same incorrect perspective of veritable reality.

Such a liberal stand on theorizing holds shallow water both in the perspectives of thought and action (new institutionalism). Hence, its shallowness must eventually give way to its own destruction. It presently appears that only the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model provides the real challenge in a new revolutionary methodological worldview. It remains for future Islamic thinkers and practitioners to evolve the entire gamut of thought and applications of this new and final worldview in the light of the qur’anic ahkam. This is indeed the most general kind of security and certainty, against the present days’ academic and practical incoherence caused by socio-scientific thought in non-Tawhidi philosophical beliefs and by the Western imitating Muslim minds in the name of “Islamic-shari’ah” intellection.

Summary of the Generalized Tawhidi Worldview in the Socio-scientific Application: Light and Darkness – Truth Versus Falsehood (Qur’an 24:35–40)

The Qur’an as the book of knowledge, morality, consciousness, universe, and the Hereafter is foundationally unique and universal in the undiminished realm of moral inclusiveness of socio-scientific intellection. This supremely intellectual high ground of revolutionary holism of the comprehensive planetary wellbeing is at once unified in its epistemic worldview as it expresses this by formalism, analytics, application, and conscious continuity in the order of “everything.” The deepest interpretation of the qur’anic verses relating to the generality and details of “everything” to address the indefinitely vast scope of the socio-scientific intellection and applications in conscious continuum is made possible by using ta’wil while also combining the methods of commentary (tafseer). The result of the incessant evolutionary learning process regarding God, belief, consciousness, mind, materiality, the metaverses, and the Hereafter in their integrative complementary linkages signifying the epistemic foundation of unity of knowledge is precisely encompassed by the Tawhidi methodological worldview. Here are the verses (Qur’an 24:35–40) among all other ones that establish the fullness of the Tawhidi methodological worldview: (Qur’an 24:35) “God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: The Lamp enclosed in Glass: The glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the East nor of the West, whose Oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! God does guide whom He will to His Light: God does set forth Parables for men: and God does know all things” (Qur’an 24:36). “(Lit is such a Light) in houses, which God hath permitted to be raised to honour; for the celebration, in them, of His name: In them is He glorified in the mornings and in the evenings, (again and again)” (Qur’an 24:37), − “by men whom neither traffic nor merchandise can divert from the Remembrance of God, nor from regular Prayer, nor from the practice of regular Charity: Their (only) fear is for the Day when hearts and eyes will be transformed (in a world wholly new),” (Qur’an 24:38) – “that God may reward them according to the best of their deeds, and add even more for them out of His Grace: For God does provide for those whom He will, without measure” (Qur’an 24:39). “But the Unbelievers, – Their deeds are like a mirage in sandy deserts, which the man parched with thirst mistakes for water; until when he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing: But he finds God (ever) with him, and God will pay him his account: and God is swift in taking account” (Qur’an 24:40). “Or (the Unbelievers’ state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: Depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! For any to whom God gives not light, there is no light!”

The first part of the verses presents the attribute of God as Light of the fullness of knowledge uniquely and universally embedding “everything.” The use of this metaphor concerning the completion of knowledge upon its moral consciousness singularly premising all function flows freely and wholly into the universe. Thus, the eternal comprehension of God (Tawhid) as the perfect manifestation of Truth from the Beginning to the End in the Hereafter must mean that He (that is the divine law = Tawhid as law) makes us see through the intricacies and the splendor of creation by virtue of His divine knowledge bestowed on the non-physicalist and the physicalist “everything.” Indeed, creation comes to know itself. The environment in its most extended forms is unraveled by comprehending and applying Tawhid as law endowed by the details of all matters of conscious thought, actions, and intelligible continuity across knowledge, space, and time dimensions. The verse (Qur’an 24:35) declares: “God is the Light of the heavens and the earth.”

The Tawhidi law in its primal qur’anic ontological foundation and in its functional form in our experiences is a guarantee of security for Truth, stability, and success in our lives and for a never-failing return to God in the Hereafter. The verse again proceeds in a metaphoric sense to convey these attributes of the Tawhidi law – as Light (transparent Truth and clarity of divine meanings); as Niche (a protected abode that is illumining and indestructible); as Lamp (instrument for deriving functional intellection from the comprehension of the Tawhidi law); as Glass, a brilliant star (majestic beauty and an object of awe and desire, of clarity of meanings and application); and as Tree (branching of knowledge into diverse forms jutting out one out of the other in a nexus of evolutionary learning forms). The important point here is to note the splendid rhythm of continuity and logic that is built upon the comprehension of the Tawhidi precept, followed by the functional use. Correct comprehension of the Tawhidi law is based on the moral strength and stability of unity of knowledge as the supreme Truth.

The Tawhidi primordial a priori Truth embraces the theoretical construct of the foundation of the worldview on which a practical super-structure can be erected. Such a theoretical and mental construct subsequently breeds the desire to apply that body of knowledge to the a posteriori Truth of the experiential world. The Tawhidi law thus supplies prescribed instruments for the conduct of life, knowledge, and thought. This process also derives the reasoning, rules, and thought, upon which functional instruments are founded. This moral reliance yields the proof of stability and security. The organic complementarity of the a priori and the a posteriori realm of the unified reality strengthens belief and further comprehension of the Tawhidi law. That is to establish security, stability, and sustainable development. Knowledge is thus the product of this circular flow (circular causation) of interrelationships between the a priori and the a posteriori realm of spirit and matter, respectively. The unified relational complementarity forms the essence of the epistemic circular-causation and continuity model of Tawhidi unified reality presented by the Qur’an and sunnah.

Such knowledge-flows forming cumulative stock along the passage of history are universal and generalizable across all systems. According to the emergent unity of knowledge across the socio-scientific details, the natural sciences and the social sciences share in the same Tawhidi law. Historicism and politics, and different races and peoples, all share in the same unique and universal law of Tawhid across the knowledge, space, and time dimensions of “everything.” Truth as Light imbued by its divine attributes of clarity of comprehension and explanatory power, stability, security, affirmation, and growth of knowledge cannot be split into independently multiple forms. The concept of cultural pluralism, which has become a catchword of the politics and philosophy of modernity, is discarded in the framework of generalization of the Tawhidi law. The philosophy of cultural pluralism is replaced by the science of unity of knowledge.

Ibn Khaldun adopted a part of such an approach in his theory of the science of culture. The part he adopted was to relate the study of evolution of culture with the evolutionary study of anthropology and sociology. In this context, the science of culture becomes integrated with the conscious invoking of the divine law in details of planetary lives, the human-ecology. Historian Muhsin Mahdi writes in this regard: “According to Ibn Khaldun, the study of man and society should start with a consideration of the place of man within the universe; for man is a part of the universe, and his body and soul (nafs) are closely linked to the rest of the physical-perceptible world or the world of becoming, and to the world of intelligences. Within the universe, man occupies an intermediate position, and the various elements of his body and his soul, are related to the various parts of the universe below and above him.”

However, Ibn Khaldun’s cultural identity in the background of his explanation of the historical process lends it to the study of the science of culture to human demands and wants (desires). This is at once to relate the history of cultural evolution of mankind to the primordial nature of economic demand and political expressions. This kind of ingredient in the study of the science of culture is a utilitarian way of explaining human nature. Yet we know that demand-driven construction of society has been increasingly rejected both by academics and the general populace on grounds of its evil effect in segmenting social strata on grounds of unequal distribution of wealth, ownership, and opportunities. Such a social purview does not befit the qur’anic model of the pervasiveness of the Tawhidi law across systems. Knowledge and moral worth of the individual amid the social order is the most primordial essence of humanity according to the divine Light and which is then utilized to form demand and behavioral conduct. The above-mentioned verses declare regarding the universality of the Tawhidi law across complementing systems, peoples, entities, space, and time as mentioned in the passage, “An Olive, neither of the East nor of the West.”

Rejection of the concept of cultural pluralism and of division between the laws of the insulated social and scientific disciplines that formulate our functional knowledge of reality is treated in the above verses, to be a foundational premise of certainty. The logic is clear. If historical evolution were to be explained by the drive for demand and the advance of technological change, then convergence between the sciences would imply deepening the evils of socio-economic inequality. This is also the cause and effect of underdevelopment globally. In this way, historical evidence of explaining social evolution would mean acceptance of the multiplicity of stages of evolution of human communities competing and marginalizing each other singly or in opposing groups. Such evidences are taken as manifestation of cultural plurality in Ibn Khaldun’s framework of demand-driven explanation of historical change. On the other hand, if the ethics of equality is to be kept out of scientific knowledge, then there is obvious separation of the moral worth in the theory of the sciences. This situation makes the sciences neutral to the unsocial onslaught of human passions. This type of dichotomy and multiplicity between moral worth, the science of culture, and the explanation of historicism has pervaded mainstream social and economic thought. We find it in Marx in terms of his materialism based on economism, in Hegel in terms of his theory of historical materialism, in Ibn Khaldun in terms of his demand-driven explanation of historical change albeit with a difference, and in present days’ legitimizing of global capitalism.

The Qur’an on the other hand presents the idea of culture in terms of the ontological primacy of the Tawhidi law as being the universal defining law of “everything” out of the episteme of unity of knowledge, which establishes the principle of pervasive complementarities. This diversity within complementarities spans all peoples, systems, space, and time. The variations of speech, religious beliefs, modes of life, and organization of society among different peoples over space and time and the culture of consumerism and of scientific society are considered as modes of expressing a common cultural heritage among mankind and planetary ecology (human-ecology). Their closeness and distancing from the common heritage, which is the constancy and pervasiveness of the Tawhidi law, are seen as varying expression of knowledge.

The above-mentioned verses point out that the versatility, strength, and certainty of such knowledge are based on the universal clarity and mercy as balance conveyed by the comprehension and application of the Tawhidi law: “Whose Oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it.” An example here can be set by contrast. While the market economy fueled by corporate capitalism under the paradigms of methodological individualism or state-ownership economies into entropy states, the precept of ethicized market order runs societies into sustainability with moral inclusiveness. It is also the basis of the Islamic philosophy of science by the permanence of unity of knowledge.

The last point is further elaborated by the limitless capacity for the evolution of knowledge of the non-physicalist and physicalist domains. This attribute of the Tawhidi law is a fundamental essence of the explanatory power of the Tawhidi methodological worldview across all sciences and systems in respect of the knowledge, space, and time dimensions. But furthermore, intra-system and inter-system interactions by knowledge evolution must generate economies of scale that are endogenized by their ethical impact across systems. Without this condition, the principle of complementarities is not possible in the socio-scientific order. The clarity of the formalism of unity of knowledge between the systems would neither yield result nor conviction in the experiential world. Contrarily, it is the existence of such a positively exponential expansion of flows of knowledge corresponding to parameters computed as weights associated with socio-scientific variables that must finally accumulate from the temporal world into the super-cardinality of knowledge in the Hereafter, the moment of total reality of supreme felicity. In this regard, the above verses declare “Light upon Light!…God does guide whom He will to His Light…and God does know all things.”

So far, the above verses have presented a plane comprehension of the divine reality in the world of belief, thought, and functioning. The above verses then go on to define the methodology of realizing the grand qur’anic order in the experiential world. Here by example, an elemental factor of action is seen to be the human world, which we referred to as human-ecology. The responsibility of establishing and perpetuating the Tawhidi law in individual lives and in economy, society, and science at large is shown to be entrusted on the strong believers: “Lit is such a Light in houses, which God has permitted to be raised to honour for the celebration, in them, of His name…” Note that such a privilege and responsibility, considered as the highest pinnacle of human achievement, is not primarily possible by acquired knowledge. Rather, it springs from the a priori fountain of the Light of God and is then subsequently reinforced by application of that comprehension in the experiential world, the a posteriori part of unified reality – the oneness of God. Hence, man as an instrument of diffusing knowledge remains uncertainly poised to receive guidance amid his variegated pursuit of acquired knowledge instilled by the Tawhidi episteme of unity of knowledge to realize the Tawhidi Truth. The immediate example of such a fiasco in the moral worth of sheer acquired knowledge experience can be seen in all received pursuits in the sciences of nature and society by way of mis-predicting the fictive maximum value of its objective function. Hence, science has become incapable of unifying knowledge, although this other goal manifests the single most unique quest today.

The vile quest in the presence of the independence of acquired knowledge from the centricity of the methodological worldview of Tawhid as law can be felt in Hawking’s words relating to the conflicting and uncertain outlook within science: “The whole of history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired. It would be only natural to suppose that this order should apply not only to the laws, but also to the conditions at the boundary of space-time that specify the initial state of the universe. There may be a large number of models of the universe with different initial conditions that all obey the laws. There ought to be some principle that picks out one initial state, and hence one model, to represent our universe.”

Justice as balance and certainty in the knowledge-based worldview of the universe are brought out through the attributes of the believers. The verses say such believers will be those who will uphold the conscious responsibility premised on Tawhid as law. The principal attributes mentioned in the above verses are three: the observance of prayer, the dispensation of distributive social justice, and the derivation of all conduct of life with the consciousness of the Hereafter. This means to derive the flows of unity of knowledge from the super-cardinal stock of full and perfect knowledge that God has rendered to the universe and which will become manifest at the time of total sure reality in the Hereafter. The methodology of developing and deriving qur’anic ahkam, which forms the functional characterization of knowledge comprehension in the experiential world, is indeed a matter of great commitment, motivation, and sense of justice. These are the means of attaining knowledge. Knowledge, which is the actualization of Tawhidi precept and field as a paired and complemented reality in the experiential world of spirit and matter, and which is a select award to human kind alone, is the output of the combination of the above-mentioned traits. In the development of qur’anic interpretation in the vastness of intellection concerning the universe, the use of ta’wil is the necessary approach.

When knowledge is so acquired in terms of its divine precepts and multiplied, then it gains certainty and strength in the temporal world, as it must establish fullness in the Hereafter. Through the evolutionary movement of knowledge from lesser to greater degrees of certainty gained by a combination of commitment, motivation, and sense of justice, the socio-scientific rewards start to evolve along an exponential path. Such a state of knowledge-induced evolution of socio-scientific reality was earlier explained in terms of the attributes of evolutionary participatory development, development sustainability and stability, and knowledge-induced dynamic evolutionary equilibrium conditions along the trajectory of evolution of the Islamic order. This wide expanse embraces the vastness of conscious continuum in knowledge, space, and time dimensions. Hence, the actualization of socio-scientific reality being the result of flows of knowledge of the Tawhid worldview is itself defined by the augmenting effect of the above-mentioned attributes. The result is the stage of certainty.

Logicalness of the Formal Nature of Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-Model in the Socio-scientific World-System

The verses (Qur’an 24:35–40) go on to establish the logical contrast of the divine worldview to the purview of the social and scientific order that does not treat Tawhidi law as the epistemic foundation and goal. A non-Tawhidi system cannot comprehend the revolutionary worldview of Tawhidi unity of knowledge. Hence, no primal ontological, epistemological, and ontic premises of the real world can be drawn to explain their concordance with the morally inclusive socio-scientific world-system. Contrarily, what unfolds amid the non-Tawhidi socio-scientific pursuit is perception not substance, albeit using specialization to practice such ostentations. In such a groping diffusion of perceptions, it becomes impossible, and indeed, it remains logically impossible to reach Truth when the very premise of approach is methodologically subjective. Complementary convergence of the sciences is then perpetually denied. Hence, the manifestations of scientific accomplishments and of social, political, and economic power held by the rich, strong, and compelling are technocratic ways of perpetuating a hegemonic order while claiming innocence under its groundwork assumption of ethical and moral neutrality. Such a way of the social, political, and economic order has come to be known as Eurocentricity. In science, this deceptive power is taken up as the license for acquiring the opaque, ethically exclusive knowledge of technocracy.

If moral worth remains the singular end and means of sustaining the world order, then such an answer cannot be found in the mind of liberal philosophy of the sciences and the institutions that thereby emanate. This is because the latter culture of science neither generates knowledge nor is it methodologically equipped to answer the question of knowledge acquisition in the sense of a unified view of the universe on the foundation of the Tawhidi methodological worldview. Thus, increasing divergence from the Tawhidi law is tantamount in the above sense, as distancing reality from knowledge, and hence from Truth. With this deprivation comes the flight of uncertainty and increasing irrationality. Finally, if unification under the Tawhidi law is knowledge on which certainty, Truth, and moral-material development rest, then its opposite complementation as the flight of “de-knowledge” (methodological individualism, disengagement) must signify growing uncertainty, falsehood, and decadence. Such a deduction should be an eye-opener to the scientists of general unified theory and of the mono-economics school that physical explanation of symmetry and optimality (equilibrium in the marginal substitution postulate) will forever leave aside the preponderant question of morality and ethics. Mankind would never be made happier by the results of scientific pursuits in the presence of such moral emptiness in its consciously endogenous sense.

The above-mentioned verses say in this regard, “Their deeds are like mirage” (subjective); “In sandy deserts” (weak and unstable); “But he finds God ever within him” (objective). The logical oblivion is reflected in the evanescence of the Tawhidi law among the non-Tawhidi scientists and in the present days’ so-called Islamic intellection. Furthermore, the verses declare, “Overwhelmed with billow, topped by billow, topped by dark clouds.” This points to the speed of decadence of non-Tawhidi system in the face of the Tawhidi worldview. The portion, “For any to whom God gives not light, there is no light!,” conveys the precise definition of knowledge based on the comprehension and application of the Tawhidi law in the realms of belief, thought, and action.

The Epistemic Derivation: Evanescence of Falsehood

The epistemic meaning of the above-mentioned verses is of central importance and inevitable development of the qur’anic worldview as a distinctively independent one from the philosophy of the received sciences. This revolutionary worldview is endowed by its axioms, goals, attributes, and methodology that by founding themselves amid the knowledge-based model of unified reality negates the insularity of the disciplines. The mind is now seen to comprehend and regenerate a socio-scientific dynamics moving toward greater unification based on the profundity of the foundation of unity of knowledge. These inherent organic relational complementarities as the core methodological outlook of the Tawhidi law must occupy the grandest expanse of the socio-scientific understanding.

Earlier in this Handbook we have explained the idea of Tawhidi methodological worldview as hyper-topology. This methodological holism foundationally works out the analytics and scientific philosophy of such a unification inter-systems and intra-systems. It is not our intention to repeat that formalization here. Rather, we will formalize here the logical nature of the multiplier and de-multiplier changes under the impact of unity of knowledge and by the unsustainability of the “de-knowledge” (falsehood) model, respectively. We will characterize the knowledge premise of change by its underlying augmentation by the attributes of justice such as balance, commitment, and motivation.

The premise of the Tawhidi worldview is knowledge-based on holistic unified reality. The goal of this system is to regenerate this knowledge to intensify and evolve comprehension of the unified reality. The methodology of attaining the goal of the Tawhidi systemic worldview is analytically explained by the Tawhidi episteme-derived system of circular-causation and continuity model of unified reality in respect of moral inclusiveness in the world-system. The intensity and speed of attaining this worldview are based on the effectiveness of the combination of commitment, motivation, and sense of justice as balance in “everything” that is entrusted with the task both across the non-physicalist mind and its application on the details of the physicalist world-system. This last point proves that in the qur’anic worldview of reality, it is neither necessary nor possible to attain perfection of knowledge in the temporal world. Nonetheless, a conscious Islamic society would grow from lesser to greater degrees of certainty with the evolution of knowledge from and toward the Tawhidi epistemic worldview in “everything.”

Evanescence of Falsehood in the Non-Tawhidi Socio-scientific World-System

It remains to be formalized that, by the rule of exclusion of Truth and by reinstitution of a deceptive form of reality explained by moral incompleteness as an endogenous learning process, the opposition by the above-mentioned attributes of knowledge evolution must mean the subsequent decadence of “de-knowledge.” In such a process, the Light of God on the essence of complete reality must mean the culmination of cumulative flows of knowledge into their super-cardinality form in the Hereafter. Here the great event of the Hereafter replaces the fictive idea of infinity as a non-configurative entity, where relations cannot be generated and explained. The result of this clash between knowledge and “de-knowledge” is the utter destruction of falsehood in the Light of Truth. This end marks the Moment of Total Reality – the Doomsday (Kiyamah) followed by the Hereafter (Akhira).

To integrate science-society-market interaction in the knowledge-forming framework, we recall the complementary interrelations between the socio-scientific variables, x_i, and policy variables, P_i, in the ith stage of knowledge evolution. The latter case is primordially driven by the assignable knowledge-flows θ(ε)-parameters. Through this, the socio-scientific variables are also influenced by the same ethical parameters. Here, without loss of generality, we are assuming that the ith socio-scientific vector is influenced by the jth policy vector at an ith stage of knowledge evolution into the Tawhidi super-space.

The essence of polity-market interaction leading to simultaneity in policy and socio-economic actualization is an example of endogenous embedding of ethical values in the activities of Islamic political economy, as characterized by the Tawhidi IIE{θ(ε)}-learning process. This learning process totally negates the neoclassical economic notion of marginal substitution postulate in resource allocation and productive activities. The central role of ethical values derived from the Tawhidi episteme through dynamic evolution of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-learning processes is the essence of knowledge formation leading to social consensus formation in the polity-market interactive framework. It is this essence of knowledge formation that endows the Islamic social choice and planetary wellbeing function with the essence of evolutionary episteme in Islamic philosophy of science.

The principle of pervasive complementarities across diversity versus the marginal substitution postulate between goals of the political economy, most important of which are issues of social (distributive) justice and economic efficiency, is addressed here in a system framework. However, unlike the knowledge of Western system framework, the foundation of Islamic knowledge in social choice formation is shown to be one of complementarity, simultaneity, and conscious continuity.

The epistemology based on individualism, dualism, and multiplicity is negated in the Islamic approach by making ethical parameters central and immutable in the context of the Tawhidi epistemic worldview. This means that the core of Tawhidi episteme of unity of knowledge, whereby Islamic theory of knowledge derives its fundamental sources, remains unique. It is only humanity’s understanding of those precepts that varies continuously. This ceaseless pursuit both takes the inquirer to higher levels of development. In these dynamics of epistemic learning, humanity inculcates greater levels of comprehension by a perpetual discursive (complementary) method of inquiry.

Inference Derived in Logical Extension of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))

What is true of the socio-economic order in respect of the elements of the epistemic circular-causation and continuity model of Tawhidi unified reality in explaining the role of attributes of knowledge acquisition in it is equally true of the socio-scientific order. Here the moral worth of the Tawhidi methodological worldview is introduced in the body framework of the knowledge-induced model by identifying the nature of knowledge evolution, its consequential perspective of local and global equilibrium, and the principle of pervasive complementarities in the same essence as these are explained in the above-mentioned socio-economic order.

Promise of Security and Sustainability

The creed of Islam that wholly and solely offers the singular Tawhidi law as the worldview is exclusively premised in belief, faith, practice, and the ultimate Truth of Oneness of God and the Prophetic role in all these from the Beginning to the End in the Hereafter. The comprehensive attributes of the Tawhidi worldview are thereby the belief in the Oneness of God, the practice of righteous deeds, and the Great Unbounded Closure of knowledge of Oneness in the Hereafter. Based on this pedestal of the sure reality rests the super-cardinal order of Truth upon the elimination of falsehood. This promise of successes over deceptions of the glitters of the acquisitive self over others forms its extended meanings in all fields of intellection according to the interpretation of the verses (Qur’an 24:55) by means of ta’wil. The most important conveyance of the ineluctable meaning underlying the intellectual and logical supremacy of the Tawhidi epistemic worldview lies in its socio-scientific construction of the model of moral/ethical inclusiveness of unity of knowledge premising the principle of organic pairing of the generality and details of the metaverses of diverse entities. The Qur’an declares: “God has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (experienced) to one of security and peace: ‘They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me.’ If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.”

The above verse points to the critical promise and test of authority and inheritance of the Islamic community to the believers in temporal life. This subject is brought out in this verse in a historical and futuristic sense and carries also with it the criterion that will characterize and alternate the periods of the Islamic community (ummah) on earth. Thus, the verse firmly establishes the fact that the reality of the ummah is not a myth but essentially a worldly goal for the believers and the righteous.

In the first part of the above-mentioned verse, we find the mention of the inheritance of the ummah going to the believers and the doers of righteous acts. Hence, at once the criteria of comprehending and applying the tenets of the Tawhidi law are combined to give the meaning of Truth. The implication is that it is the progressive completion of Truth in its fullness of the complementary worldview between the moral and material order defining firmly the planetary wellbeing, which is the essential objective and purpose of all intellection. Such actualization of Truth in the context of the Tawhidi epistemic worldview is then pointed out to be a “surety” in the future as it has proved itself to be the case in history. History is thereby an analytical narrative of the defeat of falsehood by the permanence of Truth according to the qur’anic historicism.

Truth has its primal seat ineluctably in Tawhid as the Truth statement. Falsehood disproves itself; except “T” proves the “T” of “F.” The logical mathematical table in the conjunctive form of T OR F is shown below.

Input	Input	Output
A	B	A OR B (A ∨ B)
T	T	T (truth proves itself, “T” as knowledge prevails)
T	F	T (truth prevails, “T” as knowledge prevails)
F	T	T (truth prevails, “T” as knowledge prevails)
F	F	F (falsehood proves itself, knowledge is void in “F”)

The resilient wonders of knowledge in Tawhid as Truth can be translated from Imam Ghazali’s magnum opus, Ihya Ulum-Id-Deen: “All the doors of faith are not kept in order except with knowledge, condition is born. Knowledge is the basis; action is its fruit. Another name of condition is God reliance…. It has many doors, but it is placed on two doors – Tawhid and God reliance.” Knowledge in its most majestic meaning of God reliance by Tawhid is further expressed by Imam Ghazali in his translated words: “When knowledge was puffed up in his heart, his oil was enkindled. Then light upon light came to him. Then knowledge said to him: Value this moment greatly. Open your eyes, so that you may find the path. When he opened his eyes, he found the pen of God as described. It is not made of reed; it has got no head. It is incessantly writing in the mind and soul of men, He said being surprised at it: What a good thing is knowledge. I don’t consider this pen as that of the material world.”

The Example of the Tawhidi Material State of the World-System: Islamic State of Madinah

The Islamic State of Madinah was established by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Prophet’s exemplary organizational character and moral authority, shining over the world, are in record. Amir Ali writes about the Islamic State in the hands of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): “No wild dreamer he bent upon pulling down the existing fabrics of society, but a statesman of unrivalled powers, who in an age of utter and hopeless disintegration, with such materials and such polity as God put ready to his hands, set himself to the task of reconstructing a State, a commonwealth, a society, upon the basis of universal humanity.” Doi characterizing the Islamic State writes, “The Islamic State, like the whole of what one might call Islamic political psychology, views the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) as one vast homogeneous commonwealth of people who have a common goal and a common destiny and who are guided by a common ideology in all matters both spiritual and temporal. The entire Muslim ummah lives under the shari’ah to which every member has to submit, with sovereignty belonging to God alone.”

This emulation of this unparalleled historic example of the surety of the Islamic State in temporal reality is not to imply the identical returning to earth of the principles of the Islamic State of Madinah in that perfect form. This is illogical, as the very character of evolutionary and imperfect knowledge of divine perfection in comprehension and temporal life, and the pristine goal of the Madinah Charter of the Islamic State based solely on Tawhid, will remain goals to be aspired for. These achievements cannot be superseded due to our latter days’ limitations on the attainment of qur’anic knowledge, distanced from perfection, with which mankind will have to live yet struggle to progress toward. Yet as the previous verses (Qur’an 24:55) point out, the ummah will face the possibility of the examples of the Islamic State of Madinah toward emulating the blessed life of the Prophet with its essence of certainty, strength, authority, stability, and growth. This progressive movement of self and polity within the wholeness of the Islamic State of Madinah will carry humanity from lesser to higher degrees of Islamic attainment. The world history has always been and will continue to be the incessant struggle of Truth against error and falsehood (“de-knowledge”). Likewise, the world history is to be seen as the conflict between Islam (characterized by its values of justice and unification in thought and conduct of life) and non-Islam. The message here is to be taken widely over the entire spiritual, worldly, and practical enterprise of man. This is the message that clearly ensues from the above-mentioned verse in the passage: “If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.”

The example of the Islamic State premised solely and wholly on the Tawhidi precept will abide undiminished, as it was always manifest in historical record. This is characterized in the passage, “They will worship Me alone and not associate aught with Me.” The result of such a quality of life is freedom, which is essentially liberty from a state of fear, except the fear of utter loss that arises by distancing God in the human state of disbelief. Indeed, liberation from fear is the essence of human self-reliance, dignity, actualization of justice, and solidarity in all expressions of moral worth in life. The implication of such a state of freedom from fear that liberates the human soul toward the great leap of moral advancement must at once mean the organization of life along lines of those activities that precisely promote the high moral values. This is a stronger fact than mere neutrality to acts of morality or immorality. It at once also means an uncompromising negation of the concept of freedom of the spirit that Kant, Hegel, Whitehead, and others pointed out in terms of the liberation of human reason as the root of knowledge. Likewise, the qur’anic concept of freedom, based primordially on moral worth, negates the concept of freedom to be associated with secular conduct of mind, thought, and practice.

Differences occur primarily because the Tawhidi epistemic source of knowledge defines knowledge as revealed knowledge in conjunction with acquired knowledge. Acquired knowledge is then a derivative of the ahkam from revealed knowledge, as the cycle of Tawhidi epistemic circular-causation and continuity relations between the ever-expanding variables of the wellbeing objective criterion proceed on incessantly. Consequently, the most reducible root of knowledge according to the exemplification of the Madinah Charter is not the speculative ontology concocted by human reason. One would not find in the Islamic State of Madinah derivation of laws by impact of political pressure groups and elections campaigned and won based on satisfying unjust and socially destructive groups driven by self-interest to gain power. Thereby, the qur’anic law of Tawhid and not the institutionally improvised edict of shari’ah by concocted human reasoning was the legal foundation of the Islamic State of Madinahat al-Munawarah under the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The fullness of the domain of knowledge arose from the qur’anic precincts of the Tawhidi law. Thereby, the farthest implication of this Tawhidi epistemic example is its overarching inclusion in the sciences of revelation-reason complementarities. The implication for the present and future age of the ummah is to emulate the Tawhidi epistemic worldview in the details of the socio-scientific intellection. This would mean true freedom and the rise of potentiality free of the shackles of the human-concocted compartmentalized shari’ah. Shari’ah has no methodology in it to include any element of socio-scientific investigation and the vision to do so. Shari’ah in the history of Islam was one of the most debilitating developments of the clerical ummah led by its sectarian practices integrated with the Qur’an and sunnah and juristic interpretations and interjections, referred to as fiqh.

Yet the above-mentioned verse (24:55) emphasizes freedom. This is a noble principal value unshackled from pressure groups and large numbers, show of power, pomp, and splendor as found in the secular life setting in modernity and among the generality of Muslims in their discourse on mind-matter dissociation. Indeed, in such a game of numbers and the surreptitious avoidance of Truth through political deceptions, the state and social institutions are found to become engines of oppressive legal texts, bearing no scope for the socio-scientific vastness of the Tawhidi law given by the Qur’an. Yet, despite such developments concerning shari’ah, freedom remains the conscious comprehension and reaction to the moral-material worth of the integrated socio-scientific worldview under Tawhid. This intellectual pursuit yields details of life developed from a thorough understanding of the Tawhidi law. As a derivation from the Tawhidi epistemic worldview in the Islamic philosophy of science, we have presented in this Handbook the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model comprehending God, belief, mind, matter, universe, consciousness, and the Hereafter. The Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model is methodologically characterized by the interactive (I), integrative (I), and evolutionary learning processes (IIE), premised on the episteme of unity of knowledge and its embedding in the diversity of the integrated and conscious metaverse of the world-system. Under such precondition of the integrated moral-material conduct of life and thought, “fear” is banished. It is supplanted by security of freedom as the potentialities by which humanity self-actualizes. In this regard, the above verse (Qur’an 24:55) declares, “He will establish in authority their religion -- the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change their state, after the fear in which they experienced, to one of security and peace.”

Design of the Islamic State in Concordance with the Madinah Charter

In the study of Islamic philosophy of science, it is important to examine the underlying concept of polity and statehood in comparative perspectives. Democracy as the much-acclaimed political arrangement of nation states today is a political philosophy. In tandem with the general philosophical foundation of socio-scientific outlook of the Western civilization according to its Judeo-Christian basis of methodological individualism, as the foundation of decision-making, the political philosophy of democracy is likewise a group dynamic of the competition, rationality based, optimizing concept of political decision-making of winners against losers, except when situation dictates the need for coalition. Upon this rationality perspective of political philosophy of democracy, there follows mechanisms of application. The mechanism of voting, campaigning, and secularizing of discourse in the public domain, the relevance of irrelevant preferences, as in the case of treatment of minority voters and issues, and the relevance of religious and cultural issues are marginalized in order to play their objective role in the political decision-making process. We ought also to note that democracy is based on the commercialization of the voting process by using the same competitive behavior and optimal allocation of resources as in the case of the market process. An example here is that of optimizing the perception of the national polity on the competing methods of voting – by email messaging or personalizing the campaigning activity, in order to maximize the number of votes from the electorates. The budget constraint in this case is the total expenditure according to the unit cost as price in promoting the two mechanisms of allocation of resources.¹ The formulation of a simplified model of democratic voting as a marginalist competing activity by addressing self-interest and methodological individualism eliminates the endogenous ethical role in collective decision-making behavior. The institution of democracy thus represents a collective form of promoting and deepening the marginalist competing rational choice behavior. Thereby, the participatory mode of political decision-making in reference to any ethical outlook of the common good by wellbeing is ignored.

Now we contrast the notion of democracy as a political philosophy based on maximizing self-interest expressed by marginalist competing decision-making behavior by the political expression of the Madinah Charter under the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). We have discussed above that just as the City State of Athens became the epistemic foundation of Western democracy, the Islamic State of Madinah by its Madinah Charter reflecting the qur’anic outlook of existence under the Prophetic guidance of the Madinah Charter becomes the end-all and ve-all of the political philosophy of the ummah. The epistemic meaning of the above-mentioned verse revolves around the understanding of the temporal reality of the Islamic State as characterized by its essentials of justice, freedom, and the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-methodological dynamics. This understanding at once brings to a contrast the Islamic State with the institution of secular democracy and its underlying political philosophy. The concept of state in the Tawhidi epistemic worldview is to be taken as the functionary of the social preferences of the community governed by the preference-formation dynamics of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model, which is the generalized form encapsulating the Tawhidi epistemic embedding in “everything” despite the diversity of issues and problems that arise.

But emulation of the Madinah Charter by the ummah of all times is not a static concept, for in the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-dynamic model, the progressive learning guided by the shura-tasbih practice concerning the Islamic state is reformed in the medium of an evolutionary process of knowledge formed by qur’anic ahkam in conscious continuum of the knowledge, space, and time dimensions. Hence, an Islamic State comes into existence as an organized expression of the community and is entrusted by functional forms to enact the guidance by the shura-tasbih practice of the generalized form of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model with its fullness of interdisciplinary participation by means of organically shared universal pairing. It is in this sense that the Islamic State does not stop at the boundaries of national governments. Thereafter, it extends itself to the global ummah and still further to the intertemporal order of the ummah within the planetary order, as an evolutionary teaching and learning platform within the creative world-system. In this case, which turns out to be of a universal nature, the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-model guided by the shura-tasbih practice is an incessant process in conscious continuum that influences the Islamic global polis. The functionary form of the Islamic State is therefore the shura-tasbih practice as a political philosophy premised on the Tawhidi epistemic worldview.

The concept of justice as balance, and moral-material freedom that emanates from the shura-tasbih process, is explained as follows: Let {θ(ε)(H)} denote the sequence of functional knowledge values {θ(ε)} that are realized on the basis of belief values {H} comprising the attributes of justice as balance, commitment, and motivation, for attaining the common good by the objective criterion of planetary wellbeing. The emanating sequences of moral-material values in the light of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-epistemic worldview are evolutionary in its learning nature. The direction of functional causality is from H to θ(ε). In their most primordial ontological event of creation (kun fa-yaqun), when pure comprehension rather than functional detail is invoked, H and θ*(ε) are identical. Both are elements of the Tawhidi hyper-topology, say denoted by T(θ(ε)), and which is pervasive in the knowledge-inducing conscious continuum of space and time. Hence, H is both belief and knowledge in these primordial states of creation. We show the dynamics of circular causation between belief and the Tawhidi super-space comprising “everything” as

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}\mathrm{If}\;\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\, \to {\, }_{\mathrm{f}1}\mathrm{x}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)\, \to {\, }_{\mathrm{f}2}\, \to \, \uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right){\prime}_{\mathrm{f}3}\, \to \, \mathrm{x}{\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)}^{\prime}\, \to \, \mathrm{etc}.\\ {}\mathrm{then},\mathrm{primordially},\mathrm{H}\, \to \, {\mathrm{g}}_1\left\{\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right\}\, \to {\, }_{\mathrm{g}2}{\mathrm{H}}^{\prime}\, \to {\, }_{\mathrm{g}3}{\left\{\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right\}}^{\prime}\, \to \, \mathrm{etc}.\\ {}\left\{{\mathrm{f}}^{\prime}\mathrm{s}\right\}\ \mathrm{and}\ \left\{{\mathrm{g}}^{\prime}\mathrm{s}\right\}\ \mathrm{denote}\ \mathrm{continuous}\ \mathrm{functional}\ \mathrm{relations}\ \mathrm{as}\ \mathrm{s}\mathrm{hown}.\end{array}} $$

(4.3.14)

In the latter expression, a one-to-one correspondence, that is, the necessary and sufficient condition of well definition of the given circular-causation sequence of relations of the wellbeing evaluation, is implied. Now by combining the above two sequences of functional relationships in (4.3.14), we obtain the composite inter-causal mapping of relations:

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right),\mathrm{H}\right)\, \to \, \mathrm{x}\left(\uptheta \left(\upvarepsilon \right)\right)\, \to \, \left(\uptheta {\left(\upvarepsilon \right)}^{\prime },{\mathrm{H}}^{\prime}\right)\, \to \, {\mathrm{x}}^{\prime}\left(\uptheta {\left(\upvarepsilon \right)}^{\prime}\right)\, \to \, \left(\uptheta {\left(\upvarepsilon \right)}^{\prime },{H}^{{\prime\prime}}\right)\, \to \, \mathrm{etc}.\\ {}\mathrm{organically}\to \mathrm{space}\ \mathrm{and}\ \mathrm{time}\to \mathrm{recursive}\ \mathrm{occurrence}\\ {}\mathrm{unified}\qquad \quad \mathrm{occurrence}\ \mathrm{of}\qquad \mathrm{along}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{regenerative}\\ {}\mathrm{tuplet}\qquad \quad \mathrm{events}\qquad \qquad \quad \mathrm{Tawhidi}\ \mathrm{IIE}\left(\uptheta {\left(\upvarepsilon \right)}^{\prime}\right)\hbox{-} \mathrm{processes}\end{array}} $$

(4.3.15)

Hence, there are one-to-one interrelationships between the sequences of {θ(ε)},{H},{x(θ(ε))}-vectors of variables. The attributes of justice such as balance, commitment, and motivation enable the polity through its members to organize the shura-tasbih practice toward attaining knowledge and the holism of socio-scientific development, planetary wellbeing, sustainability, and stability. The verses of the Qur’an declare: If therefore, those who will uphold and perpetuate the Tawhidi law in the universe at large, based on the attributes of Oneness of the primordial ontology of the Tawhidi law, then proceed through the subsequent knowledge function, which is generated, the organization of the socio-scientific order so thought out as to convey the same order of balance, and freedom of the Tawhidi epistemic worldview. This is the conclusion derived from the above formalism for the case of the institutional organization of the shura-tasbih process in Islamic political philosophy contrary to the political philosophy of the ummah.

Conclusion

The Islamic philosophy of socio-scientific disciplines and their mechanical details conveys a distinctively disparate epistemic worldview in terms of the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-methodological worldview from the contrary perspectives projected by the morally/ethically benign philosophy of the non-Tawhidi worldview. The ummah has missed the Tawhidi epistemic worldview in its zealous following of the shari’ah as a false juristic perception of the Islamic worldview regarding Islamic law. Even in the field of so-called Islamic economics and finance that has been captured by an erroneous infiltration of shari’ah-fiqh ascription, simply the field of liberal capitalist worldview has persisted. In the face of such mistaken perceptions, the ummah future remains dim.

Roger Garaudy writes on the balance sheet of Western civilization with respect to the issue of moral dimension: “Today, western philosophy is all too close to its origins because it has never really answered the questions that brought about its birth. These questions are: What is the meaning of life and death? What is the source and what is the vocation of our freedom? How to act in order to fulfil the patterns of God? Such essential questions of philosophy are raised only by man, and properly so. For only man cannot live without raising them.”

In conclusion to the Tawhidi IIE(θ(ε))-epistemic meaning of the qur’anic verses examined in this chapter, it is clear that as long as man continues to look for and cherish the desire for freedom of spirit, for justice, and for material advancement within these unified purviews, the most pressing question of the world order will remain the source of knowledge and its application to the betterment of the human-ecological world-system. That essence of knowledge is Truth, which ought to be the original objective science regarding the universal structure of mind and matter, and still beyond into the primal ontology of belief and righteous actions. These values cannot be derived – indeed even by the logical approach – by any but the most reducible foundation of the sure reality. In the Islamic philosophy of science, that primal origin of the sure reality is Tawhid as the law of “everything.” Thereby, the precepts of justice as balance and of freedom as actualization of justice and balance in the unified perspective of the spiritual and material worlds is the end-all of planetary existence. This holistic socio-scientific worldview in its logical, applied, and methodological essence emanates from the Tawhidi epistemic worldview. Therefore, it is also this primordial premise of knowledge, namely, the comprehensible, conscious, and functional knowledge of God as the One, mind, man, moral, material, universe, and the Hereafter in a participatory framework of inter-causality that must remain the end-all and the be-all socio-scientific methodology.

The Islamic State spanning the conduct of life in the precincts of its organization in such an epistemic circular-causation and continuity model of Tawhidi unified reality is essentially the knowledge model. Its invoking in the political philosophy of Islam arises from the Qur’an and the sunnah, as exemplified by the state of Makkah integrating with the state of Madinah in respect of the Tawhidi epistemic worldview of the Madinah Charter. This example has proved to be a historic reality, and as the verses have pointed out, the complementarities between Makkah and Madinah, the emulation of the Islamic State of Madinah by the ummah, remain the permanent quest of humanity. In this regard, the verse (Qur’an 24:55) declares: “He will change their state, after the fear in which they experienced, to one of security and peace: ‘They will worship Me alone and not associate aught with Me.’ If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.”