Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2. I first became aware of Ghazali’s needle factory example during S. M. Ghazanfar’s 1994
History of Economic Society presentation.
3. After a series of political books (advice to Sassani Persian kings) were translated from
Middle Persian (Pahlavi) into Arabic during the eighth century, certain Muslims began a new
branch of literature called “mirrors for princes.” This literature, reflecting the influence of
Persian thought on Islamic civilization, is a generally wise account of society, politics, and
economy and demonstrates a great deal of realism and expediency. For centuries, Arab and
non-Arab Muslims (usually Persians) wrote mirrors in Arabic and Persian using anecdotes,
aphorisms, and proverbs (usually of Persian origin) to guide and advise rulers.
the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas. This influence has not only been
extensive and profound, but relatively continuous and astonishingly
diversified” (quoted in Ghazanfar 1991, 124).
Islamized lands-namely certain Arab countries, Persia, or what is
called Turkey today-were not alien to Greek thought in pre-Islamic
times. Many Arab lands (which encompassed the territory of the modem
states of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt) and Asia Minor (which
occupied approximately the same territory as present-day Turkey) were
Hellenized, and the Persian Empire was occupied by Alexander the
Great and remained in the hands of the Greeks for decades. It is no won-
der that many important centers of Greek thought were situated in the
Middle East: Antioch in what is now western Turkey, Alexandna in
what is now Egypt, and Aleppo in modem Syria. The similarity of Aris-
totelian and Koranic concepts alluded to previously are not, therefore,
surprising. After all, the prophet Mohammad, as a merchant prior to 610
(when he claimed to have received revelation) made frequent visits to
Hellenized Arab lands (Palestine and Syria).
Islamic rationalism (independent of the Greek concept of philosophy)
began the Mutazilite school in Arab Iraq a century after the prophet
Mohammad’s death (632). The works of this school of thought culmi-
nated in the work of Abd al-Jabbar (935- 1025), a Persian who wrote
a long summa presenting the latest positions in dialectical form. Greek-
inspired philosophy, however, began to be studied by Muslims in the
ninth century, after Syrian Christian scholars at Baghdad had made
accurate Arabic translations of Aristotle and later Greek commentaries
on him. Soon Plato’s works, and the works of Greek scientists, were
also translated-including Galen’s medicine, Ptolemy’s astronomy and
geography, and Euclid’s geometry (see Hourani 1985,9). The first Mus-
lim philosopher (in the Greek tradition but with Islamic flavor) was
Kindi (d. 870), an Arab from Basra (in Iraq). After Kindi came the
greatest of Muslim philosophers- almost all Persian (and most of
them Shiite).
Like various Arab Muslim writers of that age, numerous medieval
Persian scholars, as Muslims and members of the Islamic society, also
studied philosophy by following the tradition started by Kindi. How-
ever, it was not just the ninth-century translation of the Greeks by Arab
Christians that introduced Persians to Greek thought. Persian scholars,
like pre-Islamic Hellenized scholars, were also familiar with Greek
thought. After all, before the emergence of Islam (and, later, the Otto-
man Empire) Persia and Greece had been neighbors. In his writings on
King Cyrus, Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato and a disciple of
Socrates, tried to argue that Persian boys, under the leadership of
Cyrus, were educated in the light of Socratic ideas. According to Sir
Ernest Barker, these are also Plato’s ideas: “These are also the Platonic
conclusions; and indeed the Republic may be termed a Cyropadia with-
out the historical setting of Xenophon, a Cyropadia informed instead
by a deep philosophy of man and of the world” (Barker 1959,55).
It was this familiarity of pre-Islamic Persians with Greek (as well as
Indian) thought that caused Sassani Persian kings to establish the Jundi
Shapur University in the fourth century in the Persian province of Khu-
zistan. This university, which reached its height during the reign of
Anoshiravan the Just (531-579), was modeled after the Hellenized uni-
versities at Alexandria and Antioch. Jundi Shapur was first strength-
ened after 489, when the school of Edessa was closed by the order of
the Byzantine emperor, and its physicians took refuge in Jundi Shapur.
It latter attracted the best philosophers and scientists of Athens when,
in 529, Justinian ordered the school of Athens to be closed. When Per-
sians became Muslim in early Islamic history, Jundi Shapur University
was an important center synthesizing Persian, Greek (and Roman), and
Indian sciences. Jundi Shapur continued a few centuries after the Islam-
ization of Persia and was revived as a modem university in the twenti-
eth century.
The Islamization of Persia gave rise to an intellectual renaissance in
various fields of learning: Persian literature (poetry and prose), Arabic
language, philosophy, ethics, theology, medicine, mathematics, history,
and geography. The renaissance was particularly marked after the
learned vazier of two Persian Seljuq kings (namely, Nezam-al-Mulk,
the author of Siasat Nameh) established formal centers of learning
in various Persian cities and in Baghdad (see Sedigh 1960, 141).
Medieval Persia produced among the greatest minds of premodern
times in philosophy, science, medicine, mathematics, and literature. In
fact, the greatest of medieval Muslim scholars were Persian speaking
-that included Greek-inspired philosophy. Persian-speaking philoso-
phers who, following the Arab philosopher Kindi, wrote in the tradition
of the ancient Greeks included the following: Farabi, whose mother
was Turkik speaking from Persian-speaking Muslim lands; Ibn Sina
(or, in Latin, Avicenna), also a great physician; Razi (Latin Rhazes,
865-925), perhaps the first chemist (distinct from alchemy) in history;
Khwarazmi (d. 850), the author of the first treatise in algebra; Ibn
Miskaway, the author of the first book on ethics in Muslim lands; Gha-
zali, also a great Islamic jurist (of Shafeite Sunni branch); Suhravardi
(d. 1191); Tusi, also the greatest medieval Islamic ethicist; Tusi’s stu-
dent Qutb-al-Deen Shirazi; Mulla Sadra Shirazi (d. 1640); and many
more (Nasr 1975).
Persians have been much more serious about Greek-inspired philos-
ophy than other Muslims, producing philosophy up to modern times
and integrating philosophy and theology (theosophy). The decline of
philosophy among Sunnis (thus Arabs) occured first as a result of Gha-
zali’s attack of Greek-inspired philosophy during the eleventh century,
and then of the fall of Baghdad (as the center of Arab and Sunni philo-
sophy) in 1258 during the Mongol invasion. However, Persian-spealung
Shiites, building on the works of other Persians-Farabi, Ibn Sina,
Suhravardi, and others -continued their philosophical discourse up to
modern times. These Persians, beginning with Tusi and his student
Qutb-al-Deen Shirazi, revived the Islamic philosophy of Ibn Sina and
others, as well as the study of mathematics and astronomy. These phil-
osophical studies became synthesized in vast metaphysical systems
which reached their peak during the seventeenth century with Mir
Damad and, particularly, Mulla Sadra Shirazi. These metaphysicians,
who were the contemporaries of Descartes and Leibniz, developed a
metaphysics which was no less logical or demonstrative than those of
their European contemporaries (see Hosseini 1996).
The works of all these philosophers are in the tradition of what
Greeks called philosophy. Some authors have maintained that some-
times these philosophers paid only lip service to Islam by advocating
the harmony of reason and revelation, but in reality they disguised
their fidelity to Greek philosophy, which stressed naturalism, in order
to escape compulsion and censorship (Khadduri 1984,108). It was due
to the impact of Greek philosophy, especially the writing of Plato and
Aristotle, that Muslim (particularly Persian) philosophers, beginning
with Farabi, were perhaps the earliest Muslim thinkers to state clearly
that the ultimate purpose of life is happiness. These Iranian philoso-
phers, in their revival of Greek philosophy, also rekindled Plato’s dis-
cussions of division of labor. This is particularly true in the case of
those medieval Persian philosophers (as well as theologians and essay-
ists) who dealt with economic issues.
“that division of labor concerns him [Plato], not as the best method of
economic production, but as a means to the welfare of the soul”
(Barker 1959, 85). Plato rejected private property (for upper classes, at
least), because it causes selfishness (390).
In contrast to Plato, Aristotle defended private property. He viewed
it as a natural right, because it is a necessary factor in good life. Aris-
totle found that it is human nature and not private property which
causes selfishness. Of course, Aristotle’s definition of property is inter-
esting both for what it includes as well as for what it excludes. For
example, it excludes intangible assets such as money and securities, but
includes slaves and tangible objects (Aristotle 1921, 56). Although
Aristotle defended private property, he rejected exchange and had no
Platonic appreciation for division of labor; he also did not provide a
market analysis of acquisition. As Thomas Lewis argues, “Aristotle’s
non-market analysis stemmed from a reasoned rejection of the market
mechanism as a way of meeting the problem of livelihood” (Lewis
1978, 178).
More recently, however, economists have come to understand that
Aristotle’s rejection of exchange in book 1 of the Politics is not his only
treatment of exchange. He also discussed exchange in book 5 of the
Nicomachean Ethics. Lewis reminds us that
There is a basic difference between the types of exchange described
in Book I of the Politics and in Book 5 of the Nicomachean Ethics.
Unlike the interhousehold exchange of the Politics, the exchange
process of the Ethics is not directly relevant to the transition from
household to Polis life. Although this type of Aristotelian exchange
is a natural form of exchange, it is nonetheless an inferior form, and
an appreciation of the nature of this inferiority reveals a second
aspect of Aristotle’s case against the market. (83)
For Aristotle, “The craftsmen are not equal to the household head, who
has the capabilities for citizenship.” The craftsman’s humanity, that is,
his human capability, lies somewhere between those of the citizen and
the slave. The slave is presumed to be so deficient in his ability to direct
himself that it is appropriate for him to be a part of the household,
whereas the craftsman requires much less close supervision (ibid).
Medieval Islamic (Persian, Arab, or Spanish) scholars’ views on eco-
nomic activity were much closer to Adam Smith’s than those of Plato
and Aristotle. This similarity had to do with Islam’s mercantile roots,
the eleventh century (the Muslim fourth and fifth), which witnessed
the apogee of the Near-Eastern bourgeoisie, also marks the complete
ascendency of castes of slave soldiers, mostly of Turkish extraction,
which dominated the history of that part of the world for the next
eight hundred years. At the same time, the monetary and mercantile
economy of the Near-East gave way to an economy in which feudal-
istic trends became dominant. (584)
Nevertheless, Goitein reminds us of the substantial influence of the
Islamic bourgeoisie: “Before all this happened, however, Islam as a
religion and civilization, had fully taken shape, and it was largely mem-
bers of the bourgeiosie, who had developed Muslim religious law, which
is the backbone and very essence of Islam” (ibid.). The Persian writers
considered in this article are no exceptions; they, too, reflect the senti-
ments and views of the early Islamic bourgeoisie.
The complexity, diversity, and relative sophistication of medieval
Islamic lands- that included Spain, North Africa, Western, Central,
and Southern Asia-generated debates and practical opinions con-
cerning political, economic, social, religious, and day-to-day issues.
The availability of Greek (philosophical and scientific) and Persian
(mostly political theoretic) texts in Islamized lands and their transla-
tions to Arabic (the international language of medieval Muslims for sci-
entific, philosophical, and religious discourse) made these debates
more sophisticated and lively. These debates generated great works in
philosophy, theology, ethics, geography, history, the sciences, and med-
icine, and practical manuals to guide leaders and merchants. In partic-
ular, medieval Persian writers demonstrated a thorough understanding
of the economic process and made substantial contributions to popular
understanding of the economic problems of their age. Of course,
because economics was not yet an independent discipline, their eco-
nomic discussions were usually mixed with ethical, theological, and
philosophical arguments. There also existed a few pamphlets devoted
to the discussion of economic issues (see Hosseini 1995, 1996, and the
works of Essid, Ghazanfar, and Baeck).
In contrast to Plato, medieval Persian scholars were not troubled by
the accumulation of wealth, as long as it was within the framework of
Islamic ethics. Their views of wealth were not different from those
expressed by Adam Smith. As indicated by the eleventh-century Per-
sian writer Kavus, “do not be indifferent to the acquisition of wealth.
Assure yourself that everything you acquire shall be the best quality
and is likely to give you pleasure” (1951, 91). According to Tusi, “the
intelligent man should not neglect to store up provisions and property”
(1964, 159). Ghazali wrote, “people love to accumulate wealth and pos-
sessions of all kinds of property. If he has two valleys of gold, he wants
to have a third” (quoted in Ghazanfar and Islahi 1990, 384). The posi-
tive view of wealth accumulation in the writings of medieval Persian
scholars is also evident in their writings on poverty. For example,
Kavus tells his son, “You must have an affection for the rich, without
regard to their personal concern, and that they dislike poor men, even
when their interests are at stake. The reason is that poverty is man’s
worst evil and any quality which is to the credit of the wealthy is a
derogation of the poor” (1951,92).
5. For this and subsequent translations I consulted Ghazanfar 1994 and Tusi 1964.
may be hard for one person. Thus, the need for auxiliaries and ser-
vants becomes obvious. . . . Now, since the organization of any group
[plurality?] may be affected by the manner in which it has been
structured [combined], demanding a kind of unity, there is, in this
organization of the household, the need for devising a method of
assigning responsibilities to each member in order to bring about
such a combination. Of all the members of the household, the master
of the household was most fitted to give attention to this task. Accord-
ingly, the management of the group was settled upon him. . . . Just as
the shepherd grazes a flock in a proper manner, taking them to suit-
able pastures and watering places, protecting them from harm by
wild beasts and from celestial and terrestial calamities . . . so, like-
wise, the manager of the household attends to what is appropriate in
respect to foodstuffs and provisions, arranging the affairs of daily
life and managing the circumstances of the community by encour-
agement and intimidation,promises, prevention and imposition, cour-
tesy and criticism, and kindness and severity so that each may reach
the perfection towards which he is directed.” (Tusi 1985,205-6; my
translation)
The writings of medieval Persian scholars also reflect their under-
standing of the necessity and usefulness of the international or inter-
regional division of labor. According to Farabi, different societies are
imperfect because each is endowed only with certain resources or
goods. A perfect society can only be achieved when domestic, regional,
and international trade takes place (Farabi 1982, 25). The benefits of
international and inter-regional division of labor are also appreciated
by Kavus. This prince from the very green Caspian region of Persia,
aware of the existence of very different climates within the (now) Iran-
ian plateau (and the Islamic world), understood that international and
inter-regional trade can be very valuable. Praising the role of interna-
tional merchants, he wrote, “To benefit the inhabitants of the west they
import the wealth of the east and for those of the east the wealth of the
west, and by doing so became the instruments of world’s civilization”
(Kavus 1951, 156; emphasis added).
The necessity and usefulness of the international division of labor
and trade is also understood by Ghazali. In Ihya he wrote:
Then, such practices extend to various countries. People travel to dif-
ferent places to obtain tools and food and transport them. People’s
economic affairs become organized into cities which may not have
all the tools needed and into villages which may not have all the
food-stuffs needed. People’s needs and interests necessitate trans-
portation. Then, a class of traders who carry goods from one place to
another emerges. The motive behind all these activities is the accu-
mulation of profit, undoubtedly. These traders exhaust themselves by
travelling to satisfy other’s needs and to make profits, and then these
profits too are eaten by others when they themselves obtain things
from others. (Ghazanfar and Islahi 1990, 387)
Medieval Persian scholars sought maximization of economic activ-
ity, including in its productive form. In the words of Tusi, “all who are
engaged in a profession [trade or craft?] should seek perfection and
maximization therein, not showing contentment with an inferior degree
of acquiescing in meanness of aspiration. It should be recognized that
men have no finer ornament than an abundance of the means of suste-
nance, and the best means of acquiring that abundance lies in engag-
ing in a craft” (Tusi 1985, 212; my translation). It is in this light that
medieval Persian scholars sought division of labor, including, in a way,
its manufacturing variety.
Writing before the rise of the modern industrial age, particularly
prior to the rise of the factory, these writers could not have understood
manufacturing division of labor in exactly the manner of Adam Smith.
However, given the limitations of their age, their understanding of divi-
sion of labor “within the limits of a single industry,” was rather sophis-
ticated. In fact, they had a rudimentary understanding of manufacturing
division of labor. They understood the various tasks involved in pro-
ductive activity and, at least implicitly, hinted at the assignment of
these various tasks to different individuals.
Asaad Davani recognizes these various tasks when he argues that
“philosophers have a saying, that there are a thousand things to be
done before anyone can put a morsel of bread in his mouth” (1946,
320). Ghazali, however, recognizes that each task is assigned to a dif-
ferent worker. In the Ihya he wrote, “If one inquires, one will find that
perhaps a single loaf of bread takes its final shape with the help of per-
haps more than one thousand workers” (Ghazanfar and Islahi 1990,
390). Ghazali explained the complex process as follows: “You should
know that the plants and animals cannot be eaten and digested as they
are. Each needs some transformation, cleaning, mixing, and coolung,
before consumption. For a bread, for example, first the farmer prepares
and cultivates the land, then the bullock and tools are needed to plough
the land. Then the crop is harvested and grains are cleaned and sepa-
rated. Then there is the milling into flour before baking. Just imagine
how many tasks are involved; and we here mentioned only some. And,
imagine the number of people performing these various tasks” (ibid.).
Ghazali’s argument reminds one of Smith’s statement that “the woolen
coat, for example, which covers the day-laborers, as coarse and rough
as it may appear, is the joint labor of a great multitude of workmen. The
shepherd, the sorter of the wool, the wool comber or carder, the dyer,
the scibbler, the spinner, the weaver, the fuller, the dresser, with many
others” (WN, 13).
For Ghazali, as for Smith centuries later, exchange and division of
labor are interrelated. In Ihya Ghazali wrote:
Perhaps farmers live where farming tools are not available. Black-
smiths and carpenters live where farming is lacking. So, the farmer
needs blacksmiths and carpenters, and they in turn need farmers.
Naturally, each will want to satisfy his needs by giving up in
exchange a portion of what he possesses. But, it is also possible that
when the carpenter wants food in exchange for tools, the farmer does
not need the tools. Or, when the farmer needs tools, the carpenter
does not need food. Therefore, pressures emerge leading to creating
of trading places where various tools can be kept for exchange and
also warehouses where the farmer’s produce can be stored. (Ghaz-
anfar and Islahi 1990, 390).
There are other similarities between Smith and medieval Persian
writers. For example, both Smith (WN, 15) and Tusi (1985,253) empha-
sized that exchange (and thus divison of labor) is a necessary conse-
quence of the faculties of reason and speech. Both of these writers
charge that animals such as dogs do not exchange one bone for another.
As Todd Lowry (1979,73) argues, Smith’s substantiveeconomic anal-
ysis of division of labor appears with his celebrated illustration of the
productivity of the pin factory. Interestingly enough, this example is
very similar to the medieval Persian theologian Ghazali’s discussion in
the Ihya of the division of labor in a needle factory. Speaking of the
efficiency of cooperation and division of labor, Ghazali states, “Even
the small needle becomes useful only after passing through the hand of
needle makers about twenty-five times, each time going through a dif-
in many cases, Islamic thought did not have to travel very far, for many
Muslim thinkers were Spanish Muslims, among them Ibn Hazn of Car-
doba (d. 1064), Ibn Masarra (d. 931), Ibn Bajja (d. 1138), Ibn Tufayl (d.
1185), and Ibn Rushd (in Latin Averroes, 1126- 1198).
Historians of science and philosophy have recorded the transmission
mechanism of these disciplines from Persia and other Muslim lands to
the west (see Mirakhor 1988, 324). This mechanism took different
forms (see Mirakhor 1988, Ghazanfar 1991, and Hosseini 1995, 1996).
First, as Will Durant has noted, during the late eleventh and early
twelfth centuries, various western scholars, including Constantine the
African and Adelard of Bath, traveled to Muslim lands, learned Ara-
bic (the language of the Quran, Islamic theology, philosophy, and sci-
ence during that time), studied in Muslim institutions, and brought the
newly acquired knowledge back to Europe (Durant 1950, 979). An
example cited by both Watt and A. C. Crombie is Leonard0 Fibonacci
of Pisa (who died after 1240), who studied the mathematics of Persian
Muslim Khawrazmi and, upon his return in 1202, wrote his book Liber
Abaci (Watt 1972, 63; Crombie 1963, 1:61). It is interesting that in
Harro Bernardelli’s opinion European economic analysis begins with
Liber Abaci (see Mirakhor 1988,324-25).
M. M. Sharif discusses a second mechanism of transmission. Accord-
ing to him, many European students later attended Muslim schools in
order to study mathematics, philosophy, medicine, cosmography, and
other subjects. These students in due course became candidates for pro-
fessorships in the first western universities which were patterned after
the Muslim Mudressehs (schools). The new European universities,
which included the universities of Naples, Padua, Salerno, Toulouse,
Salamanca, Oxford, and Paris, were similar to Islamic schools in terms
of their style of architecture, curricula, and method of instruction
(Sharif 1966, 1368). It is known that during this period (the late twelfth
century) students brought back many manuscripts of Muslim writers to
Northern Europe. Durant mentions “a precious multitude of books”
that Daniel H. Morely brought back to England from Spain. During
this time, “Europe discovered the wealth of Spain in books. Scholars
descended upon Toledo, Cordova, and Seville; and a flood of new learn-
ing poured up over the Pyrenees to revolutionize the intellectual life of
the adolescent North” (Durant 1950, 909).
The third mechanism was the great translation movement by which
pean scholasticism, and thus Harris, Locke, Mun, and others who influ-
enced Smith.
It is very difficult to find citations to the works of these Persian (or
Arab or Spanish) Muslims in the writings of scholastic (and postscho-
lastic) Europeans. The absence of citations should not prevent us from
tracing many of the economic (and noneconomic) ideas of scholastics
(or later writers) to Muslim sources. There are reasons for this void.
First, it is well documented that the scholastics held a denigrating view
of Islam and Muslims. It is that type of view which led to the Crusades.
As in the case of Schumpeter’s chapter 2, Europeans belittled the influ-
ence of Muslims and exaggerated their dependence on the Greek and
Roman heritage in order to form a new image of itself. Interestingly
enough, the only time scholastics cited Muslim sources was to point out
that the Muslims had erred (usually in theology); an example is
Aquinas. Otherwise, scholastics borrowed without giving reference.
Second, it is argued that the scholastics perceived Islamic theology
(which had incorporated Greek rationalism) and Muslim scholars such
as Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd as threats to Christian dogma. The list of con-
demnation of ideas published by Stephen Tampier, Bishop of Paris in
1277, manifested these fears (Mirakhor 1988, 333). There are several
other examples of condemnation of the Islamic influence, including the
Oxford condemnation, also in 1277. According to Durant, Aquinas was
led to write his Summa Theologian to halt the threatened liquidation of
Christian theology by the Islamic interpretation of Aristotle (Durant
1950,913). Durant argues that “indeed the industry of Aquinas was due
not to love of Aristotle but to fear of Averroes [Ibn Rushd]” (954). Third,
borrowing without acknowledgment (from Muslim or other writers) was
an accepted and general practice among the scholastics. In fact, the same
seems to be true in Smith’s Wealth of Nations, which contains no bibli-
ography or endnotes. Richard Dales has also demonstrated that certain
European writers borrowed, without citation, from the ideas of Gros-
seteste (Mirakhor 1988, 334). Many historians have shown that med-
ieval Europeans borrowed, explored, and elaborated the ideas, writings,
and teachings of Muslim scholars with amazing openness. For example,
a thirteenth-century European philosopher, Bar Hebraeus, copied many
chapters from Ghazali’s Ihya (a book containing many of Ghazali’s eco-
nomic ideas) without giving him any credit. Interestingly enough, Bar
Hebraeus’s book was fundamental in monastary teaching (334). On that
basis, it is not unreasonable to assume that Aquinas’s view of division of
labor, which resembles the Islamic view rather than the Platonic one,
can be traced to Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ghazali, or other Persian writers.
Other writers have made a similar comparison between the views of
Grossetes te, Magnus, Bacon, and Witelo (a thirteenth-century Polish
philosopher) and those of the medieval Muslim (including Persian)
scholars. They also conclude that the ideas of these scholastics are
traceable to those of medieval Muslims (Persian, Arab, or Spanish) (see
Crombie 1963, Briffault 1928, Afnan 1958, and Sharif 1966).
It can be argued that in terms of borrowing from Persian, Arab, and
Spanish Muslims, European scholastics had a dual criteria. If they
agreed with an idea and found it reasonable, they borrowed it without
giving any reference to the authors. For example, Aquinas agreed with
many chapters of Ghazali’s Zhya and borrowed from it without giving
any reference to Ghazali. It is also believed that the Spanish Domini-
can monk Raymond Martini borrowed from several of Ghazali’s books
without giving any reference to Ghazali. Aquinas, who received his
education from the Dominican order at the University of Naples, knew
the works of Ghazali (and other Persians such as Ibn Sina) either
directly, or at least through Bar Hebraeus’s and Martini’s works (Sharif
1966, 1362). Robert Hammond, a historian of philosophy, has done a
comparative study of Farabi and Aquinas. He has argued that the views
of these two philosophers are virtually identical (Hammond 1947). (It
seems to me that the same is true of these two writers’ views concern-
ing division of labor.) According to Hammond, Aquinas used Farabi’s
proof of the existence of God, or certain of Ghazali’s theological dis-
cussions, without giving any reference to them. However, when the
scholastics disagreed with a concept or found it contrary to Christian
dogma, they rejected it in the strongest language and provided the
source of that concept. Two examples are Aquinas’s rejection of some
of the ideas of Ibn Rushd in Summa Contra Gentiles, and Albert Mag-
nus’s writings against Ibn Rushd, in which Magnus mentions Ibn Rushd‘s
name and his writings (see, for example, Magnus 1940).
The scholastic Europeans’ borrowings of the economic concepts of
Persian Muslims also fall into the same two categories-accepting
without reference, rejecting with reference. Aquinas’s discussion of
division of labor, which resembles Persian views, seems to be of the
first category. Many other economic concepts discussed by Persian and
non-Persian Muslims could have entered (and most probably did enter)
Europe in the same way.
References
Afnan, Soheil. 1958. Avicenna, Life and His Works. London: Allen & Unwin.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1947. Summa Theologian. New York: Benziger Brothers.
. 1955. Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by C. Pegis. New York: Double-
day.
Aristotle. 1921. Politics. Ross edition. Oxford: Clarendon.
. 1985. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. Indianapolis and
Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
Baeck, Louis. 1993. The Economic Thought of Classical Islam and Its Revival.
Working paper, Katholieke Universiteit, Centrum Voor Economische Studiens,
Leuven, Belgium.
Barker, Sir Ernest. 1959. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. New York:
Dover.
Briffault, Robert. 1928. The Making of Humanity. London: G. Allan and Unwin.
Crombie, A. C. 1963. Medieval and Early Modem Science. 2 vols. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press.
Davani, Asaad. 1946. The Akhlaq-e-Jalali. Translated by W. F. Thompson. London:
Oriental Publishing Fund of Great Britain and Ireland.
Durant, Will. 1950. The Age of Faith. Vol. 4. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Essid, Yassine. 1988. Islamic Economic Thought. In Preclassical Economic Thought,
edited by Todd Lowry. Boston: Kluwer.
Farabi, Abu Nasr. 1982. Good City. Translated by Seyyed Jaafar Sajadi. Tehran:
Zuhuri Publishers.
Foley, Vernard. 1974. The Division of Labor in Plato and Smith. HOPE 6.2:220-
42.
Ghazali, Abu Hamed. 1989. Zhya-al- Ulum-al-Deen. Translated by Mohammad
Kharazi. 2d ed. 4 vols. Tehran: Entershat Elmi va Farhango.
Ghazanfar, S. M. 1991. Scholastic Economics and Arab Scholars: The Great Gap
Thesis Reconsidered. Diogenes: International Review of Human Sciences no.
154 (April): 117-40.
. 1994. “Medieval Economic Thought.” Paper presented at the annual con-
ference of the History of Economics Society, Babson College.
Ghazanfar, S. M., and A. Azim Islahi. 1990. Economic Thought of an Arab
Scholastic: Abu Hamed Ghazali. HOPE 22.2:381-403.
Goitein, S . G. 1957. The Rise of the Near-Eastern Bourgeoisie in Early Islamic
Times. Journal of World History 3 (spring): 583-604.
Groenewegen, Peter. 1977. Adam Smith and Division of Labor: A Bicentenary Esti-
mate. Australian Economic Papers 16 (December): 161-74.
. 1987. “Division of Labor.” In vol. 1 of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of
Economics. New York: Stockton Press.
Hammond, Robert. 1947. The Philosophy of Al-Farabi and Its Influence on Medi-
eval Thought. New York: Hobson Book Press.
Harris, Joseph. 1757. An Essay upon Money and Coins. London: G. Hawkins.
Hodgskin, Thomas. [ 18291 1966. Popular Political Economy. Reprint, New York:
A. M. Kelly.
Hosseini, Hamid. 1988. Notions of Private Property in the Literature of Islamic
Economics in Iran. International Journal of Social Economy 15.951-61.
. 1995. Understanding the Market Mechanism before Adam Smith: Eco-
nomic Thought in Medieval Islam. HOPE 27.353941.
. 1996. The Inaccuracy of the Schumpterian Great Gap Thesis: Economic
Thought in Medieval Iran. In Joseph A. Schumpeter -Historian of Economics:
Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, edited by L. Moss. New York:
Routledge.
Hourani, George. 1985. Reason and Tradition in Islamic Ethics. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Ibn Miskaway. 1968. Tahdhib al-Akhlaq (The refinement of character). Translated
by Constantine Zurayk. Beirut: American University of Beirut.
Ibn Sina. 1940. Tadbir Munzel. Tehran: Ibn Sina Publishers.
Kavus, Kai. 1951. Qabus Nameh (A mirror for princes). Translated by R. Levy.
New York: Dutton.
Khadduri, Majid. 1984. The Islamic Conception of Justice. Baltimore: Johns Hop-
kins University Press.
Labib, Subhi. 1969. Capitalism in Medieval Islam. Journal of Economic History
29.1179-96.
Leff, Gordon. 1958. Medieval Thought. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
Lewis, T. J. 1978. Acquisition and Anxiety: Aristotle’s Case against the Market.
Canadian Journal of Economics 11.1:69-90.
Lowry, Todd. 1979. Recent Literature on Ancient Greek Economic Thought. Jour-
nal of Economic Literature 27 (March): 65 - 86.
Magnus, Albertus. 1940. The Secrets of Nature. London: W. Copland.
McNulty, Paul. 1975. A Note on the Division of Labor in Plato and Smith. HOPE
7.3 372 -78.
Mirakhor, Abbas. 1988. Muslim Scholars and the History of Economics: A Need for
Consideration. In Papers on Islamic Banking. Tehran: Central Bank of Iran.
Nasr, S. N. 1970. Science and Civilization in Islam. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. 1975. The Significance of Persian Philosophical Works. In
Essays on Islamic Philosophy and Science, edited by George Hourani. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Nezam-al-Mulk. 1960. Siasat Nameh. Translated by Hubert Darke. London: Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul.
Petty, William [1671] 1963. Political Arithmetick. In The Economic Writings of Sir
William Petty, edited by C. H. Hull. Rev. ed. New York: A. M. Kelly.
Plato. 1941. The Republic. Translated by B. Jowett. New York: Modem Library.
Rubin, Issac Ilyich. [ 19291 1979. A History of Economic Thought. Translated by
Donald Fitzer. London: Ink Links.
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Sedigh, Issan. 1960. Tarikh-e-Farhang-e.Tehran: Tehran University Press.
Sharif, M. M. ed. 1966. A History of Muslim Philosophy. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden, Ger-
many: Otto Harrosowitz.
S k t h , Adam. [ 17761 1985.An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations. New York: Modem Library.
Tusi, Nasir. 1964. The Nasirean Ethics. Translated by G . M. Wickens. London:
Allen & Unwin.
. 1985. Akhlagh-e-Nasseri. Edited by M. Minavi and Ali Reza Haydari. 3d
ed. Tehran: Kharazmi Publishers.
Udovitch, Abraham. 1967. Credit as a Means of Investment in Medieval Islam.
Journal of American Oriental Studies 87.2:261-80.
Watt, W. M. 1972. The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe. Edinburgh: Edin-
burgh University Press.
Zubaida, Sami. 1972. Economic and Political Activism in Islam. Economy and
Society 1.3:308-37.