Islamic Banking and Finance: Sacred Alignment, Strategic Alliances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study from Malaysia adds a new dimension to critiques of Islamic banking and finance (IBF) by studying various aspects of its agency and showing how its growth complements and sometimes supersedes its spiritual components, resulting in new power alignments. The first significant consequence of IBF has been its global role in an emergent multipolar financial and regulatory global space. Second, by the creation of new alliances and governing classes, it demonstrates a capacity for eschewing the encumbrances of older religious structures and institutions. IBF resonates well within the restructuring agenda of a post-neolibcral global financial order, while reshaping the meaning of religion through a post-secular worldview. Here is where the role of the new agents and authorial voices of Islamic commerce have become crucial in mediating the ethical and material tensions of IBF, acting as the free market reformers of once inflexible doctrines. Thus, the sustainability of IBF hinges upon the empowerment of this new class of secular agents. These agents of IBF find their legitimacy through the seemingly unlikely path of dereligionizing Islamic practices through commerce.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".