Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares the rulebooks of five main Shariah-compliant equity indices—DJIMI, KLSI, FTSE Shariah, MSCI Islamic, and STOXX Europe Islamic 50—inside one fixed S&P 500 stock list from Q1 2019 to Q4 2023. For each index, we build both equally weighted and market-capitalization-weighted portfolios, then check their performances with the Sharpe, Treynor, and Jensen’s alpha ratios. All Islamic portfolios beat the regular S&P 500 after adjusting for risk, with STOXX as the most stable winner. Its market-cap version reaches a level of 253.01 by Q4 2023, far above the S&P 500 level of 210.46. Market-cap portfolios, in general, perform better than equally weighted ones. Furthermore, STOXX offer better protection in rough markets, while DJIMI shows relatively better performance when prices recover. Most rule sets cause small advantages to the Islamic portfolios compared to conventional ones, but STOXX’s 33% limit on leverage and liquidity results in higher Sharpe ratios. These results suggest that screening details shape portfolio behavior and point to the need for one clear, shared Shariah rulebook so investors can compare products with confidence. From a business ethics view, our study also shows that strict and open screening brings a real “moral dividend”, as follows: smaller losses when markets fall and stronger risk-adjusted returns overall, linking faith-based rules to the wider talk on responsible investing and stakeholder welfare.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".