An assessment of Islamic Banking in Asia, Europe, USA, and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper reviews the progress of Islamic banking in two major regions, including Asia and the Western world. The paper offers an inclusive discussion of Islamic banking initiatives in several countries of the globe, specifically the countries from the Middle Eastern region, Europe, Australia, Asia, and North America. The discussion for Asian countries includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey, Egypt, Malaysia, Oman, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The paper also appraises the development of the Islamic banking setup in the Western world. The Islamic banking status in the west covers the following countries: United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Canada and the USA. The review of Islamic banking in the two major world regions reflects a progressive Islamic banking setup. The paper entails a qualitative approach to evaluate the Islamic banking progress in various countries by extracting data from different sources, including central banks and other important financial and regulatory institutions. The study affirms that the Islamic banking paradigm emerged and flourished from the Asian states, specifically Middle Eastern and Asian countries, including Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Malaysia, Pakistan and Iran. The findings also suggest that the Islamic banking model has progressed gradually in European and other countries like Australia, the USA and Canada, which warrants a promising potential for the global Islamic banking sector.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".