������������������t Th��������ft�����������������������������������������������������������������������
one of the key criticisms is that a uniform and detailed developmental plan could never capture and reasonably respond to the normal diversity , variety , and complexity of human development . This emphasis on complexity and the limits of controlling and directing development has recently been explored by a number of authors inspired by complexity and systems theories ( Gaddis 2002 ; Geyer & Rihani , 2010 ; Ramalingam , Jones , Reba & Young , 2008 ; Rihani 2002 ).
From this perspective , the development process is seen as a complex adaptive process and nation-states and their citizens as complex adaptive actors :
Some global patterns are predictable , but in the main useful interventions are restricted to enabling interactions … that produce self-organised stable patterns in preference to either order or chaos . Local freedom of action , learning , flexibility are variety are vitally important … Management of Complex Adaptive Systems is , therefore , a reiterative process that relies on slow , and uncertain , evolution . ( Rihani , 2002 , p . 9 )
This complexity approach recognizes that within complex systems there is always a tension between the maintenance of a fundamental order ( basic laws , core social norms , bounded communities ) and the degree of freedom to interact , think , and develop within that fundamental order . Societies can suffer from stultifying political and social rules and norms that block a given societies “ creative complexity ” ( provisions against education for women , class , caste , religion or race restrictions , authoritarian regimes , are just a few of the myriad of examples ). At the same time , other societies can be crippled by rampant disorder as demonstrated by the horrors that occur during wartime , civil war , or violent social / political strife . In both of these cases , a society ’ s ability to self-organize is significantly inhibited and its ability to learn , adapt , and evolve crippled . In these cases , an externally imposed development plan that bears little relation to the particular situation of the country and the variable situations of the local population is at best useless . In fact , as Geyer and Rihani ( 2010 ) argue , most developing countries ,
are at the mercy of a global system that insists on compliance with universal norms that perceive any deviation as a challenge that should be nipped in the bud . The dominance of the neo-liberal economic model , at least up to the so-called credit crunch of 2008-09 , has been possibly the most significant obstacle to healthy diversity and , hence , development . ( Geyer & Rihani 2010 , p . 143 )
Given this perspective , has Islamic development thinking and the Islamic banking sector responded to this complexity challenge ?
Islamic Development Thinking : Drifting Towards a Financial Islamic “ Washington Consensus ?”
Development ” is a relatively new
term in Islamic socioeconomic discourse , with the Arabic word “ �������� ” being used in direct translation . However , the meaning of �������� in Islam requires a more holistic understanding than that of the endless progression suggested in Western theories ( Elmessiri , 1997 ; Kroessin , 2011 ). Islam is a metaphysical ontology that encourages the pursuit of a righteous existence through belief in the oneness of God ( ������ ) who is the embodiment of
44