Islamic economists often criticize that western economists do not show any concern for values other than maximal growth of material wealth, while Islamic economics is focused on welfare and compassion for all. However, all contemporary social thought interprets the idea of 'economic rationality' as inclusive or fully integrated human welfare that includes material prosperity as an important dimension or ingredient of the human development index (HDI).  Economists, in their capacity as pure social scientists, may well suggest models of rapid economic growth (in the restricted sense) without moral or humanitarian constraints or considerations. But it is obvious that they are not allowed to cross certain limits that are set by democratic consensus rather than by purely or exclusively economic considerations. Thus, the protagonists of welfare economics adopt the same basic approach as do Islamic economists. 

The basic spiritual and moral values of all universal religions and also secular value systems are essentially similar even though they differ in their theological beliefs and social customs. Such differences, however, do not negate .their basic agreements which suffice for peaceful coexistence and a sense of harmony. In fact whenever a genuine meeting of minds and hearts takes place between diverse groups, a process of mutual learning is set in motion. Does not this go to show the potential unity of basic values underlying the plural metaphysical beliefs, myths, symbols, rites and rituals of the human family?

The fact of the matter is that liberal humanists, Utopians scientific socialists and Gandhian reformers, no less than Islamic economists, stand for the same values in the long run (despite, obviously, differing on details and on the best means for reaching the values concerned). To suppose that the Marxists or the liberals are oblivious to higher values and that creating material plenty is their only objective is to distort the true picture. Thinkers, reformers teachers, poets and artists of the human family as a whole, have the same dreams and aspirations. We register, even magnify, the lapses of others in their pursuit of power; we hardly notice our own lapses. In the final analysis, therefore, the fault lies in the human clay rather than exclusively in any particular system. And, while we can modify or even replace systems, we cannot alter the human clay, much as we may educate or 'condition' it. Wisdom lies in continually improving the system in the light of actual experience rather than .of priori formulae (religious or secular) and striving to purify the clay without expecting miracles of success and without losing the heart to march along, despite falls and failures, on the endless road to Utopia.5

The contemporary movement of Islamic Resurgence aims to overcome the inertia and stagnation of the Islamic world for the past several centuries. This is very welcome, indeed. However, the worldview of their leaders and ideologues suffers from a grave limitation. They have failed to realise the nature and the impact of the scientific revolution of the 18th century upon the religious sensibility of the modern age. In other words, they continue to believe in the medieval view that all religions, particularly, Islam is a total code of life applicable to every aspect of human life. This basic approach, inevitably, leads to a rejection of spiritual pluralism and reinforces sectarian communitarianism in some form or other. The earlier ‘Islamic liberalism' of the late 19th century, led by Sir Syed of Aligarh, Abduh of Egypt, Iqbal and Azad and their associates, on the other hand, stood for a spiritualized humanism and a secular approach to politics. Their vision of Islam affirmed that the essential concern of religion is with the transcendental or spiritual dimension of human life, not with political, economic, cultural and administrative concerns. They were quite clear that the essential function of religion in an ever changing human situation was inspirational rather than legalistic. The contemporary resurgence movement, on the other hand, for various political reasons, has back-tracked on the earlier liberal humanist approach to Islam and regressed to the medieval view that religion should provide a total code or blue-print of  the ‘good life’ for the true follower. The contemporary champions of Islamic resurgence, for example, the Jamaate Islami, merely seek to ‘adjust’ the ‘shariah’ for meeting contemporary needs, without realizing that there is any need for a deeper questioning of the medieval view of the function and proper jurisdiction of religion in human society and state. In other words, the contemporary movement accepts the medieval theory of religion as a complete and ‘totalist’ map or code of conduct in every walk of life.  This is the essence of what has come to be known as ‘religious fundamentalism’ or the ‘fundamentalist approach to religion’, no matter what its creedal content or name. In this sense there is not only ‘Islamic’ fundamentalism, but ‘Hindu’ fundamentalism, ‘Christian’ fundamentalism, ‘Sikh’ fundamentalism and so on. The implications of this approach are far reaching, indeed, since this approach implies the definitive rejection of the generic liberal approach in the case of all religions as such, rather than merely of liberalism in the house of Islam. This is why the opponents of liberal Islam also oppose liberal Christianity, liberal Judaism, liberal Hinduism or Buddhism and so on. They (perhaps unconsciously) denigrate the ‘liberal attitude’ or mind-set as such in the case of all historical religions and judge their emerging liberal versions in the course of history as unwanted aberrations or deviations from their true original. It is common to hear them say that the liberal reformed Protestant Christianity that emerged in the West under the impact of modern science and the industrial revolution is a toothless degenerate version of Church Christianity. Likewise, the liberal Islam of Muslim reformers or statesmen of the 19th, century in Egypt, India, Indonesia etc is only an apology for rather than true Islam as such. In short, the ideologues of the contemporary form of Islamic resurgence devalue the contribution of the Islamic liberals of the last two centuries.