1. 33 A Note on Islamic Economics eye on a larger community which is all the more genuine for being structured and articulated. His center is God, and this is why he refuses to accept human centers instead, that is, precisely that which consistent centrism, in the form of collectivism, intends to present him with ‖ (p. 137). ―.....The right spirit is one which enables us to combine an overall view with a sense of the particular. On the one hand, we should cultivate a universal approach to all intellectual, political, and economic regionalism and nationalism; on the other hand, we should prize variety and independence at all levels and in all spheres, on the basis of common patrimony of mankind, which is beyond all levels and spheres ‖ (p. 233). On economics, Röpke expresses the view that ―economics is no natural science; it is a moral science and as such has to do with man as a spiritual and moral being ‖ (p. 234). Röpke is quoted extensively here to illustrate how some of the concerns of Islamic economics is echoed in the writings of the earlier traditional economists. It also underlines the appeal made by Professor Salim Rashid and Professor Ali Khan for broadening the view of Islamic economics at this stage of its progress. See also "Against Mechanism: Protecting Economics from Science ‖ by Philip Mirowski, published by Rowan & Littlefield; Totowa, New Jersey, 1988. In an essay by Peter Singer ―Rights and the Market ‖ in Justice and Economic Distribution, edited by John Arthur and William Shaw, Pentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990, (pp. 198-211), the author argues that what maybe rational for an individual in the market from an economic point of view can be irrational from a collective point of view because markets can restrict the options available to individuals and even violate their rights. Also useful are the papers, in the same collection of essays, by David Schweickett, ―Capitalism, Contribution, and Sacrifice, ‖ (pp. 168-181) and ―Efficiency Arguments For and Against the Market ‖ by Allen Buchanan, (pp. 184-197) in the same book. On economics‘ conception of man and the conflict between various dimension of this conception see Serge-Christopher Kolm ―Altruism and efficiency ‖ in Ethics Vol. 94, October 1983 (pp. 18-65). In this paper, Kolm discusses fallacies of Mandeville, Smith, Pareto, and Rousseau. He concludes this interesting paper by saying that ―civilized society will not blossom unless the twenty-first century learns to abandon the fallacies of the eighteen. They have played out their ideological role: the individualization of society; the establishment of the individual as the foundation of legitimacy, both economic (private property and free trade) and political (democracy); and ultimately, of certain individual and collective liberties. Logically, the next stage is the liberation of the reciprocal altruistic extension of individuals which is necessary for the complete realization of their liberty ‖ (p. 62). On rationality and self interest: an assertion of Mancur Olson in his The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Harvard University Press, 1965, which came to be known as the ‗zero contribution thesis‘ was that: ―Unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or