Is the Market Price a Just Price? (Comparative Analysis of the Approaches of Greek Philosophers, Scholastic Scholars, and Muslim Jurisprudents to Just Price)

The scope of this paper is justice in micro level and particularly market justice from
three different but related paradigms: The ancient Greek philosophical paradigms
(by emphasis on Aristotle's thought), Christian scholastic paradigm in medieval era
(by emphasis on St. Thomas Aquinas thoughts) and jurisprudence paradigm in
Islamic civilization (by emphasis on Allame Helli and Ibn Taimiyah's attitude).
Based on their ethical approach, Aristotle and scholastic scholars considered justice
virtue as an essential principle that dominates all the social and economic relations.
Scholastic's just price doctrine had three main sources: Aristotle theoretical approach
to justice, Romanists practical approach to exchange, and moral approach of
Christianity. Based on these sources, Scholastics concluded that because necessity
(nassesitas) determines both market price and commodity value, the values that are
exchanged in common (competitive) market are equivalent and thus the market price
is just.
Though Muslim jurisprudent had not an independent doctrine about the just price, in
the problems such as pricing (Tas'eir) and usurpation (Ghasb) studied price and
value implicitly. The hypothesis of this paper is that Muslim jurisprudent and
specifically Allameh Helli and Ibn Taimiyah consider \"the price of the equivalent\"
(gheimat-ul-mesl) is just and this price is determined in common market (a market
without intervention and manipulation such as hoarding and monopoly and
asymmetric information); that is, this price reflects common collective evaluation of
commodities.