ABSTRACT
Since proposed by Joh Stuart Mill in 1837, “economic man” has become one of the vital postulates that formed the Neoclassical economics framework. The concept remains a basic assumption in economic policy, despite all the criticism. McCloskey, with a contrast approach called Humanomics made a clear point, arguing that humans are more than a wealth-oriented species. On the other hand, the Islamic worldview emerged with the concept of Homoislamicus, which emphasizes ethics and morality, as scarcity is not more than a Neoclassical fairy tale. Numerous works have covered the comparison between homoeconomicus and homoislamicus. However, a comparative analysis involving humanomics remains largely unexplored. Through a literature-based approach, this study focuses on questioning two fundamental topics: to what extent does the concept of homoeconomicus remain relevant in today’s economic context; and what are the ontological and epistemological similarities and divergences of these three concepts. Ultimately, homoeconomicus, despite its criticisms, remains a necessary construct in economic thought—not as a rigid postulate to dictate market behavior, but as an ontological assumption that need to coexist with both humanomics and homoislamicus. While humanomics and homoeconomicus each incorporate moral and ethical considerations, homoislamicus, we argue, functions primarily as an attempt by the Islamic worldview to assert its position within prevailing economic discourses. In this regard, we propose that Muslim economists should now develop authentic terminology and epistemology to move beyond the persistent critique of imitating the homoeconomicus.