First off, I’d like to state that I based this ecobabbling (lol) with Mr. Ascarya’s late research back in 2010 about Social Value’s Effect Towards Islamic Money Demand in Indonesia (rough translation, the real thing titled as Analisis Pengaruh Social Values Terhadap Jumlah Permintaan Uang Islam di Indonesia).
Here goes my blab . . .
As we all know, we use fiat money as our medium of exchange in Indonesia, as in currency (not demand deposits kind of money). It’s by any means not the kind of money Rasulullah used back in the day (full-bodied money) like dinar/dirham, but well that’s how it is in Indonesia. Many people think that the case for the gold standard system simply does not stack up for past era, much less nowadays. But well, that’s another thing.
We know that Indonesia isn’t officially named oneself as a Muslim Country. Our current President even stated that he finds USA as his second country. Not another Muslim Country, I mean. Thus, we find no reason not to use fiat money and not to insist in using full-backed money (back to the gold standard economy era).
But in the journal that Gustiani, Ascarya, and Effendi wrote about how social values (such as zakat, infaq, sadaqat) affect Islamic Money Demand (both currency and deposits) they include Indonesia’s currency as one of the variable in Islamic Money Demand, while we all know nothing such as Islamic Money (as in currency) in Indonesia. Only the deposits ones (saving/demand/time).
Well, just saying.
Maybe it’s too fast for us to evaluate Islamic Money Demand kinda thing in a country that only holds Dual Banking System at its hands, not Dual Monetary System. Or we can limit the research area only in Islamic Deposit in Indonesia, not Islamic Money in general.
P.S. No offense, dudes. Half of the things i wrote i did that in not so sober state (half-asleep).
Reading the title, I think one would never get confused about those two terms. But, do we really ?
Sometimes I think people like scholars, researchers, even University Lecturers get tangled between the two concepts and end up throwing some screwed-up logic. Well, forgive me for the rude choice of words, but somehow I feel so pissed (and end up find it rather personal) when the ones who got it wrong are people with great influence for others, like teachers or speakers for example. Because what they said wouldn’t just get through some guy’s head and gone like sand in the sea, but it would last. And worse, perform its domino effect by spreading out all over the planet, which end up getting more people having false perceptions.
Not quite few people think that Islamic money must used in every transaction in order to be called as Islamic transactions. Well, transactions that not crossed Islam’s wires are those that not breaking the Law. That includes any kind of fraud, injustice, forbidden goods (like pigs) and things that break the legitimate of aqd in Islam. NOT transactions that only be held by Muslims, and that every transactions that Muslims have with other people in different religion is not valid, or, in this case, not being Islamic.
As we all know, Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wassalam also had economic activities with Jewish people (in Qainuqa), musyrikin (people who aren’t Muslim), etc. I mean, as long as those transactions never betray Allah’s Law, the light’s green.
People often get confused with perception like : “Islamic economics is every single economic activities held only by Muslims” or things like that.
And thus, they limit Islamic economics’ aspects NOT with the Law, but with their mere presumptions and false opinions.