Search results

The British North American colonies were the first western economies to rely on legislature-issued paper monies as an important internal media of exchange. This system arose piecemeal. In the absence of banks and treasuries that exchanged paper monies at face value for specie monies on demand, colonial governments experimented with other ways to anchor their paper monies to real values in the economy. These mechanisms included tax-redemption, land-backed loans, sinking funds, interest-bearing notes, and legal tender laws. I assess and explain the structure and performance of these mechanisms. This was monetary experimentation on a grand scale.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical, historical, and legal account and analysis of how money, an inexorable lubricant of all economies, evolved from metallic origins to acceptance in paper form in Muslim traditions.

This paper underlines flaws, points of objections, corollaries and counter-points, and it ends with a thematic discussion on the way forward for Muslim nations with respect to various political and regulatory implications for implementations of potential paper money alternatives

After undergoing experimentation and customary use of various objects as money (such as sea shells, gold, silver, stones, tobacco, etc.), the world has finally settled down by embracing paper money as an official medium of exchange.

Paper money also endured many financial crises and initial oppositions to its premise. From an Islamic standpoint, paper money poses certain flaws and limitations that can make it unacceptable from legal perspectives.

The article examines Sheikh Ahmad Khatib Al-Minangkabauwi's initial concept of paper money, which in the early 20th century wrote Risala Raf'u Al-Iltibas.

This paper uses a qualitative approach based on the critical extraction analysis that can reveal a set of concepts related to the thoughts of Sheikh Ahmad Khatib Al-Minangkabauwi on paper money.

Through an attentive reading of Sheikh Ahmad Khatib Al-Minangkabawi, the authors can formulate several significant results: First, Ahmad Khatib Al-Minangkabawi applies two methods in studying critically on paper money, namely, the comparative law method and qiyas. Second, Ahmad Khatib believes that paper money has similarities with dinars and dirhams, namely its nominal value function. It is just that the existence of these values is different. Briefly, there are set law consequences for those who used paper money in economic activities, i.e. payment of zakāt on paper money applies when used as business capital.

Sheikh Ahmad Khatib Al-Minangkabawi's work related to paper money is written heavily from the perspective of fiqh. Briefly, it is challenging to describe legal reasoning from work. As a result, articles are also thicker with fiqh analysis.

Sheikh Ahmad Khatib Al-Minangkabawi's view regarding paper money becomes the foundation for the theory of the value of money in Islam. However, it is rarely disclosed. In this regard, this paper can serve as the foundation of the value for money offered by scholars from Indonesia in the early 20th century.

Money is not a commodity. Still, it must be positioned as capital to be productive. It finally becomes why trade is compelling and becomes the most practical reason for paying out zakāt.

It is not easy finding out articles that attempt to reveal the concept of classical ulemas or clerics from Indonesia relating to paper money. This article manages to identify that, and at the same time, becomes a novelty.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

This paper aims to discuss the opinions of current Shariah scholars on the concept of debt money in the present-day fiat money system.

Research design of this paper is a quantitative investigation of Shariah experts by distributing a questionnaire to them. As majority of Shariah scholars are also Shariah advisory of the current banking system, it is important to find out their level of knowledge on the issue of debt money created by the commercial banking system through the fractional-reserve banking (FRB) system.

Based on this investigation, most Shariah scholars are unaware of and confused about the mechanics underpinning the creation of money, especially with respect to FRB as it is practiced by the conventional and Islamic banking systems.

Based on this research, it is recommended that these scholars should improve their understanding of the operation of the fiat money system and its consequences. It is recommended that, in future, Shariah scholars should think “outside of the box” by creating Islamic financial instruments that do not resemble those of the conventional system.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the incentivised steps criminals take to launder cash while avoiding government’s anti-money laundering (AML) measures.

To illustrate how and when technology is most prominent in the money laundering process, this paper analyses the criminal’s methodological approach to “technology-enhanced money laundering” by examining several high-level examples. To strengthen the theoretical assessment and the overall validity of the findings, the author incorporates details from their own research and professional experience to maximise comprehension of the methodological process that organised criminals and money launderers alike look to undertake when placing illicitly derived cash in the money laundering cycle.

The AML model of “placement, layering and integration” is synonymous with presenting the process of money laundering – in the most basic or generic forms. This paper identifies that the placement stage is a primary stage through which technology is exploited to assist in the entire laundering process.

Using money laundering case studies, this paper identifies that existing AML/countering terrorism financing international perceptions/practices and typological studies are not adequate for presenting an accurate assessment of the process used to undertake money laundering.

This paper provides an examination of the practicalities behind the prevention of money laundering from a compliance and investigative perspective. The paper is of interest to those involved in policy, compliance and investigations associated with money laundering.

Marx’s monetary theory is an important part of Marxist economics and an irreplaceable milestone in the intellectual history of the monetary theory. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the main content of Marx’s monetary theory from three aspects: the source and nature of money, the function of money and the historical significance of money.

Moreover, this paper also gives an extended understanding of Marx’s monetary theory from four perspectives: the endogenous credit mechanism of money, the functions of money and demands for money, the financial function of money and the economic and social functions of money.

Lastly, the present paper discusses the practical significance of Marx’s monetary theory from three perspectives, namely, the inspection of “Bitcoin” from the nature and function of money, the definition of demands and the division of supplies at the monetary level, and the prevention of systemic financial risks and the focus of financial supervision.

Marx’s monetary theory is an important part of Marxist economics and an irreplaceable milestone in the intellectual history of the monetary theory. However, for a long time, the contribution of Marx has rarely been mentioned in the intellectual history of monetary theory. Even the book, Political Economy (On Capitalism), has been only summarily concerned with the source and function of money in Marx’s monetary theory, rather than revealing Marx’s outstanding contribution in the monetary theory and the financial connotation of Marx’s monetary theory, and expounding its practical significance.