Super efficiency

An-namal
[قَالَ يأَيُّهَا الْمَلأ أَيُّكُمْ يَأْتِينِى بِعَرْشِهَا قَبْلَ أَن يَأْتُونِى مُسْلِمِينَ - قَالَ عِفْرِيتٌ مِّن الْجِنِّ أَنَاْ ءَاتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَن تَقُومَ مِن مَّقَامِكَ وَإِنِّى عَلَيْهِ لَقَوِىٌّ أَمِينٌ - قَالَ الَّذِى عِندَهُ عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَـبِ أَنَاْ ءَاتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَن يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ فَلَمَّا رَءَاهُ مُسْتَقِرّاً عِندَهُ قَالَ هَـذَا مِن فَضْلِ رَبِّى لِيَبْلُوَنِى أَءَشْكُرُ أَمْ أَكْفُرُ وَمَن شَكَرَ فَإِنَّمَا يَشْكُرُ لِنَفْسِهِ وَمَن كَفَرَ فَإِنَّ رَبِّى غَنِىٌّ كَرِيمٌ ]
38. He said: "O chiefs! Which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me surrendering themselves in obedience (as Muslims)'') (39. An `Ifrit from the Jinn said: "I will bring it to you before you rise from your place. And verily, I am indeed strong and trustworthy for such work.'') (40. One with whom was knowledge of the Scripture, said: "I will bring it to you within the twinkling of an eye!'' Then when he saw it placed before him, he said: "This is by the grace of my Lord -- to test me whether I am grateful or ungrateful! And whoever is grateful, truly, his gratitude is for himself; and whoever is ungrateful, certainly my Lord is Rich, Bountiful.''

My note:
1. One way to look at these verses was from an efficiency analysis. Sulayman had great resources.
2. And see how he chose the most efficient way to accomplish the task.

Obligation of an Islamic state

Read the tafsir of the verse below (an-naml:36 & 37) and my comment after that.

The Gift and the Response of Sulayman

More than one of the scholars of Tafsir among the Salaf and others stated that she sent him a huge gift of gold, jewels, pearls and other things. It is apparent that Sulayman, peace be upon him, did not even look at what they brought at all and did not pay any attention to it, but he turned away and said, rebuking them:

[أَتُمِدُّونَنِ بِمَالٍ]

("Will you help me in wealth'') meaning, `are you trying to flatter me with wealth so that I will leave you alone with your Shirk and your kingdom'

[فَمَآ ءَاتَـنِى اللَّهُ خَيْرٌ مِّمَّآ ءَاتَـكُمْ]

(What Allah has given me is better than that which He has given you!) means, `what Allah has given to me of power, wealth and troops, is better than that which you have.'

[بَلْ أَنتُمْ بِهَدِيَّتِكُمْ تَفْرَحُونَ]

(Nay, you rejoice in your gift!) means, `you are the ones who are influenced by gifts and presents; we will accept nothing from you except Islam or the sword.' - Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

My note:
1. The requirement of jihad isclear especially when an Islamic state is established.
2. The response of Sulayman and what Prophet SAW did after he had established Madinah were two points that support the point above.
3. In fact, US did the same - accept democracy or else war.

Gog and Magog economic system

Gog and Magog destroy wealth and properties. How:
1. In the financial system today, money can be 'destroyed' and the destruction causes economic contraction
2. 2008 financial crisis is one example of the global scale effect of the system created by Gog and Magog.

The following are verses of al_Qur'an and the tafsir from Ibn Kathir


[وَتَرَكْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ]

(We shall leave some of them) meaning mankind, on that day, the day when the barrier will be breached and these people (Ya'juj and Ma'juj) will come out surging over mankind to destroy their wealth and property.

[وَتَرَكْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَمُوجُ فِى بَعْضٍ]

(We shall leave some of them to surge like waves on one another;) As-Suddi said: "That is when they emerge upon the people.'' All of this will happen before the Day of Resurrection and after the Dajjal, as we will explain when discussing the Ayat:

[حَتَّى إِذَا فُتِحَتْ يَأْجُوجُ وَمَأْجُوجُ وَهُمْ مِّن كُلِّ حَدَبٍ يَنسِلُونَ وَاقْتَرَبَ الْوَعْدُ الْحَقُّ]

(Until, when Ya'juj and Ma'juj are let loose, and they swoop down from every Hadab. And the true promise shall draw near...) [21:96-97]

2008 Crisis Impacts on the Rich

special report on the rich
Easier for a camel

Apr 2nd 2009
From The Economist print edition
After decades of prospering mightily, the wealthy may now be in for an extended period of austerity, says Philip Coggan (interviewed here)

Illustration by Alex Nabaun

EVEN the wealthy burghers of Monaco are feeling the pinch. At the principality’s Le Metropole shopping mall the winter sales were still in full swing in early February. Upmarket retailers such as Lacoste and Christian Lacroix felt obliged to offer 50% reductions.

The rich will get little sympathy, but they have taken a big hit from the financial crisis. After all, they own a disproportionately large share of the equity and property markets. Many of them derive their wealth directly from the financial sector, working for hedge funds, private-equity firms or investment banks. A survey by Oliver Wyman, a consultancy, estimates that the financial crisis has caused high-net-worth individuals (as the banking industry calls the rich) to lose $10 trillion, or a quarter of their wealth. The annual Forbes list found that the global number of billionaires last year fell to 793 from 1,125, and a report by Spectrem Group, a research company, saw a drop in the number of American millionaires from 9.2m to 6.7m between 2007 and 2008.

A few businessmen who borrowed money against the security of their assets have seen their fortunes almost disappear. In Russia the number of billionaire oligarchs has halved, according to Finans magazine, and the assets of the ten richest tycoons have lost two-thirds of their value. Most spectacularly, one Russian businessman who had reportedly agreed to buy a villa in the south of France for €400m is in danger of losing a €39m deposit after backing out of the deal.

To many people this come-uppance of the rich will seem to be a good thing. The extremes of wealth in “Anglo-Saxon” America and Britain had reached levels not seen since the 1920s. The gains from recent economic growth flowed disproportionately to the wealthy. According to one study by Robert Gordon of Northwestern University and Ian Dew-Becker of Harvard, the top 10% of earners received the vast majority of the benefits of the “productivity miracle” of 1996-2005. Another international study found that only Mexico and Russia had more unequal income distributions than America.

Ajay Kapur, a strategist at Mirae Asset Management, dubbed this state of affairs a “plutonomy”, an economy dominated by the spending of the rich. It was a world where the wealthy might be born in France, work in London, park their money in Switzerland and have their business headquarters in the Cayman Islands. Such people seemed to inhabit a different country from other people, which Robert Frank, a writer, called “Richistan”.

That world of the wealthy emerged from economic and political changes in the early 1970s. Fixed exchange rates were abandoned, financial systems were liberalised, trade unions were confronted and taxes were cut, all of which helped usher in the asset-price booms of the 1980s and 1990s. Some of those who played the markets with borrowed money—the founders of hedge-fund and private-equity firms—became billionaires.

A rebound in profits from the low levels of the 1970s, combined with the use of share options as incentives, allowed chief executives to make fortunes. The opening up of the Russian, Indian and Chinese economies, allied to a boom in commodity prices, created a whole new batch of emerging-market plutocrats.

The size of the accumulated wealth was stupendous. The Forbes 400 richest people in 1982 had a combined net worth of $92 billion; by 2006 they owned $1.25 trillion. To make it onto the first list in 1982, you needed a net worth of $75m; by 2006 you had to be a billionaire. A lot more of this money was self-made; inherited wealth made up over 21% of the first list and under 2% of the 2006 roster. And almost a quarter of the 2006 rich owed their fortunes to the finance sector, compared with less than a tenth back in 1982.
The rich man in his castle

It would have been easy to conclude that the tide of history was simply resuming its usual flow towards greater inequality. For much of the time since records began the normal state of affairs has been extremes of wealth, whether in the hands of aristocratic landowners or industrial entrepreneurs. The period after the second world war, labelled by economists as the “great compression”, when wage differentials narrowed and taxes went up, looked like an historical anomaly.

But now the tide is turning again, reflecting widespread resentment of the mess in which the financial sector has landed the economy. The public may have been willing to tolerate extremes of wealth and pay when the economy was producing growth and jobs, but now it has become more suspicious. Why did bankers enjoy bonuses during the boom years but leave taxpayers to foot the bill during the bust? Why should companies be allowed to dodge taxes and sack workers by shifting operations overseas?

What is happening now could mark one of those sea changes in public policy that seem to come along once in every generation. In the late 19th and early 20th century a decline in American farm incomes prompted a rise of populism and progressivism that led to attacks on corporate trusts in America under Theodore Roosevelt. In the 1930s the Depression led to the New Deal and the re-regulation of the financial sector in America, and the rise of fascism in Europe. Reaction to the economic crisis of the 1970s ushered in the Thatcher and Reagan reforms.

Governments are already trying to deal with public anger about manifestly unfair gains by capping bankers’ bonuses. The level of regulation will increase, and taxes will inevitably rise as governments struggle to contain their bulging budget deficits. As President Obama’s budget proposal showed, the rich will be tempting targets for those tax hikes.

It is also possible that globalisation may come under threat as governments seek to placate their voters by protecting local jobs and industries. Already banks are being urged to lend money to domestic rather than foreign businesses. The German and American governments are leading an attack on bank-secrecy laws in tax havens. The elite may no longer find it so easy to move itself and its capital from country to country, depending on where the returns are highest and the taxes lowest.

All this may bring a reduction in inequality, especially in the Anglo-Saxon economies where it seemed to have increased most. The big question is whether this will be short-lived, linked solely to the crisis, or turn out to be something more structural. Social safety nets are much better developed than they were in the 1930s, which may make the poor less desperate and constrain their anger at the rich. But the search for scapegoats will be on.

For the moment the pressure is being felt by businesses that service the rich. Ferretti, a top-of-the-range yacht manufacturer, has defaulted on part of its debt; creditors are set to get just 11 cents on the dollar. The decision by Saks, an exclusive retailer, to slash prices during the 2008 holiday season caused consternation among some luxury-goods groups. Sales at Tiffany’s American jewellery stores have plunged. De Beers has suspended production at one of its biggest diamond mines.

And even wealthy people who are not feeling the pinch may have become more cautious about spending ostentatiously. Net-a-Porter, an upmarket fashion website, now offers the option of having designer outfits delivered in a brown paper bag.
Fee for no service

Those who look after rich clients’ wealth are already in trouble. Surveys indicate that the better-off are highly dissatisfied with the service provided by their private banks, which failed to protect them from the market falls of the past 18 months. The fraud that caused investors who handed their money to Bernard Madoff to lose tens of billions of dollars has raised new doubts about the safety of portfolios and about the due diligence undertaken by wealth managers.

All that said, there are still plenty of rich people around. Someone was confident enough to pay $20m for a Degas bronze at an auction at Sotheby’s in February. Diners at the Hotel Metropole in Monaco are still willing to shell out €137 for a grand dish of rock lobster.

But the outlook for the rich is no longer the “glad, confident morning” that it seemed just two years ago. In a survey of high-net-worth Americans by Harrison Group in January, 78% said their sense of financial security had been undermined by the crisis; only 46% were optimistic about their own future, against 93% in 2005.

This special report will explain how disparities in wealth and income became so wide in the first place and ask whether that process will now go into reverse. And it will examine how well the rich are coping with the crisis—because that will matter for everyone else too.

Episod Marah-marah Semasa Gawat

Oleh

Mohd Nahar Mohd Arshad
University of Tasmania, Australia


Apabila ekonomi merudum, ramai yang marah-marah. Marah kerana dibuang kerja, tiada bonus, kerugian perniagaan dan dikejar pemiutang adalah antara
sebab yang biasa didengar dalam keadaan ekonomi yang gawat.

Kegawatan Ekonomi 2008 membawa cerita baru dalam episod marah. Sekarang, kerajaan di negara-negara kapitalis juga marah.

Kisah termahsyur ialah marahnya Barak Obama dan Kongres Amerika dengan eksekutif AIG. Syarikata kewangan gergasi yang mendapat pakej bantuan kecemasan ini menggunakan sebahagian besar dana tersebut untuk bayaran bonus eksekutif-eksekutifnya.

Di Australia, kemarahan yang sama juga sedang melanda. Kerajaan Rudd sedang berusaha melaksanakan undang-undang yang memberikan kuasa kepada para pemegang saham bagi menghadkan pemberian bonus kepada eksekutif tertinggi syarikat.

Sebenarnya, isu bonus yang melampau kepada eksekutif syarikat (terutamanya CEO) sudah lama menjadi isu. Ledakan kemarahan dari pihak kerajaan baru sahaja tercetus.

Aktivist pemegang saham sudah lama mempersoalkan kewajaran bayaran bonus yang melampau kepada para eksekutif. Ironi bukan, apabila ketua pegawai eksekutif dijanjikan bayaran berjuta dollar sebelum memulakan tugas! Kerja belum tentu kualiti, duit sudah menggunung tinggi! Masakan apabila syarikat mengalami kerugian, si eksekutif masih mendapat bonus berganda?

Persoalan kemanusiaan juga timbul dalam isu ini. Wajarkah minoriti kecil mendapat jutaan dollar atas kemelaratan pekerja bawahan yang majoriti? Pekerja bawahan biasanya ‘terpaksa’ dibuang bagi syarikat distrukturkan semula. Tetapi, apabila ini dibuat dengan eksekutif tinggi syarikat mendapat habuan berganda, nilai kemanusiaan dalam diri eksekutif dipertikaikan.

Pembuangan pekerja membawa kepada kesan negatif sosial dan ekonomi yang lebih besar dari persepsi makro-ekonomi.

Erupsi Obama dalam contoh AIG di atas tercetus kerana eksekutif AIG yang tidak cemerlang, bersenang dengan duit cukai rakyat. Rakyat sedang merana dek ekonomi yang gawat, mengapa pula duit cukai mereka disalah guna?

Campur tangan pihak kerajaan dalam isu ‘paying terjun emas’ ini melambangkan buruknya model pengurusan syarikat dalam sistem kapitalis. Penglibatan kerajaan juga melambangkan para pemegang saham sudah hilang daya melawan kuasa eksekutif.

Sudah sampai masanya ketidakadilan ini disanggah! Struktur kontrak mudharabah dalam Islam merupakan alternatif terbaik yang boleh diguna pakai.

Fikah dalam kontrak mudharabah ini sudah lama dikupas oleh para cendikiawan Islam bagi menjaga keadilan yang sepatutnya dalam konteks hubungan agen-prinsipal yang harmoni.

Barter corporation

Souped-up swap shops

Mar 17th 2009
From Economist.com
The downturn may be good news for barter exchanges

THE current economic climate has left many companies stuck with unsold stock. They are also struggling to get credit to finance their purchases of supplies. As a result, some are turning to barter exchanges. These are a modern incarnation of a very old practice in which one trader swaps his surplus for someone else’s, sparing both the need to use their scarce cash. The International Reciprocal Trade Association (IRTA), which represents about 100 barter networks around the world, says its adherents expect their trading volumes to rise by around 15% this year.

America is by far the biggest market for such “corporate barter”. But it is apparently growing elsewhere. In 2007 BizXchange, a barter network on America’s west coast, opened a branch in Dubai. At first, business there was scarce because Middle Eastern economies were booming and there was little excess capacity. But as the slowdown goes global, more deals are emerging. BizXchange recently handled a transaction in which $10m-worth of steel from Dubai was ultimately traded for, among other things, some property in America—a business in which there is still plenty of overcapacity.
Mary Evans How they did it in olden days

Of course, the reason that developed economies generally use money to do business is that it is so hard to find suitable partners to barter with. In the case of, say, a clothing distributor with a warehouse full of unsold shirts which needs to buy computers, what are the chances of it finding a computer seller which needs a batch of shirts? For this reason, most barter exchanges operate some sort of shadow currency. A firm that sells its surplus goods or services through the exchange receives credits which it can then spend on the goods or services of any other exchange member. “We make a currency of excess capacity,” explains David Wallach, the IRTA’s president.

It is hard to tell quite how much of this quasi-currency is floating around. Many of the hundreds of exchanges that exist are privately owned and do not report any numbers. The IRTA estimates that transactions worth $10 billion were completed in America last year, with 250,000 companies taking part. The head of one large American trading network reckons that the actual number was nearer $4 billion, after eliminating double-counting.

Unlike real cash, the barter exchanges’ quasi-currencies do not have governments standing behind them. This, combined with the lack of reliable and independent information about some exchanges’ finances, can make bartering a bit of a gamble. In the past, some exchanges have collapsed, leaving participants holding worthless bits of paper. As a self-regulatory body, the IRTA sets minimum financial-reporting standards and other rules that its members must meet. A few of the bigger exchanges—such as International Monetary Systems (IMS), the biggest, which claims 18,000 members—are publicly quoted and thus subject to strict auditing and reporting standards. In general, though, the risks of using barter exchanges are greater for firms that sell physical goods, which cost money to produce, than they are for service providers, whose surplus “stock” has a low marginal cost.

A British barter exchange, Miroma, does without a quasi-currency and instead seeks to line up all sides of each deal before it goes ahead. Miroma mainly serves companies which want to run an advertising campaign but cannot afford to pay for it all in cash and happen to have some surplus stock. Miroma matches these clients with sellers of advertising space (eg, broadcasters and outdoor-poster firms) which are struggling to sell all of their slots. It also finds a third party to buy the client’s surplus stock. Since it receives the advertising slots at a heavy discount, Miroma rewards itself for the risk that some part of the deal will come unstitched and leave it with liabilities.
Click here!

Barter boosters argue that there has been much consolidation in the industry and that the biggest exchanges are very robust. But as the recession bites, more member firms may renege on their debts or fail to deliver goods. While acknowledging that some barter traders may indeed go under in these tough times, the IRTA’s Mr Wallach claims that the failure rate of firms which use barter exchanges is lower than the average for the economy as a whole. This may in part be because belonging to an exchange can be a good way for a company to network with potential new customers with whom it will go on to do deals in real currency.

If so, some firms that go in for bartering out of necessity during the current downturn may find that it continues to be worthwhile when the recovery eventually comes. However, it must be said that bartering enjoyed a similar revival of interest in previous recessions only to fizzle out once the recovery came along. Barter may have its uses at the margins but it will be hard to beat the attractions of getting paid in hard cash.

Why people donate?

Economics focus

Looking good by doing good
Jan 15th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Rewarding people for their generosity may be counterproductive

Illustration by Jac DepczykA LARGE plaque in the foyer of Boston’s Institute for Contemporary Art (ICA), a museum housed in a dramatic glass and metal building on the harbour’s edge, identifies its most generous patrons. Visitors who stop to look will notice that some donors—including two who gave the ICA over $2.5m—have chosen not to reveal their names. Such reticence is unusual: less than 1% of private gifts to charity are anonymous. Most people (including the vast majority of the ICA’s patrons) want their good deeds to be talked about. In “Richistan”, a book on America’s new rich, Robert Frank writes of the several society publications in Florida’s Palm Beach which exist largely to publicise the charity of its well-heeled residents (at least before Bernard Madoff’s alleged Ponzi scheme left some of them with little left to give).

As it turns out, the distinction between private and public generosity is helpful in understanding what motivates people to give money to charities or donate blood, acts which are costly to the doer and primarily benefit others. Such actions are widespread, and growing. The $306 billion that Americans gave to charity in 2007 was more than triple the amount donated in 1965. And though a big chunk of this comes from plutocrats like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, whose philanthropy has attracted much attention, modest earners also give generously of their time and money. A 2001 survey found that 89% of American households gave to charity, and that 44% of adults volunteered the equivalent of 9m full-time jobs. Tax breaks explain some of the kindness of strangers. But by no means all.

Economists, who tend to think self-interest governs most actions of man, are intrigued, and have identified several reasons to explain good deeds of this kind. Tax breaks are, of course, one of the main ones, but donors are also sometimes paid directly for their pains, and the mere thought of a thank-you letter can be enough to persuade others to cough up. Some even act out of sheer altruism. But most interesting is another explanation, which is that people do good in part because it makes them look good to those whose opinions they care about. Economists call this “image motivation”.

Dan Ariely of Duke University, Anat Bracha of Tel Aviv University, and Stephan Meier of Columbia University sought, through experiments, to test the importance of image motivation, as well as to gain insights into how different motivating factors interact. Their results, which they report in a new paper*, suggest that image motivation matters a lot, at least in the laboratory. Even more intriguingly, they find evidence that monetary incentives can actually reduce charitable giving when people are driven in part by a desire to look good in others’ eyes.

The crucial thing about charity as a means of image building is, of course, that it can work only if others know about it and think positively of the charity in question. So, the academics argue, people should give more when their actions are public.

To test this, they conducted an experiment where the number of times participants clicked an awkward combination of computer keys determined how much money was donated on their behalf to the American Red Cross. Since 92% of participants thought highly of the Red Cross, giving to it could reasonably be assumed to make people look good to their peers. People were randomly assigned to either a private group, where only the participant knew the amount of the donation, or a public group, where the participant had to stand up at the end of the session and share this information with the group. Consistent with the hypothesis that image mattered, participants exerted much greater effort in the public case: the average number of clicks, at 900, was nearly double the average of 517 clicks in the private case.

However, the academics wanted to go a step further. In this, they were influenced by the theoretical model of two economists, Roland Benabou, of Princeton University, and Jean Tirole, of Toulouse University’s Institut d’Economie Industrielle, who formalised the idea that if people do good to look good, introducing monetary or other rewards into the mix might complicate matters. An observer who sees someone getting paid for donating blood, for example, would find it hard to differentiate between the donor’s intrinsic “goodness” and his greed.

Blood money
The idea that monetary incentives could be counterproductive has been around at least since 1970, when Richard Titmuss, a British social scientist, hypothesised that paying people to donate blood would reduce the amount of blood that they gave. But Mr Ariely and his colleagues demonstrate a mechanism through which such confounding effects could operate. They presumed that the addition of a monetary incentive should have much less of an impact in public (where it muddles the image signal of an action) than in private (where the image is not important). By adding a monetary reward for participants to their experiment, the academics were able to confirm their hypothesis. In private, being paid to click increased effort from 548 clicks to 740, but in public, there was next to no effect.

The trio also raise the possibility that cleverly designed rewards could actually draw out more generosity by exploiting image motivation. Suppose, for example, that rewards were used to encourage people to support a certain cause with a minimum donation. If that cause then publicised those who were generous well beyond the minimum required of them, it would show that they were not just “in it for the money”. Behavioural economics may yet provide charities with some creative new fund-raising techniques.



*”Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially”, by Messrs Ariely, Bracha and Meier. Forthcoming in American Economic Review, March 2009.

A thought on recession

The recession experienced by Prophet Yusuf a.s was caused by the drought for 7 years. May be during that time recession only happened because of natural calamities or real factors. Nowadays, mankind create the cause (i.e fragile monetary system) plus natural clamities and the real factors.

Defining depression

Economics focus
Diagnosing depression

Dec 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition
What is the difference between a recession and a depression?

THE word “depression” is popping up more often than at any time in the past 60 years, but what exactly does it mean? The popular rule of thumb for a recession is two consecutive quarters of falling GDP. America’s National Bureau of Economic Research has officially declared a recession based on a more rigorous analysis of a range of economic indicators. But there is no widely accepted definition of depression. So how severe does this current slump have to get before it warrants the “D” word?

A search on the internet suggests two principal criteria for distinguishing a depression from a recession: a decline in real GDP that exceeds 10%, or one that lasts more than three years. America’s Great Depression qualifies on both counts, with GDP falling by around 30% between 1929 and 1933. Output also fell by 13% during 1937 and 1938. The Great Depression was America’s deepest economic slump (excluding those related to wars), but at 43 months it was not the longest: that dubious honour goes to the one in 1873-79, which lasted 65 months.
Click here

Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s was not a depression, according to these criteria, because the largest peak-to-trough decline in real GDP was only 3.4%, over the two years to March 1999. Since the second world war, only one developed economy has suffered a drop in GDP of more than 10%: Finland’s contracted by 11% during the three years to 1993, mainly thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union, then its biggest trading partner.

Emerging economies, however, have been much more depression-prone. Among the 25 emerging economies covered each week in the back pages of The Economist, there have been no fewer than 13 instances in the past 30 years of a decline in real GDP of more than 10%. Argentina and Poland were afflicted twice. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand all suffered double-digit drops in output during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, and Russia’s GDP shrank by a shocking 45% between 1990 and 1998.

The left-hand chart shows The Economist’s ranking of slumps in developed and emerging economies over the past century. It excludes those during wartime (both Germany and Japan, for example, saw output plunge by 50% or more after 1944). The depressions in Germany and France in the 1930s make it into the top 12, but not that in Britain, where GDP fell by a relatively modest 6%.

Before the 1930s all economic downturns were commonly called depressions. The term “recession” was coined later to avoid stirring up nasty memories. Even before the Great Depression, downturns were typically much deeper and longer than they are today (see right-hand chart). One reason why recessions have become milder is higher government spending. In recessions governments, unlike firms, do not slash spending and jobs, so they help to stabilise the economy; and income taxes automatically fall and unemployment benefits rise, helping to support incomes. Another reason is that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when countries were on the gold standard, the money supply usually shrank during recessions, exacerbating the downturn. Waves of bank failures also often made things worse.

But a recent analysis by Saul Eslake, chief economist at ANZ bank, concludes that the difference between a recession and a depression is more than simply one of size or duration. The cause of the downturn also matters. A standard recession usually follows a period of tight monetary policy, but a depression is the result of a bursting asset and credit bubble, a contraction in credit, and a decline in the general price level. In the Great Depression average prices in America fell by one-quarter, and nominal GDP ended up shrinking by almost half. America’s worst recessions before the second world war were all associated with financial panics and falling prices: in both 1893-94 and 1907-08 real GDP declined by almost 10%; in 1919-21, it fell by 13%.

The economic slumps that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and those during the Asian crisis were not really depressions, argues Mr Eslake, because inflation increased sharply. On the other hand, Japan’s experience in the late 1990s, when nominal GDP shrank for several years, may qualify. A depression, suggests Mr Eslake, does not have to be “Great” in the 1930s sense. On his definition, depressions, like recessions, can be mild or severe.

Another important implication of this distinction between a recession and a depression is that they call for different policy responses. A recession triggered by tight monetary policy can be cured by lower interest rates, but fiscal policy tends to be less effective because of the lags involved. By contrast, in a depression caused by falling asset prices, a credit crunch and deflation, conventional monetary policy is much less potent than fiscal policy.
Yes, we have no bananas

Where does that leave us today? America’s GDP may have fallen by an annualised 6% in the fourth quarter of 2008, but most economists dismiss the likelihood of a 1930s-style depression or a repeat of Japan in the 1990s, because policymakers are unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the past. In the Great Depression, the Fed let hundreds of banks fail and the money supply shrink by one-third, while the government tried to balance its budget by cutting spending and raising taxes. America’s monetary and fiscal easing this time has been more aggressive than Japan’s in the 1990s.

However, these reassurances come from many of the same economists who said that a nationwide fall in American house prices was impossible and that financial innovation had made the financial system more resilient. Hopefully, they will be right this time. But this crisis was caused by the largest asset-price and credit bubble in history—even bigger than that in Japan in the late 1980s or America in the late 1920s. Policymakers will not make the same mistakes as in the 1930s, but they may make new ones.

In 1978 Alfred Kahn, one of Jimmy Carter’s economic advisers, was chided by the president for scaring people by warning of a looming depression. Mr Kahn, in his next speech, simply replaced the offending word, saying “We’re in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years.” America’s economy once again has a distinct whiff of bananas.

Skim Cepat Kaya Wall Street

Oleh

Mohd Nahar Mohd Arshad
University of Tasmania, Australia

Kisah skandal Bernard Madoff yang mengaibkan Wall Street bakal menutup tirai 2008 yang menjadi tahun Krisis Kewangan alaf baru. Banyak teladan terutama dalam hal pengurusan kewangan dapat dijadikan iktibar.

Krisis kewangan 2008 menunjukkan bahawa sistem kewangan yang berasaskan rizab berkanun, wang kertas dan riba sangat rapuh. Serapuh sistem cepat kaya ala Madoff (skim piramid), bezanya hanya kerana sistem kewangan sekarang mendapat sokongan dari pelbagai institusi yang diiktiraf undang-undang.

Menyorot apa yang berlaku di Amerika Syarikat (AS), sistem kewangan semasa begitu bermaharajalela mengambil duit semua. Kita dikenakan caj untuk membuat deposit. Juga dicaj apabila membuat pinjaman. Lebih parah, wang cukai rakyat ‘diambil’ atas nama menyelamatkan institusi kewangan apabila ia gagal.

Di samping ‘keistimewaan’ di atas, institusi kewangan juga berkuasa mencipta dan memusnahkan wang. Wang dicipta apabila pinjaman diberikan dan wang dimusnahkan apabila hutang dibayar. Di antara aktiviti mencipta dan memusnahkan wang ini, riba/faedah dicaj sebagai untung kepada institusi kewangan.

Natijahnya, wang menjadi begitu banyak dan hanya segelintir manusia yang faham dengan kaedah operasi kewangan parasit ini memilikinya. Mereka yang memiliki kekayaan ini terus berfikir untuk menjadi lebih kaya.

Oleh Kerana sistem riba/faedah menjanjikan peningkatan kekayaan berganda, tumpuan utama kegiatan kewangan lebih kepada aktiviti memberi hutang. Pelbagai produk hutang diinovasi dan ditampal dengan label baru dalam kegiatan ‘memusing’ duit yang menjana duit.

Dengan kewujudan pelbagai produk kewangan, aktiviti memusing duit oleh institusi kewangan moden menjadi bertambah kompleks. Ramai pakar kewangan mengakui bahawa mereka sudah hilang realiti dengan dunia kewangan masa kini.

Dengan dana yang membesar saban tahun, dan tekanan untuk memberikan pulangan yang memuaskan kepada pelabur, pakar-pakar kewangan ini bertemu dengan mereka yang lebih pakar, iaitu Bernard Madoff (dan konco-konconya).

Madoff yang mempunyai reputasi ‘cemerlang’ dalam hal memusing duit (secara piramid) ibarat orang mengantuk yang disorongkan bantal.

Maka bergabunglah kaedah memusing duit yang diiktiraf undang-undang ciptaan manusia dengan sistem memusing duit ala Madoff atau Pak Man Telo.

Janji Allah SWT dalam surah al-Baqarah ayat 276 bahawa riba tidak akan meningkatkan kekayaan, malah akan menyusutkannya adalah benar! Buktinya, skandal Madoff menunjukkan betapa kedua-dua aktiviti riba yang dicela Allah SWT (Al-Baqarah: 275-281) akhirnya bersekongkol dan kemudiannya rebah. Bersamanya lenyap sejumlah besar kekayaan.

Punca Sebenar Penurunan Harga Minyak

Oleh Mohd. Nahar Mohd. Arshad

harga minyak telah menunjukkan peningkatan yang mencemaskan beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini. Namun, hanya dalam beberapa minggu mutakhir, minyak kini berada pada paras AS$69 dan ke bawah setong.

Melegakan? Ya! Tetapi sebenarnya penurunan harga minyak pada masa ini hanya bersifat sementara.

Hakikatnya, trend penurunan harga minyak (dan komoditi lain) ketika ini tidak menepati perkaitan antara harga minyak dan keadaan ekonomi.

Lazimnya, kedudukan harga komoditi seperti minyak dan emas adalah tinggi sejurus sebelum dan semasa krisis ekonomi. Tetapi, apa yang diamati sekarang, berlaku penurunan yang mendadak pada harga minyak dan komoditi lain tatkala krisis kewangan global sedang memuncak!

Keadaan ini menimbulkan satu prasangka yang membimbangkan di kalangan ramai pakar ekonomi. Apa sebenarnya yang terjadi?

Teori permintaan dan penawaran minyak/komoditi tidak begitu signifikan untuk menjelaskan trend semasa.

Jawapan sebenarnya berkait rapat dengan sistem mata wang kertas ketika ini.

Duit kertas boleh 'dicipta' dan 'dimusnahkan' dengan mudah. Duit dicipta apabila institusi kewangan memberi pinjaman. Duit dimusnahkan apabila kita membayar balik hutang.

Pembayaran balik hutang, pelupusan hutang dan penguncupan kredit merupakan kaedah duit kertas 'dimusnahkan'. Inilah yang berlaku di Amerika Syarikat (AS) sekarang.

Apabila duit 'dimusnahkan' bekalannya semakin berkurangan. Kurangnya bekalan duit akan menyebabkan nilai atau harga barangan di pasaran terpaksa turun.

Berikutan dolar Amerika merupakan mata wang utama dunia, maka kita perhatikan harga minyak, komoditi dan apa sahaja yang dinilai dalam dolar mengalami penurunan. Inilah punca utama kepada trend penurunan harga minyak sekarang.

Selain itu, penguncupan kredit di AS akan mengakibatkan kelembapan ekonominya. Ekonomi negara-negara lain akan turut terjejas kerana AS menjadi destinasi eksport banyak negara.

Eksport ke AS yang menurun oleh banyak negara akan membawa kepada kelembapan ekonomi dunia.

Kelembapan ekonomi bermakna penguncupan pendapatan. Ini akan mengakibatkan permintaan barangan dan perkhidmatan menurun, termasuklah minyak.

Namun, faktor ini bukanlah penjelasan utama kepada trend penurunan sekarang.

Apa yang perlu ditegaskan ialah trend penurunan komoditi sekarang bersangkutan dengan masalah sistem kewangan itu sendiri - duit kertas dan riba.
Selagi sistem mata wang tidak diubah (mata wang emas sebagai contoh), krisis ekonomi dan ketidakstabilan harga akan terus berlaku.

WHat explains the decline in the price of oil at the moment?

The following is the answer given to me by Dr. Ahamed Kameel:

Question (Nahar): Just to get yr opinion, why the current price of oil (even commodities) is declining? I find the trend awkward and suspicious given the present global crisis. So far I haven't find satisfactory answers to explain the phenomenon.


Answer (Dr, Ahamed Kameel): Nahar, the credit crunch is effectively the destruction of fiat money. This is one absurd characteristic of fiat money...it can be destroyed, through mere accounting, particularly when people default on loans. Its like what we faced with the NPLs during the 1997 crisis.

When money gets destroyed, here dollars, the supply of it shrinks and, according to quantity theory of money, all prices particularly those priced in dollars must come down to match this shrink. This is why you notice all prices including oil, gold, commodities, homes, stock market etc are all falling.

The destruction of money is expected to bring about a global recession, triggered by a recession in the US. Accordingly the demand for oil is also expected to fall. This further contributes to the fall in the oil price.
On the other hand, the dollar exchange rate is rising because of the same reason too, i.e. the supply of dollars in forex is falling. Also note that banks are the major players in the forex market and they are getting busted. Additionally, the demand for dollars is also on the rise because many hedge funds are leaving foreign financial markets, converting back into dollars, since all are expected fall in tune with the US stock market. The demand for dollars for international trade is also still there.

Once nations absorb their losses and move on, the dollar would become a much devalued currency. A new dollar might even be introduced. Thereafter (I think by first quarter of next year) gold would start to rally again leaving dollar behind. The price of commodities would follow suit.

That's how I see it. Wallahu a'lam.

Dr Ahamed Kameel Mydin Meeran is the Dean of Institute of Islamic Banking & inanceInternational Islamic University Malaysia

Krisis Kredit 2008: Apabila Melampaui Batas

Fitrah kejadian, semuanya mempunyai batasan yang telah ditentukan Pencipta. Lihatlah pada peredaran planet, bulan dan bintang, tetap pada orbit masing-masing.

Namun di kalangan manusia, ada mereka yang menganggap kebebasan adalah mutlak. Lantas, pemahaman ini menjadikan ramai yang bertindak melangkaui batas fitrah kejadian.

Krisis kredit masa kini adalah manifestasi sikap manusia yang lupa akan batasan masing-masing. Apabila ketamakan dianggap baik (greed is good), maka lahirlah kehodohan dalam kegiatan manusia mencari keuntungan duniawi.

Kini, dalam kegawatan krisis yang meruncing, institusi kewangan dipersalahkan. Akibat dari sikap tamak, institusi kewangan menjadi agen pengurup wang yang kemudian meminjamkan wang tersebut kepada mereka yang memerlukan. Hasil dari riba, mereka mendapat habuan lumayan.

Mengenakan faedah atau riba merupakan batasan utama yang tidak patut dilanggar kerana ia telah ditetapkan oleh Pencipta. Agama Islam dengan keras mengharamkan riba. Agama Kristian dan Judaism, pada asalnya begitu juga. Apabila batasan ini dinodai, malapetaka yang dijanjikan akan muncul akhirnya (rujuk al-Qur'an 2:276-279).

Kes melampaui batas yang seterusnya, wujud dalam cara sistem kewangan dikendalikan. Secara logika akal, si pemberi pinjam mestilah mempunyai jumlah wang yang lebih dari jumlah yang hendak dipinjamkan. Sebaliknya, dalam sistem kewangan sekarang, jumlah yang dipinjamkan adalah berganda-ganda melampaui deposit yang ada. Maka, sekali lagi Krisis Kredit sekali ini menjadi hukuman kepada manusia yang terus-menerus melampaui batas.

Perhatikan pula kepada isu pinjaman sub-prima yang menjadi punca kepada permasalahan sekarang. Istilah sub-prima itu sendiri membawa maksud 'di bawah kelas utama'. Ia merujuk kepada mereka yang tidak punya kemampuan untuk membayar balik pinjaman. Tetapi, mereka tetap mendapat pinjaman dari institusi kewangan!

Tanyakan persoalan ini ke dalam diri, "Jika anda tidak punya kemampuan untuk membuat bayaran balik pinjaman perumahan, adakah anda akan menerima tawaran bank untuk pinjaman tersebut?"

Sekiranya jawapan yang diberi adalah ya, anda sudah melampaui batas. Maksud di sini, melampaui batas kemampuan untuk membayar balik pinjaman. Dan sudah pasti, jika pinjaman tetap dibuat, malapetaka kewangan akan melanda diri.

Dahsyatnya tsunami kredit sekarang, ianya berlaku dalam skala yang besar. Manusia rata-rata sudah melampaui batas!

Justeru, manusia perlu kembali kepada fitrah asal kejadian. Jangan melampaui batas!

Agama Islam menyediakan satu sistem ekonomi yang begitu menyeluruh dari segi kepercayaan/ideologi, akhlak dan tingkah laku serta undang-undang perlaksanaan kehidupan. Semuanya berjalan serentak dengan harmoni dalam ruang lingkup yang tidak membatasi fitrah Ilahi.

Kaedah Mengatasi Krisis Kredit

Mohd Nahar Mohd Arshad
University of Tasmania, Australia

Kekayaan material tidak luas skopnya. Rumah kediaman, tanah ladang, haiwan ternak, kenderaan, wang, emas permata dan anak-pinak, itulah antara perkara-perkara yang dijelaskan di dalam surah Ali Imran ayat 14 berhubung kekayaan material.

Dalam konteks ekonomi masa kini, nilaian harta-harta yang disebutkan di atas (kecuali anak-pinak), biasanya diterjemahkan dalam bentuk kertas. Misalnya, kita mempunyai saham dan bon yang berkaitan dengan hartanah, komoditi dan sebagainya.

Krisis hutang/kewangan 2008 yang berpusat di AS menyaksikan kekayaan material yang dijana oleh ekonomi berasaskan riba, tiba-tiba lenyap begitu sahaja. Nilai hartanah di Amerika Syarikat (AS) merudum, pasaran saham merosot teruk, dan tekanan inflasi terus meningkat.

Lebih buruk lagi, situasi di atas wujud dalam keadaan hutang-piutang yang tinggi di kalangan isi rumah, syarikat-syarikat, malahan kerajaan AS sendiri.

Kebanyakan isi rumah di AS sekarang berhadapan dengan nilai bersih kekayaan yang negatif. Bayangkan; kebanyakan mereka berhutang untuk membeli rumah, saham dan keperluan harian! Malang minimpa apabila nilai rumah dan saham yang dibeli jatuh dari nilai belian.

Rumah dan saham yang dahulu dianggap sebagai satu pelaburan, kini menjadi biawak hidup yang terpaksa ditanggung. Hendak dijual, tiada pembeli yang membida. Ini berikutan sikap bank yang kini waspada memberi hutang dan sentiment pengguna yang lemah.

Untuk mengatasi masalah ini, pakar ekonomi konvensional mengesyorkan agar kegiatan memberi hutang digalakkan kembali. Ini sesuatu yang ironi!

Tetapi itulah hakikat sistem ekonomi sekarang. Ia sangat bergantung kelangsungannya dengan ‘mesin’ hutang!

Hutang ibarat oksigen dalam sistem ekonomi yang ada. Tanpa oksigen, manusia boleh mati kelemasan. Begitulah juga keadaannya dengan sistem ekonomi sekarang.

Melihat kepada krisis sekarang, satu alternatif sistem kewangan baru perlu difikirkan. Cadangan sistem mata wang emas yang pernah hangat suatu ketika dahulu wajar difikirkan semula.

Selain itu, mereka yang ditindas dengan riba dan hutang perlu dibebaskan. Al-Qur’an dengan jelas menerangkan kaedah dan jalan keluar kepada masalah hutang.

Dalam surah al-Baqarah ayat 279 dan 290, Allah berfirman: Oleh itu, kalau kamu tidak juga melakukan (perintah mengenai larangan riba itu), maka ketahuilah kamu: akan adanya peperangan dari Allah dan RasulNya, (akibatnya kamu tidak menemui selamat). dan jika kamu bertaubat, maka hak kamu (yang sebenarnya) ialah pokok asal harta kamu. ... Dan jika orang yang berhutang itu sedang mengalami kesempitan hidup, maka berilah tempoh sehingga ia lapang hidupnya dan (sebaliknya) Bahawa kamu sedekahkan hutang itu (kepadanya) adalah lebih baik untuk kamu, kalau kamu mengetahui (pahalanya yang besar yang kamu akan dapati kelak).

Bail out

Too many issues on bail out:
1. Who should get it?
2. How much each entitled deserve?
3. Do the govt really got the money for the bail out? May be the next time of crisis, the govt itself need the money
4. Isn't bail out is a kind of financial socialism, which to a capitalist like US, they just can't accept it.
5. After all, the bail out will not solve the real problem. If root of a tree is rotten, you can't just put some more fertilizer to heal the tree.

On Oil: Speculators versus OPEC

Both parties can affect the oil market in different ways. Speculators are very influential in manipulating the oil price artificially. Without real oil involves in the transactions (paper oil), speculators basically take advantage of any position in the arbitrage activities.

OPEC, on the other hand, affects the real oil market by engaging in the supply activity. It is reported that OPEC has come to its optimum production capabilities. This means OPEC will need longer period to increase oil supply.

In contrast, speculators can be very dominant in affecting price in the short run.

In order to stabilize the oil price, it is important to stop the speculative activities altogether. After all, speculation activities only benefit a few minorities at the expanse of large majority.

At the same time, the cartel power of OPEC must be put under scrutiny as the monopoly position is also unhealthy to the market.

It is not easy to evaluate which effect is more dominant than the other. Speculative activities can be very significant when speculators heavily engage in tradings. This can be seasonal as timing is a very critical factor in speculation. on the other hand, OPEC reactions usually depend on market conditions. Apart from meeting global oil demand, political pressure can be another factor that determines OPEC production. All these contribute to the dynamic of market forces.

Meaning of wealth

Biar miskin harta jangan miskin jiwa by Mohd Asri

Material wealth is not harmful to Muslims. Only Muslims need to manage the wealth according to Shari'ah. I elaborate the 'how' in my book Hidup Kaya Tanpa Riba

Review of my book: Hidup Kaya Tanpa Riba

Iqra: Mengumpul, belanja harta secara berhemah

From Berita Harian, 23 April 2008

Iqra: Mengumpul, belanja harta secara berhemah

JIKA ingin kaya, jauhi diri daripada riba dan banyakkan bersedekah. Malangnya dalam dunia materialistik masa kini, persoalan riba dan kaedah membina kekayaan serta menguruskan kewangan peribadi jauh bercanggah daripada yang dianjurkan Islam. Islam menganjurkan umatnya menjadi kaya. Justeru untuk memahami persoalan kaya daripada perspektif Islam, buku Hidup Kaya Tanpa Riba boleh dijadikan panduan bagi individu membina kekayaan melalui pengurusan kewangan peribadi. Buku ini mengungkap persoalan membina kekayaan dalam perspektif Islam mendepani cabaran abad ke-21 yang menghurai konsep seperti kaya, rezeki, zuhud dan kepentingan mengingati mati sebagai dorongan mengejar kekayaan dunia tanpa mengabaikan akhirat.

Buku ini turut memberi pelbagai tip dan strategi penting dalam soal membina kekayaan, pengurusan kewangan peribadi yang praktikal dan mudah diikuti selain membawa pembaca memahami serta berusaha mencari rezeki halal lagi diberkati. Hakikatnya ilmu berkaitan pengurusan dan kewangan peribadi penting tetapi tidak banyak pendedahan mengenainya terutama berkaitan ilmu pengurusan berasaskan ajaran Islam menyebabkan ramai tidak tahu mengatur sistem kewangan mereka. Ini ditambah dengan kejahilan terhadap riba yang mendominasi setiap sudut kehidupan manusia menjadikan pengurusan harta mengikut kehendak syarak semakin mencabar sedangkan Islam jelas mengharamkan amalan riba.

Pengenalan buku Hidup Kaya Tanpa Riba membawa pembaca memahami mengenai kekayaan daripada kaca mata Islam dengan melihat sejarah awal perkembangan Islam bermula pengorbanan agung Siti Khadijah, peniaga kaya di Makkah. Menggunakan kekayaan yang ada, dakwah Islam digerakkan, begitu juga sahabat Baginda SAW, Uthman bin Affan yang terkenal dengan kekayaan sanggup membeli perigi untuk diwakafkan bagi kegunaan orang ramai.

Sahabat Nabi SAW yang berharta bukan saja berkorban jiwa dan raga untuk Islam malah, mereka turut berkorban kekayaan demi agama yang tercinta. Lantaran, Islam hebat kerana acuan ajarannya membawa manusia mencapai tahap rohani dan akhlak yang tinggi. Itulah yang diperlukan umat Islam hari ini iaitu ilmu memantapkan pengurusan kewangan secara Islam serta strategi meningkatkan ekonomi, membina kekayaan serta mengatur perbelanjaan mengikut kehendak Islam.

Antaranya, umat Islam dituntut membelanjakan harta kekayaan diperoleh dengan cara berhemah seperti firman Allah yang bermaksud: “Kitab al-Quran ini, tidak ada keraguan padanya; petunjuk bagi mereka yang bertakwa, iaitu orang yang beriman kepada perkara ghaib dan mendirikan sembahyang serta membelanjakan sebahagian daripada rezeki yang kami berikan kepada mereka.” - (Surah al-Baqarah, ayat 2-3) Buku hasil tulisan pensyarah fakulti ekonomi Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM), Mohd Nahar Mohd Arshad turut menggariskan enam perkara penting yang perlu dipenuhi dalam membelanjakan harta kekayaan dalam bab 16. Turut dibincangkan ialah impak krisis kewangan serta perspektif Islam mengenai hutang dan panduan asas mengurus hutang menepati kehendak masyarakat hari ini yang kebanyakan hidup dikelilingi masalah pengurusan kewangan. Buku Hidup Kaya Tanpa

Riba secara umumnya tidak memfokuskan perihal riba secara khusus sebaliknya mengembangkan topik utama yang dapat mencegah umat Islam daripada terbabit dengan amalan riba.

Judul: Hidup Kaya Tanpa Riba
Penulis: Mohd Nahar Mohd Arshad
Penerbit: PTS Millennia Sdn Bhd
Pengulas: Hasliza Hassan
Harga: RM21 (Semenanjung Malaysia), RM24 (Sabah dan Sarawak)

Problems in Islamic Banking - From Harakahdaily

I'm not a supporter of Islamic Banking. In fact, the idea of banking itself is not originated from an Islamic system. Thus, when we take the idea of banking system and make it "Islamic", systemic problems that are sometimes more serious than the one we can find in the conventional system is unavoidable.

However, given that we have no alternative, Islamic Banking is the main option that we have before us (to avoid from any unIslamic practice in finance). If you read the article below, it seems that the conventional banking might look better compared to the Islamic one. But be careful! I give you a parable to see the case which is quite similar to the story below (the BBA case).

Let say there are two beef sellers; one (seller A) selling pork for $2 per kg and another seller (seller B) sells halal beef for $4 per kg. To make it worse, say that seller B (the halal beef seller) cheated! When he weights his beef, it's just 0.5 kg but he still charges $4.

As a Muslim, from which seller will you buy the meat (assume that there is no other meat selers)?

I believe, a true Muslim will buy from seller B regardless of 1) the expensive price, and 2) being cheated. This is simply because pork is haram and we must avoid it. As for seller B who charges more and measures less, that is between him and Allah ultimately. Of course we can bring the case to the right authority.

The Case that I Refer

Pinjaman perumahan pembiayaan kewangan Islam mencekik darah?
SM Mohamed Idris Fri Apr 04, 08 11:24:19 am MYT
Diarah membayar RM505,368.54, apabila bank hanya membayar RM10,000. Lebih malang beliau diarah membayar RM505,368.54 (sama dengan keuntungan berserta dengan jumlah yang dibahagikan kepada pemaju) dan lebih daripada itu, kos guaman pula mencecah sehingga RM17,450! Semua ini adalah kepada bayaran sebanyak RM10,000 yang telah dibuat oleh bank kepada pemaju projek yang gagal itu. Ini berlaku kepada peminjam-pinjaman perumahan sebuah perbankan Islam. -->-->
Ini adalah kisah benar. Abdul (bukan nama sebenar) memutus untuk memiliki sebuah kondominium pilihan keluarganya pada tahun 1997 melalui pembiayaan kewangan Islam. Abdul ketika itu merupakan seorang eksekutif muda yang berusia 31 tahun dan baru sahaja menaiki tangga kejayaan dalam kariernya selepas menamatkan pengajian daripada Universiti Islam Antarabangsa enam tahun yang lalu.
Abdul yang telah berkahwin dan mempunyai dua orang anak dan berlatar belakang dalam Ekonomi Islam ini, hendak memastikan dapat membeli kondominium untuk didiami oleh keluarganya.
Baginya, pembelian ini hendaklah bebas daripada sebarang riba yang dilarang dalam kepercayaan Islam. Memandangkan pembiayaan rumah cara konvensional ini dikenakan riba, dia memutus untuk membiayai pembelian rumahnya dengan menggunakan prinsip pembiyaan al-bay bithaman ajil (BBA) yang ditawarkan oleh bank terbabit.
Harga pasaran kondominium yang dibeli oleh Abdul disenaraikan sebanyak RM249,500 oleh pemaju. Kondominium berkenaan masih dalam pembinaan. Dalam kontrak, bank berkenaan sepatutnya membeli semula rumah tersebut daripada Abdul dan menjual semula kepadanya dengan harga RM744,766.34.
Bunyinya mungkin agak pelik. Kenapa pula seseorang itu perlu menjual dengan harga RM249,500 dan membeli kembali barangan yang sama pada hari yang sama dengan harga RM 744,766.34, dengan memberikan keuntungan kepada pihak yang lain.
Alasannya adalah, Abdul diberikan 30 tahun untuk membayar balik secara bulanan sebanyak RM1,013.73 (dengan perbezaan dalam sen) untuk tiga tahun pertama (2.71%) dan RM2,186.04 bulanan untuk 27 tahun yang seterusnya.
Ini memberikan kadar faedah tahunan sebanyak 8.4 peratus. Konsep membeli sebuah aset dan menjual semula kepada orang sama dikenali sebagi bay al-inah.
Tetapi bagaimana pula Abdul memperoleh rumah sebelum menjualnya kepada pihak bank? Lagipun ketika itu ketara yang Abdul sedang mencari pembiaya sewaktu kondominiumnya masih lagi dalam pembinaannya. Ya, sudah tentu bank berkenaan menyediakan kewangan dengan memberikan wang secara berperingkat memandangkan rumah berkenaan masih dalam pembinaan.
Dalam sistem konvensional agak jelas bahawa apabila pihak bank mula menyalurkan bayaran kepada pemaju, faedah akan dikenakan mengikut perkembangan bayaran yang dibuat.
Namun begitu, dalam konsep BBA, dua kontrak jual terlibat. Walaupun jelas bank membiayai pembiayaan kondominium berkenaan, pelanggan perlu menjual aset berkenaan kepada bank sebelum membelinya kembali di bawah konsep inah.
Konsep inah ini dianggap sebagai tidak Islamik oleh kebanyakkan ulama Timur Tengah. Kerana walaupun ia melibatkan dua kontrak jualan, ia secara asasnya merupakan kontrak pinjaman yang mempunyai tujuan. Namun, konsep ini diiktriaf oleh kebanyakkan ulama Syariah di Malaysia. Walau bagaimanapun, dibawah konsep inah, masalah yang sedia ada boleh menjadi lebih teruk lagi.
Kes Abdul ini terjadi sewaktu Asia Tenggara dilanda krisis ekonomi, telah menyebabkan projek kondominum berkenaan tergendala dan terbiar. Pemaju berkenaan pula menghilang diri entah ke mana. Ketika itu, hanya kerja-kerja asas sahaja yang dijalankan di tapak projek berkenaan dan pihak bank telah pun mengeluarkan RM10,000 kepada pemaju. Abdul dan pembeli-pembeli lain kerap mengunjungi tapak pembinaan dengan harapan untuk melihat pemaju menyambung semula kerja pembinaan tetapi kecewa.
Akhirnya, selepas putus asa, Abdul bertemu pihak bank dan memaklumkan situasi yang dialaminya. Dia menawarkan untuk membayar bank RM10,000 yang telah pun dibayar oleh bank kepada pemaju.
Dia menganggap bahawa dia sedang 'menolong' pihak bank dengan membayar kembali jumlah bayaran berkenaan, lagipun dia berpendapat bahawa bank sepatutnya memberikan sebuah rumah kepadanya tetapi gagal berbuat sedemikian.
Mmandangkan kewangan Islamik berasaskan kepada prinsip ekuiti bukankah bank menangggung kerugian ini, fikirnya.
Tetapi apa yang lebih menakutkannya adalah, dia dimaklumkan yang dia berhutang dengan bank lebih daripada apa yang perlu diberikan kepadanya. Dalam surat peguam yang dihantar kepadanya pada 2005, memintanya untuk membayar jumlah penuh sebanyak RM505,368.54 (sama dengan keuntungan bank berserta dengan jumlah yang dibahagikan kepada pemaju) sebelum 20 Mei 2005. Dan lebih daripada itu, kos guaman pula mencecah sehingga RM17,450! Semua ini adalah kepada bayaran sebanyak RM10, 000 yang telah dibuat oleh bank kepada pemaju projek yang gagal itu.
Abdul pergi mendapatkan bantuan daripada Bank Negara dan juga Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan namun hampa. Dia dimaklumkan yang dia telah membuat pinjaman dan untuk itu dia perlu beertanggungjawab sepenuhnya ke atasnya pinjaman tersebut.
Abdul membantah kerana dia dilayan dengan tidak adil disebabkan dia diminta untuk membayar sehingga setengah juta ringgit tanpa sebab dan ini baginya adalah tidak Islamik langsung. Pihak bank pula mengenepikan hujah mengatakan bahawa kaedah pembiayaan pihak bank disokong oleh majlis Syariah yang telah meluluskan konsep BBA sebagai Islamik berdasarkan kepada ketetapan Syariah itu sendiri.
Abdul masih 'berjuang' dalam kesnya dan telah diminta hadir ke mahkamah. Dalam pada itu, namanya telah disenarai hitam sehinggakan sukar untuknya mendapatkan pembiayaan pinjaman daripada pihak bank lain untuk membeli sebuah rumah kepada keluarga tersayangnya.
Terganggu akibat kegagalan membeli rumah untuk keluarganya dan pada masa yang sama terlibat dalam masalah kewangan dan undang-undang, Abdul nekad untuk meneruskan kehidupan ini, serta menolak sama sekali untuk melihat semua ini sebagai sesuatu yang adil dan patuh kepada ajaran agamanya.
Memandangkan kontrak Islamik ini adalah kontrak jual yang turut mengambil kira keuntungan, seseorang pelanggan boleh sekiranya gagal, berhutang dengan jumlah yang tinggi daripada jumlah yang dipinjam.
Sebagai contohnya, dalam kes Abdul ini, pembiayaan kewangan yang asal ialah sebanyak RM249,500 tetapi dia diminta untuk dibayar sebanyak RM505,368.54 kerana 'gagal'. Perkara seperti ini tidak akan terjadi dibawah sistem pembiayaan konvensional. Pelanggan tidak akan berhutang lebih daripada pinjaman asal, dalam apa jua keadaan sekalipun sehingga pinjaman berkenaan habis dibayar.
Persamaan dalam kes ini ialah apabila seseorang gagal membayar dalam masa yang ditetapkan, contohnya, selepas rumah berkenaan telah siap dibina.
Sebagai contoh, dalam kes di atas, katakan Abdul gagal membayar pada tahun ketiga. Jadi, diangggarkan bayaran bulanan ialah RM2,186.04 untuk 27 tahun yang akan datang, dibawah skim BBA, dia berhutang pinjaman penuh tersebut, RM708,276.96 (RM2,186.04 x 27 x 12).
Di bawah pembiayaan kewangan konvensional, jumlah yang dihutang bukan jumlah keseluruhan tetapi nilai semasa ketika itu, jumlah termasuk faedah yang dikenakan untuk 27 tahun. APR sebanyak 10.63 peratus, jumlah ini hanyalah sebanyak RM232,658.29. Lihatlah perbezaan yang ketara antara kedua-dua skim ini.
Disebabkan perbezaan ini, Bank Islam secara 'moral' mewajibkan untuk memberikan potongan untuk penebusan walaupun potongan sedemikian tidak boleh dinyatakan dalam kontrak, sebaliknya menjadi kontrak yang bukan menurut Syariah.
Inilah yang menjadi isu dalam kes Zulkiffli Abdullah lawan Affin Bank. Apabila Zulkiffli gagal untuk membayar jumlah yang dihutang walaupun rumah tersebut akan dijual pada bulan Mac, dia terpaksa juga membayar jumlah hutangnya.
Maka, satu masalah utama dalam BBA ialah harga jualan sesebuah rumah itu tidak menggambarkan harga pasaran rumah tersebut - sebuah masalah yang berpotensi dalam kes kegagalan membayar harga rumah. Tetapi di bawah sistem pembiayaan kewangan konvensional, baki tidak akan melebihi harga rumah yang sebenar.
Untuk mengurangkan masalah ini, satu lagi skim perumahan yang relatif kini ditawarkan kepada pembeli. Konsep Musharakah Mutanaqisah (MM). MM ialah skim kontrak perkongsian yang melibatkan pulangan rendah.
Dalam hal ini, pihak bank dan pembeli akan memiliki bersama-sama rumah tersebut. Jadi, pembeli akan membayar sewa yang berpatutan ke atas rumah/harta tersebut.
Memandangkan rumah tersebut dimiliki secara bersama-sama maka bahagian penyewaan ditanggung oleh pihak pembeli itu sendiri. Penyewaan ini akan menebus pemilikian bank terhadap rumah tersebut, sekali gus meningkatkan hak pemilikan rumah dalam kalangan pembeli tersebut.
Pemilikan hak pembeli akan meningkat secara berperingkat-peringkat apabila bayaran sewa bulanan dibuat dengan tetap dan apabila telah mencapai nisbah 100%, pembeli akan memiliki sepenuhnya hak ke atas rumah berkenaan. Tambahan lagi, bayaran bulanan boleh dibayar lebih daripada apa yang ditetapkan untuk menebus hak pemilikan rumah dengan cepat.
Pihak bank lebih tertarik kepada konsep MM kerana formula matematik sama dengan formula konsep pembiayaan konvesional. Maka, untuk kadar faedah yang sama, konvensional dan MM memberikan penebusan yang sama termasuk jadual pembayaran baki mengikut masa yang dikehendaki. Tidak seperti BBA, baki pembiayaan dibawah MM tidak akan melebihi jumlah asal yang telah dipinjam.
Namun, pihak bank akan menggantikan kadar sewa yang perlu dibayar di bawah konsep MM dengan kadar faedah! Ini kerana mereka tidak mahu mengambil risiko dengan menyewa atau harga rumah naik turun.
Tambahan lagi, sumber kewangan mereka juga terikat dengan kadar faedah pasaran. Tetapi menggantikan harga sewa dengan kadar faedah akan memberikan MM sama dengan konsep pembiayaan konvensional dengan bezanya hanyalah pada pemilikan rumah tersebut.
Maka, pembeli beragama Islam yang ingin memastikan konsep pembiayaan rumah adalah benar-benar Islamik perlu mendesak untuk menggunakan kadar sewa dan bukannya kadar faedah.
Satu isu yang amat berat dibincangkan dalam pembiayaan Islamik (dan juga dalam konsep konvensional) ialah isu yang melibatkan bagaimana duit dihasilkan oleh bank konvensional dan Islam.
Semua bank komersial menghasilkan wang apabila mereka memberikan pinjaman atau pembiayaan. Sebagai contohnya, apabila bank Islam membiayai sebuah rumah yang berharga RM250,000, ia hanya menghasilkan wang melalui akaun semata-mata. Duit pendeposit tidak akan ditolak apabila RM250,000 itu dibayar oleh pihak bank kepada pembeli ataupun pemaju.
Inilah simpanan kecil namanya. Di Malaysia, untuk setiap pendepositan RM1 dalam bank, sistem bank boleh menwujudkan 24 ringgit pinjaman atau duit baru (menggambil kira simpanan berkanun yang memerlukan 4 peratus), bersamaan untuk setiap pendepositan RM1 juta, RM24 juta yang baru dan praktikal menghasilkan kuasa membeli secara 'percuma'.
Sudah tentu ini akan mewujudkan inflasi.Kebanyakan inflasi dalam ekonomi disebabkan penghasilan wang secara percuma, berbanding dengan kekurangan bekalan. Inflasi pnghasilan wang baru ini akan mengakibatkan cukai ke atas orang ramai dengan merampas kuasa membeli simpanan mereka. Namun, ulama Syariah hanya mendiamkan diri, tiada berkata apa-apa tentang penghasilan wang ini. Penghasilan wang baru ini sudah tentu seperti mencuri kekayaan negara.
Jika seseorang meminjam RM1,000 pada kadar faedah 10 peratus, orang tersebut perlu memulangkan kembali sebanyak RM1,100. Kadar faedah yang dikenakan sebanyak RM100 dikatakan sebagai �riba� atau memakan riba yang telah ditetapkan terlebih dahulu, diperolehi tanpa mengambil apa-apa risiko.
Tetapi bagaimana jika RM1,000 itu tidak menghasilkan apa-apa? Ia juga bukan menghasilkan kuasa pembeli yang percuma tanpa risiko 'negatif'? Malah, jika 10 kali ganda kadar faedah, bukankah ini dianggap sebagai riba yang hebat?
Oleh itu, menjalankan pembiayaan Islamik ini termasuk Musharakah Mutanaqisah, dengan wang yang dihasilkan secara percuma oleh sistem bank ini harus dipersoalkan.
Sesungguhnya, tidak nampak keislamikan dalam hal ini. - lanh
Penulis adalah Presiden Persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang.

Financial literacy
Getting it right on the money
Apr 3rd 2008 NEW YORKFrom The Economist print edition
A global crusade is under way to teach personal finance to the masses

My book here is a good start