Money from the Viewpoint of Islam, History of Islam and Islamic Economics 

Asst. Prof. Zeyneb Hafsa ORHAN
Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University
I. Introduction 
Money is one of the most widely discussed concepts on micro and macro scale today and in practice, it is at the center of all relational network. Has this always been the case throughout the history and if not so, what are the reasons for this being the case today? Although the questions like this are crucial to answer, it is beyond the scope of this paper. The aim of this paper is to examine the Islamic point of view about money taking the Islamic (economics) history and modern Islamic economics into consideration. It is also intended to be the introductory article of this book which is a collection of the papers presented at the 7th Islamic Economics Workshop organized by IKAM (Research Center for Islamic Economics) in 2019. Therefore, it also aims to review these papers in a systematic way.
This article is based on a qualitative method in accordance with the nature of its subject. We have searched and examined the literature that could provide direct or indirect information about the aforementioned purpose and reached some conclusions.
What makes this article noteworthy is the need for an introductory framework for modern Muslims, which could also be used as a guideline to evaluate the mentioned concepts and issues. Although this article does not claim to present the general framework in question, it does, together with the other articles in the book, provide an effort and example for this.
The paper is organized as follows: the following chapter discusses the history of money, then in the third chapter money in the Islamic history and Islam is examined. The fourth chapter will be devoted to money in the context of Islamic economics. The last chapter will be a summary and conclusion of the main topics covered in the article. On a side note, there is not a seperate chapter for literature review since the related literature will be discussed in each chapter. The methodology has also briefly been mentioned above, and no separate chapter has been allocated to it.
II. Money in History
Before discussing the basic purpose of this paper, it is worth mentioning the history of money in brief. Once Muslims came to the stage of history, they faced with an existing monetary structure and hence their views on money was shaped on the basis of this structure. 
Although there is no standard explanation for when and how money emerged and developed in the sense of a medium of exchange for a good or service, the most commonly accepted  definition by the students of classical economics is as follows: People used to trade (barter) at first, but because of its limitations in various aspects, the coin was invented as a standard  and universally accepted medium of exchange. This was followed by paper money / nominal money in parallel with the state's authority to print money and then virtual money in parallel with technological developments. Although the above mentioned presumption generally persists, Polanyi (1970) quoting Melitz, claims that it is because of the classical economists that the creation of money in the ‘primitive era’ is attributed to the inadequacies of the barter system, while Melitz (ibid.) actually bases this opinion on Aristotle’s writings. A remarkable study that questioned this issue and reached a negative conclusion was published in 2011. American anthropologist Graeber (2015), in his work titled Debt: The First 5000 years criticizes the idea that money emerged after the barter economy in the chapter titled ‘The Myth of the Barter’: ‘The problem is there is no evidence that it ever happened, an enormous amount ofsuggesting that it did not. For centuries now, explorers have been trying to find this fabled land of barter - none with success’. According to Graeber, the true version of the above mentioned standard narrative that follows chain of barter -> money -> credit chain is actually the exact opposite that is virtual money -> coin and barter as a by-product.
Regardless of which theory is accepted, as we understand it today, the first manufactured coin as a standard medium of exchange that is not a commodity money such as barley or cowry shell etc. appeared in the kingdom of Lydia in Asia Minor somewhere around 7th century BC. It was made of an alloy of gold and silver called electrum. Since the coin which has been used for a long time throughout the history of mankind is identified with the money itself, the word money in different languages today comes from monoi, the ancient French word for coin.
Although paper or nominal money, which is widely used today, became popular in the 17th century Europe, it is recorded that the first paper money known in history was invented and used by the Chinese in the 7th century. It is noteworthy that it is the same era with the introduction of coins. But the Chinese had stopped using this kind of money since the 15th century -albeit for a while- due to their negative experiences with it.
The developments mentioned in the last two paragraphs are critical because they are also closely related to one of the contoversial issues in Islamic economics; that is the question of whether money should be based on something of self-worth, such as gold or silver, or whether paper/nominal money, which derives its origin from an authority such as the government, can be considered also as money. The details of this matter will be discussed below.
The debates today about the issue of money goes even beyond these two definitons because especially with the development of technology, quasi types of money have emerged other paper money; crypto currency (bitcoin, ethreum, iota etc.), electronic money and so on. Although we will not go into the details of these types of money, it must be stated that further studies are needed to address this issue especially in the context of Islamic economics.
Ontological meaning, content and development of money - especially in the Western literature - as well as how money emerged and in which forms it was used in the history have been subject of various studies. These studies also coincide with the literature which is sometimes referred to as theory of money in classical economics. Although we will not go into the details of this theory here, the ontological debates about money will be discussed below since it is more related to the main topic of this paper. 
According to Innes (1914), who advocates the so-called credit theory of money, there is no such thing as a medium of exchange. Buying and selling something simply means its  exchange for credit. Therefore, solely an exclusively credit is money.
Searle (1995), a contemporary researcher who asks questions about what money is and why it exists, states that some parts of real life and the objective realities in this world are only real because of the agreement between people. According to him, money is one of the objective realities developed by inter-human contract. There is also criticism against this view. For example, according to Smit, Buekens and du Plessis (2011), the collective intention (which Searle explains with the word contract), which is defined as one of the fundamental characteristics of institutional realities such as money, is not a necessary condition for the existence of institutional realities. Therefore, institutional realities can be reduced to natural realities, contrary to Searle's claim. According to these authors, what lies behind objects such as money is the need for encouragement. Indeed, nominal money, like the electronic money used today, is backed by people's preferences. This is also an answer to the claims that there is nothing which supports nominal money. Kocherlakota (1998) points out the importance of incentive and refers to its relationship with memory and ultimately defines money as a primitive type of memory. What is meant by the term memory here is a historical record that informs to any representative at any time of the history,  the past of all the actors with whom he has directly or indirectly contacted (ibid). Accordingly, money has no intrinsic value and is useless in this sense.
In the Preface to Polanyi's (2001) Great Transformation, Fred Block summarizes Polanyi's view on money as follows: “According to Polanyi, the definition of commodity is something produced for sale in the market. By this definition, land, labor and money are fictitious goods because they are not actually produced for sale in the market.” But Polanyi was criticized by Melitz (1970) because he points to multi-faceted money as one of the most important pillars of the great transformation in the 19th century. Melitz (ibid) claims that today's money is not multi-faceted, but rather it has a special function similar to the one in the “primitive periods”. Accordingly, there is not tremendous differences and break between the monetary structure in modern and ancient times. Melitz’s (ibid) another criticism of Polanyi and his supporters is that they see monetary development in a progressive and straight line.
Ozel (2019), one of the authors writing on the relationship between Islam and economics in Turkey argues that there are three fictions (i.e. imaginary framework or in other words nominal elements): Paper money, nation and novels. According to him, 'capitalism would not have existed if there was no paper money.' Of course, such a claim should be backed by concrete reasons and data, but what matters here is the emphasis on the close relationship between paper/nominal money, modernism and capitalism, which was also discussed by Polanyi. 
III. Money in the History of Islam, and Islam
Islam is a religion which in essence could be traced to Adam, the first man and prophet. Uslu (2014) from this point of view writes as follows regarding the relationship between Adam and money: The God Almighty, who taught Adam the names of all things and created him as the caliph on earth, also taught money and money-related terms and words and guided him in this regard. Although it is not possible to present direct evidence for this claim, we can deduce that: Adam was taught the names of all things -> money and related concepts are also names -> then Adam was informed about them. In addition, he quotes Makrizi's (1364-1442) argument that the one who first used dinar and dirham was Adam. However, as far as we know, there is no anthropological or archaeological evidence for this claim.
Uslu (ibid) also presents following examples about the prophets' relationships with money and money-related issues until the era of Muhammad (pbuh): Musa (pbuh) worked for Shuaib (pbuh) for a wage, prophets did not expect any wage from their community, Yusuf was sold into slavery in return for a small amount. In the first two examples, the word wage is used for money while in the last example direct terms, a low semen and few dirham, are mentioned.  Dirham in Islamic law refers is used both as a generic name and for a certain currency and a unit of measure (ibid).
There were two types of coins used in Arabia when the religion of Islam emerged: Byzantine gold dinars and Sassanid silver. Muslims used them for a certain period. Although there were unofficial local coins minted during the reigns of four caliphs (Uslu, ibid) the first official money issued by the Muslims themselves was the gold and silver coins minted by the Umayyads in the 7th century.
As mentioned above, societies minted and used their own coins for a long time throughout the history of Islam. For example, the Ottoman State had used coins until the first paper money, kaime, was printed in 1840. For other Muslim societies, this process went in a parallel with colonialism. According to Kahf (2019), gold and silver coins used in Syria and Lebanon since the Ottoman period were replaced by paper money under the French occupation (1920-1945) .
The use of coins for such a long time has led to the discussions about money in classical Islamic jurisprudence to revolve around gold and silver coins. Let us begin our discussion on  money in fiqh literature with the etymology of the word money in Arabic, that is 'mal'. The plural of this word is amwal, and it covers everything that is possessed as it is also used in Turkish today. Therefore, it has a broader meaning than what we understand from the word money today. Accordingly, money is simply one of the types of goods possessed. Today the direct word used for money in Arabic is 'naqd'. The difference between mal and naqd is that the former is capable of meeting the needs and wants directly whereas the latter can meet them indirectly. For example, Ibn Qayyim (Aybakan, 2006) states that money should be considered as a means of accessing the goods. Otherwise the social order would be destroyed if it is seen and treated as an end in itself.  
Khan and Jabeen (2019), who made a presentation in the workshop and contributed to this book with an article, state that there had not been a well-established monetary theory until Islamic economics was developed. However, “… An important subject in the Islamic legal thought has been how money affects economic relations” (Siegfried, 2001, 2011). In this regard, we can list the main issues related to money discussed in the Islamic law as follows:
Firstly, the provisions for the retention of raw gold and silver are clearly defined. The most known embodiments of this are in the hadith, referred to as the hadith of six commodities. This hadith also presents an important guide about the types of interest. The summary of it is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The content of the hadith of six commodities including provisions on the exchange of gold and silver
	Gold	Silver	Dates	Salt	Barley	Wheat	
Gold	in equal quantities and on spot 	on spot	All types	All types	All types	All types	
Silver	on spot	in equal quantities and on spot 	All types	All types	All types	All types	
Dates	All types	All types	in equal quantities and on spot 	on spot	on spot	on spot	
Salt	All types	All types	on spot	in equal quantities and on spot 	on spot	on spot	
Barley	All types	All types	on spot	on spot	in equal quantities and on spot 	on spot	
Wheat	All types	All types	on spot	on spot	on spot	in equal quantities and on spot 	
Source: It has been tabulated by the author. 
Looking at the diagonal part, the exchange of a commodity with itself should be in equal quantities and on spot. The exchange of other commodities with gold and silver is allowed either on spot or on deferred payment. The exchange of four commodities other than gold and silver must be on spot. Different schools of fiqh have different opinions on the meaning of the rule of “in equal quantities”, i.e. it is either by weight or volume. In addition, there is also a disagreement in determining which type of commodity gold, silver and other items belong to. In this context, there is a lot of controversies about gold and silver being non-commodities, which are self-denominated. Siegfried (ibid) reports that the earliest written document where gold and silver were mentioned as a conventional medium of exchange was found in the H. 4 century. However, the source remains unknown.
Secondly, the question of debate in the following periods became debasement of precious metals, including fels (copper and bronze coins). Historically, fels can be classified as the first example of traditional money as it reflects in a way the value that is not by itself. The debasement policy in the Ottoman Empire began in the late 1500's (Erdem, 2006).
Thirdly, the exchange rate between gold and silver is another matter of debate among fiqh scholars. This rate is of importance in terms of the punishment of  cutting off hands for theft or determining the amount of capital contribution of each party to the partnership.
Fourthly, a development that led to the discussion of paper money-like things other than fels in classical fiqh was the use of the suftaja in long-distance trade in the Middle Ages. Suftaja is 'a commercial paper, or the transaction itself, for an unconditional payment order of the loaned amount by the debtor to the creditor or a third party (the creditor's representative, partner, agent, proxy or debtor) in another geographical location (Kallek, 2010).
Eventually, although there is no direct discussion of paper money in classical Islamic law, based on the above information, this issue can be discussed through analogy (Siegfried, ibid):
1. Paper money can be seen as a gold and silver indexed instrument.
2. It is based on suftaja.
3. In classical legal thought, paper money can be given the same legal position as the fulus (plural of fels).
4. Money can be presented like a simple commodity.
5. It can be seen as a medium of exchange for many things.
Among these, Siegfried (ibid) opts for the last one.
Keles (1998), who carried out one of the most detailed studies on the discussion of money in Islamic law in Turkish, shares the following information in his unpublished PhD thesis: The Muslim scholars divided money into two categories once different types of money other than coins began to be used: money by nature (such as gold and silver), and technically money (such as paper money). This distinction does not depend on the function of money, but on its substance. In addition, Keles (ibid) makes the following observation which is one of the central claims of his thesis: The definition of money in Islamic fiqh is not based on nass (an explicit statement in the Qur'an or hadith), but is influenced by the conditions of the day. In his view, it is therefore unnecessary to discuss whether gold or silver is money. Nevertheless, this discussion is important, as will be seen in the next section, and must be analysed carefully.
IV. Money in Islamic Economics
Islamic economics emerged at the beginning of the 20th century with the attempts of Muslim societies that lost their independence after the First World War to gain independence and establish a proper economic structure for themselves. Then it developed as an academic discipline through the accumulation of scientific and systematic knowledge. Any economic issue that could be examined from the Islamic point of view is of interest to Islamic economics today, including money and related subjects. Based on our survey about the money related discussions in Islamic economics during the last decades, basic topics can be listed as follows: 
1. Whether money should only be made of gold and silver, and the question of representative or nominal money,
2. The relationship between nominal money and money creation,
3. Money-bank, central banking and monetary policy instruments in Islamic economics,
4. Public finance,
5. Other matters related to money (interest, cash waqf, time value of money, etc.).
Each topic will be discussed below.
IV.I Gold-Silver Coin vs. Nominal Money
Asadov (2017) provides a good summary of the first question. In his view, Islamic economists have two basic positions towards money: 1) those who confine the definition of money to gold and silver and 2) Those who do not limit it and accept representative money. Analyzing these two groups, the author includes Hosein, Meera and Larbani and Vadillo in the first group, and Zubair Hasan and Murat Cizakca in the second. As an example for the opinions of the first group, the author quotes Vadillo: “Gold and silver have not become money by any choice, or order. On the other hand, paper money has been imposed on people.” On the contrary, the second group believes that this situation emphasizes the importance of the social contract in accepting money as money.
Another writer that can be included in the first of these two groups is Adam Abdullah, who has also contributed to this book with his article. Based on his empirical investigation of Ottoman Empire (1469-2009) and Malaysia (1970-2014), Abdullah (2019), discovered that prices expressed in pure gold and silver were stable over the long term, whilst under the fiat standard prices have increased exponentially. His findings also show that aggregate interest on deposits and loans are the primary determinants of the growth in money supply under the fiat standard. Therefore, Abdullah emphasizes the importance of a gold and/or silver backed medium of exchange over the money created by banks through interest based credit, and nominal money.
As a result, although it is difficult to say that there is a consensus in Islamic economics regarding the issue of nominal money in relation to gold and silver, it can be said that nominal money is mostly regarded as money, too.
IV.II Money Creation through Nominal Money
In connection with the previous issue, one of the matters discussed in Islamic economics regarding money is fractional reserve banking, which is known as the money creation mechanism of banks. Fractional reserve banking, in the simplest term, involves the process of keeping by the bank some of the money deposited in demand deposits as reserves with the Central Bank (the official ratio for required reserve is generally around 10%) while the remaining amount is issued as loan and this cycle being maintained by other banks in the market. This process eventually leads to credit / money creation. Debates on fractional reserve in Islamic economics began in the 1990s. As in the previous discussion, we can define two main groups: 1) Those who argue that fractional reserve banking is not illicit and that this structure is also found in the Islamic banking system; 2) Those who assert that fractional reserve banking leads to macro problems and claim that this structure is unfavorable in the Islamic banking system. The latter group base their arguments on the researches by Western economists. The business cycle theory by Austrian School and the Chicago Plan can be named as two examples. Siddiqi and Hasan are in the first group whereas Ariff, Choudhury and Al-Jarhi can be grouped under the latter. Those in the second group recommend 100% reserve banking instead of fractional reserve banking. But so far, no concrete steps have been taken in this regard.
In our opinion, the fractional reserve system is an underestimated problem in Islamic economics and finance. The following steps can be taken in this regard: First of all, empirical studies should be conducted in order to find out in what ways fractional reserve banking is a problem. In fact, in the 7th Islamic Economics Workshop, Tekdogan and Sarac (2019) attempted to reveal the problems of fractional reserve banking using agent-based simulation modelling. Secondly, an alternative model should be proposed to be replaced by fractional reserve banking. However, such a proposal should be backed by different scientific methods and the results should be provable. 
IV.III Money-Bank-Central Banking and Monetary Policy Instruments
Al-Jarhi, mentioned above, also participates in the 7th Islamic Economics Workshop and contributes to the book. He has authored several articles on monetary policies and central banking in the context of Islamic finance, and has written a paper on how to apply the Islamic macroeconomic model for this workshop (Al-Jarhi, 2019). Money creation process and management of money supply are some of the issues discussed in his macroeconomic framework. Al-Jarhi (ibid) lists 11 steps in order to apply an Islamic macroeconomic structure.
Sajjad Zaheer, who has been associated with the State Bank of Pakistan, made a presentation on a similar topic in the workshop. Zaheer (2019) first systematically makes mention of monetary policy instruments and then examines examples of non-interest monetary policy implementation. Finally, he offers solutions to potential or existing problems. As is known, monetary policy is carried out by central banks and most of the monetary policy instruments are based on interest. Therefore, even if they do not fuction in a full interest-free economic and financial system, such studies are vital for central banks who want to use interest-free monetary policy instruments.
Shah and Rashid (2019) also examine money-bank-monetary policy issues and make an empirical analysis of how monetary policy affects the credit supply in Islamic banks in the cases of Pakistan and Malaysia. They conclude that there is strong evidence for the existence of the credit supply channel of monetary policy for both countries.
On the other hand, Shaikh (2019) analyzes the consequences of the asset market in an interest-free economy and compares it with the current system. He empirically proves that in the full reserve banking system or the system where there is only asset backed financing and a greater capital buffer the distribution effects are expected to be more egalitarian. 
IV.IV Public Finance
Another topic that is also studied by Shaikh with regard to money in Islamic economics is the issue of public finance. In this context, Shaikh (2010) examines the tools of public finance in Islamic economics. As might be expected, zakat is the leading one among these tools.
Other studies on public finance similarly focus on zakat. For example, Ahmad (1998) mentions zakat under the title of income and public expenditures in an early work on Islamic economics.
Although many studies have emphasized the importance of zakat in terms of public finance, the main issue to be discussed in Islamic economics is how to collect and distribute zakat in a systematic and efficient way.
IV.V Other Matters Related to Money
Other matters related to money in Islamic economics can be summarized as follows; interest, time value of money, money waqfs and less debated topics. Among these, interest constitutes a complete field of study so we will not go into the details. In fact, the 5th Islamic Economics Workshop organized by IKAM in 2016 was devoted exclusively to this topic.
The principle of time value of money, which is also related to the issue of interest, is another matter to be discussed because, time value of money in modern economic theory explains why interest exists. Time value of money principle, in its simplest terms, states that today's 100 TL has more value than tomorrow's 100 TL. This is due to three facts: risk, inflation and interest. As it will be noticed, interest is both cause and effect of this principle. Discussion of time value of money in Islamic economics began especially in the context of project valuation and discounting in the 1990s. M. F. Khan (1991), cited above, states that, considering the bai-salam and bai-muajjal contracts, the difference between the present and future prices of something is not only dependent on time but also on supply and demand at different times. What is not allowed in Islam is a predetermined time value of money. In his article in response to Khan, Kahf (1994) underlines that intertemporal choice depends on an investment rather than consumption. Therefore, the prohibition of interest in Islam does not mean that money has no time value. The main difference here is that the compensation of the person who earns revenue should be after investment. As it can be seen from these two different opinions, the main matter of debate in Islamic economics is whether money has any time value and if yes under which conditions. However, it is also crucial to carry out empiricial studies on this subject.
Another topic that has been discussed with regard to money in Islamic economics is cash waqfs. Waqfs, which could be traced back to the period of the Prophet (pbuh), became an important source of social expenditures such as education and health, which were not undertaken by the government, especially during the Ottoman period. Cash waqfs, which are based on endowment of movables, became widespread in the Ottoman society after the 15th century (Gunay, 2012). As a matter of fact, there were many debates on the practices of cash waqfs in the Ottoman period among the scholars of fiqh. Studies on current practices of the cash waqfs in different Muslim societies, and suggestions for their development are carried through today. One of the proposals is to merge of cash waqs with cooperatives or microfinance institutions.   Though, these institutions are not found in the present day Turkey. 
In our opinion, empirical studies and mathematical modelling on money related subjects in Islamic economics are not sufficient. Although their effectiveness and reliability are controversial, they have the potential to be a guide for practical applications of different theoretical frameworks provided that scope and limitations of the tools such as general equilibrium models, econometric models, system dynamics, agent-based modelling, and neural networks are taken into consideration. 7th Islamic Economics Workshop also contributed in this sense, because in addition to the above-mentioned agent-based modelling (Tekdoğan and Saraç, 2019), Iranian researchers Afshari and Movahed (2019), attempted to establish a general equilibrium model within an Islamic framework. One of the actors in the model is the monetary authorities.
Another unexplored area in my view is the ontological and philosophical issues. Since money is closely related to interest, monetary policy and banks theories, practices and suggestions on these are affected by the way money is seen. As mentioned above, the research on the view of money in the Western literature has reached a certain level, even if a consensus is not reached. At this point, it is perhaps not enough to say that the view of money simply affects other related subjects because various factors can also form the view of money. Especially it can be said that the last two centuries with the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism reshaped the view of money. In order to be able to understand this interaction and to answer the questions such as the definition of money in Islam, how money should be perceived, and how and to what extent changes can be made towards this perception today, there is a need for an extensive study of the ontology and philosophy of money.
V. Conclusion
This paper has been written as an introduction for the book which is a collection of papers  presented at the 7th Islamic Economics Workshop on money. In this context, the main aim of this article is to present an outline on the subject.
To this aim, a qualitative research method based on a detailed literature review and evaluation is followed and as a result, the subject is examined under the following headings; history of money, money in Islamic history and law, money in Islamic economics. Furthermore, the papers presented in the Workshop are listed under the headings listed above.
References