لنستخرج كنوزا من المعرفة و الإبداع و العلم و الأفكار
In other words, the capitalist nations
are still running the concept of a fair and
civilized humanity. It is also supported by the
evidence that capitalist nations always spend
their national budget in order to help the poor
nations for the welfare of their people.
Reviewer concludes that capitalism do not
merely create human to act selfish. Human’s
selfish actions always exist, more likely or less
likely, on every imaginative and practice of
capitalism and socialism. Furthermore, selfish
actions are exacerbated by bad law, bad
governance, poverty and poor education of
religion or moral and ethical.
Third, Tripp (2006) suggests that capitalism
becomes a center of idealism so that Islamic
intellectualists attempt to challenge it. Islamic
intellectuals propose a new economic and social
concept based on Islamic identity to replace
capitalism even for unification between capitalism
and Islamic identity. This Tripp’s arguments
(2006) are still over-generalization. It can be
shown that both capitalism and economic and
social of Islamic identity are located on the
concept of imaginative and practice, or on the
individual behavior of businessmen.
Tripp (2006) should sharpen his argument,
whether his concept would be replaced or be
unified. If Islamic intellectuals replaced the
concept, imaginative and practice of today’s
business, some questions would arise. In Islamic
nations itself, recent business development are
using the concept, imaginative and practice based
on modern capitalism. It can be seen in Dubai,
Emirates Arab; Doha, Qatar and so forth, that the
whole business is designed and developed based
on the concept, imaginative and practice of
capitalism. Actual evidence shows that some
companies are issuing long-term obligations,
offering shares to the public, using payroll and
compensation systems, and some other practices
using concept, imaginative and practice of
capitalism.
On the other hand, if the Islamic intellectuals
are willing to replace or unify the individual
behavior of businessmen, Tripp (2006) proposes
a fallacy and equivocal arguments that have been
stated previously. This is related to whether the
capitalism actors are always in their position to
act selfish. The answer is, human as homoeconomicus
homoeconomicus,
always in the three forms of actions
that altruism, self-interest and selfish are
dependent on the probability of the condition and
the fact that he/she faces. Likewise, it is possible
if the self-interest adopted by capitalism is replaced
by homo-islamicus according to the
Islamic identity. However, the Muslims with
their various compositions remain statistically
distributed in altruism, self-interest and selfish.
It was explained on the second comments and
critics.
Fourth, Tripp (2006) theorizes that Islamic
economic is faith-based community of ummah
(human). He also suggests that the relationship
principal and agent using the faith-based. On the
contrary, reviewer doubts this faith-based as
human behavior’s pattern has rules of
moral hazard. The agent can act bonding with the
principal, conversely he can act shirking to the
principal. In other word, the adverse selection
acting agent should choose actions that will
optimizethe profit for the principal. However,
in fact, the agent only considered the optimal
profit for himself.
Reviewer agrees with Tripp (2006) that all
the agents act bonding. However, can such
behavior happen? Reasoning of business world
should emerge the probability between yes and
no. Reviewer formulates that the agent can act
shirking with greatest probability. The visible
evidences are budgetary slack, upper echelon
theory, racket principle and golden parachute
theory. All of the principles and theories state
that the agent always optimizes the profit for
himself and stops when it has been achieved.
Reviewer proposes a reasoning that can
create a bad consequence for business practice. It
can be shown by the use of assumptions or
principles of faith-based community of ummah,
so that it leads the business proposals with
probability to incur losses to always be
submitted to sharia banks. On the contrary, the
business proposals with probability to gain profit
are to be submitted to conventional banks. Thus,
if the business suffers losses, businessmen and
sharia banks share the loss equally. Conversely,
if the business earns profit, they earn high profit
in conventional banks. Is it true that business
practice runs like that?
