عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
Given the importance of money institution in the conventional economy and its implications in issuing the jurisprudential verdicts, understanding its nature has always been one of the concerns of Islamic economists. Ontology of money’s literature (in West) mainly incorporates debates between the two approaches we call “commodity theory” and “credit theory” of money on its nature, value and central function. Defining money as a commodity like the others with some differences, and basing its value on its commodity value, the commodity theory emphasizes on “exchange medium” as money’s main function. The credit theory, on the other hand, describes money as “an abstract representative of value”, “a promise to pay”, and “a claim upon society”, whose value is based upon social relations, and insists on its role as a “value computing unit.”
There are also some theories about money nature in Islamic economics studies, which have some advantages and disadvantages as well. Some of these disadvantages are similar to those of the commodity and credit theories. Emphasizing on the credit aspect of money, and claiming that the commodity theory isn’t capable enough to explicate money and that the definitions used by the credit theorists suffer from ambiguity, we separate two levels of understanding money, define money in the essential sense as an “abstract measure of value” or a “concept for measuring value”, and in the common sense meaning as an “index of creditable claim due to the acceptability originating from the issuer’s creditworthiness.” This separation rectifies the most important deficiency in the definitions of money offered by the credit theory.