Quo Vadis, Islamic Banking? Literature Study on Islamic Commercial Banks and Sharia Business Units in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to describe the condition of the financing portfolio in Islamic banking that is not following its characteristics, namely profit sharing; identify the cause and contribute to the solution of the problem. The dominance of murabahah financing is shown in proportion to the position on January 31, 2017, which reached 60% of total financing. The macro impact of the domination of murabahah transactions is that the monetary sector moves faster than the real sector which can ultimately lead to an economic crisis. Micro-impact, murabahah financing tends to encourage individual society to be consumptive because the purpose of this financing is more for consumptive matters, while profit-based financing will encourage individuals to be productive because profit-based financing is definitely intended to finance productive things. Broadly speaking, the problem needs to be addressed through two things. The first solution comes from the Government in the form of the availability of supporting institutions and regulations that are conducive to increasing the portfolio of profit-based financing. The second solution is sourced from Islamic banking itself in the form of an increase in the quantity and quality of Islamic human resources in the form of massive but highly selective recruitment and providing training to increase understanding of the concept of Islamic sharia and sharia banking practices in a professional manner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".