Book Review of "Social Economics of Islamic Agriculture" at IPB University

Indonesian (and global) agriculture faces many problems: insufficient production, land and environmental degradation, persistent hunger, unhealthy food, low wages, unfair added value, and so on. The root of the problem lies in a CONCEPT that seems flawed. Wrong concept, wrong theory, wrong science, wrong practice. Perhaps we need a 'knowledge conversion'.

Therefore, the book review of "Social Economics of Islamic Agriculture" will be discussed in conjunction with the 2025 Rural Sociology family gathering.

The book review held in a hybrid format on:

Day/Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Time: 10:00–1:00 PM WIB

Location: Rabuan Room, KPM 414 FEMA, IPB Dramaga

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Ji7aIhZm8

******

Video buku Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Islam di channel BRIN

 Video buku Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Islam di channel BRIN

Buku Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Islam karya Syahyuti membahas upaya merumuskan kerangka analisis pertanian yang tidak hanya berbasis pada logika ekonomi konvensional, tetapi juga berakar pada nilai-nilai Islam. Buku ini mengkritik pendekatan ekonomi pertanian yang cenderung reduksionis—menempatkan petani semata sebagai agen rasional pencari keuntungan—dan menawarkan perspektif yang lebih utuh dengan memasukkan dimensi moral, sosial, dan kelembagaan yang hidup dalam masyarakat agraris Muslim.

Secara substansi, buku ini menekankan bahwa aktivitas pertanian dalam Islam bukan sekadar kegiatan produksi ekonomi, melainkan bagian dari ibadah dan pengelolaan amanah sumber daya (khalifah di bumi). Oleh karena itu, konsep-konsep seperti keadilan distribusi, larangan eksploitasi, kerja sama (ta’awun), serta keberlanjutan lingkungan menjadi prinsip dasar dalam sistem sosial ekonomi pertanian. Penulis juga mengaitkan praktik pertanian dengan instrumen-instrumen kelembagaan Islam seperti zakat, wakaf, dan pola bagi hasil, sebagai mekanisme untuk memperkuat kesejahteraan petani dan ketahanan komunitas.

Buku ini relevan sebagai kontribusi konseptual untuk mengembangkan ekonomi pertanian yang lebih kontekstual di Indonesia, terutama dalam masyarakat pedesaan yang masih kuat nilai sosial dan religiusnya. Dengan pendekatan interdisipliner—menggabungkan ekonomi, sosiologi, dan perspektif Islam—karya ini menawarkan alternatif pemikiran terhadap dominasi paradigma agribisnis yang cenderung kapitalistik, sekaligus membuka ruang bagi pengembangan sistem pertanian yang lebih berkeadilan dan berkelanjutan.

Link YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ9Fl5GGVLc


*****

Bedah buku "Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Islam" di IPB

 
Pertanian Indonesia (dan dunia) menghadapi banyak masalah: produksi belum cukup, kerusakan lahan dan lingkungan, kelaparan masih ada, pangan tak sehat, upah rendah, nilai tambah tak adil, dst. Akar masalah ada pada KONSEP yang tampaknya keliru. Konsep keliru, teori keliru, ilmu keliru, praktik keliru. Mungkin kita butuh 'pertobatan pengetahuan'. Oleh karena itu, bedah buku “Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Islam” ada dibahas bersamaan dengan diadakannya family gathering Sosiologi Pedesaan 2025. Bedah buku dilaksanakan secara hybrid pada: Hari/tanggal: Selasa, 21 Oktober 2025 Waktu: 10.00–13.00 WIB Lokasi: Ruang Rabuan KPM 414 FEMA, IPB Dramaga

Link Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Ji7aIhZm8

****

Buku Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Islam di IPB Press

Bagaimana Islam memberi arah baru bagi pertanian modern?🤔

Buku Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Islam mengajak kita melihat pertanian bukan hanya soal produksi, tapi juga tentang nilai keadilan, keberlanjutan, dan tanggung jawab sebagai ibadah📖🤍. Yuk, pahami bagaimana prinsip syariah bisa terintegrasi dengan praktik pertanian masa kini untuk masa depan pangan yang lebih berkeadilan🌾💫.

Menurut kamu, penting nggak sih pertanian dibangun di atas nilai dan etika?
Tulis pendapatmu di kolom komentar ya😍👇🏻 Link disini: IG - https://www.instagram.com/p/DT-Q3-AiWK5/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again

"Islamic Economics" should derive from Islam, not from "Economics"

"... We are just now: modifying Neoclassical Economics to be "sharia-compliant"

Question: Give your critical opinion on this idea: "that Islamic Economics should be directly derived or developed from Islam, not from (classical and neoclassical) economics as it currently develops."

AI Answer: The idea that Islamic Economics should be "directly derived from Islam" sounds bold—even tempting—because it promises normative purity. However, caution is needed at this point: religion provides principles, not automatically a ready-to-use economic operational model.

The tradition of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh Muamalah) is indeed rich in norms (justice, prohibition of usury, honesty, distribution), but it did not emerge as an economic theory in the modern sense that explains market behavior, price formation, or macroeconomic dynamics. Therefore, if "directly derived" is interpreted as building a complete economic system without dialogue with economics, the risk is that it will produce a strong normative framework but a thin analysis.

On the other hand, an approach that The current development—namely, modifying Neoclassical Economics to be “Sharia-compliant”—is also not without problems. Many practices are ultimately cosmetic: replacing interest-based instruments with contracts that are formally different, but economically often produce similar incentives. This criticism has long been present in the literature, including from thinkers such as Muhammad Umer Chapra and Mahmoud A. El-Gamal, who highlight its formalist tendencies and lack of conceptual breakthroughs. Therefore, simply importing an old framework and “Islamizing” it is clearly insufficient—and even risks obscuring the very ethical objectives it seeks to uphold.

The main problem is actually an overly simplistic dichotomy: as if there are only two options—purely derived from religious texts or entirely derived from conventional economics. In fact, the two have different domains. Religion provides normative direction (what should be), while economics—as an empirical discipline—helps explain how the system works (what happens). Breaking off dialogue with modern economics means losing the analytical tools to understand behavior, incentives, and policy consequences. Conversely, ignoring Islamic normative principles means losing an ethical compass. Unifying the two is not a weak compromise, but rather a methodological necessity.

A more promising approach is to build an Islamic economic system. As an interdisciplinary framework, starting from basic principles (maqasid, justice, sustainability), then developing models and policies by utilizing—and, where necessary, correcting—tools from modern economics (including Institutional Economics and Behavioral Economics). Here, "derived from Islam" does not mean rejecting other sciences, but rather defining their direction and limits. This also opens up space for innovation: not simply avoiding usury, but designing institutions that genuinely improve distribution, reduce excess speculation, and strengthen the real economy.

Therefore, this argument has some validity as a critique of over-reliance on old frameworks. However, if taken too far, it risks falling into an inoperable idealism. The challenge is not to choose one source over another, but to build an honest synthesis: strong normative, sharp analytical, and empirically tested. Without it, Islamic economics could be caught between two equally problematic poles—too theoretical to be applied, or too adaptive to the point of losing its identity.

******

“Ilmu Ekonomi Islam” mestinya turun dari ISLAM, bukan dari “Ilmu Ekonomi”

 

 “…. Kita baru pada: memodifikasi Ekonomi Neoklasik agar “sesuai syariah”

Pertanyaan: Berikan pendapat kritis Anda tentang fikiran ini: "bahwa semestinya ilmu Ekonomi Islam harus langsung diturunkan atau dibangun dari Islam, bukan dari ilmu Ekonomi (klasik dan neoklasik) sebagaimana saat ini berkembang"

Jawab AI: Gagasan bahwa Ekonomi Islam seharusnya “langsung diturunkan dari Islam” terdengar tegas—bahkan menggoda—karena menjanjikan kemurnian normatif. Namun, di titik ini perlu kehati-hatian: agama menyediakan prinsip, bukan otomatis menyediakan model operasional ekonomi yang siap pakai.

Tradisi Fikih Muamalah memang kaya akan norma (keadilan, larangan riba, kejujuran, distribusi), tetapi ia tidak lahir sebagai teori ekonomi dalam arti modern yang menjelaskan perilaku pasar, pembentukan harga, atau dinamika makro. Jadi, jika “diturunkan langsung” dimaknai sebagai membangun sistem ekonomi lengkap tanpa dialog dengan ilmu ekonomi, risikonya adalah menghasilkan kerangka normatif yang kuat tetapi analitisnya tipis.

Di sisi lain, pendekatan yang selama ini berkembang—yakni memodifikasi Ekonomi Neoklasik agar “sesuai syariah”—juga tidak bebas masalah. Banyak praktik yang akhirnya bersifat kosmetik: mengganti instrumen berbasis bunga dengan kontrak yang secara formal berbeda, tetapi secara ekonomi sering menghasilkan insentif yang mirip. Kritik ini sudah lama muncul dalam literatur, termasuk dari pemikir seperti Muhammad Umer Chapra dan Mahmoud A. El-Gamal, yang menyoroti kecenderungan formalis dan kurangnya terobosan konseptual. Jadi, mengimpor kerangka lama lalu “diislamkan” jelas tidak cukup—bahkan berisiko mengaburkan tujuan etis yang justru ingin ditegakkan.

Masalah utamanya sebenarnya adalah dikotomi yang terlalu sederhana: seolah-olah pilihannya hanya dua—murni dari teks agama atau sepenuhnya dari ekonomi konvensional. Padahal, keduanya punya domain berbeda. Agama memberi arah normatif (apa yang seharusnya), sementara ilmu ekonomi—sebagai disiplin empiris—membantu menjelaskan bagaimana sistem bekerja (apa yang terjadi). Memutus dialog dengan ilmu ekonomi modern berarti kehilangan alat analisis untuk memahami perilaku, insentif, dan konsekuensi kebijakan. Sebaliknya, mengabaikan prinsip normatif Islam berarti kehilangan kompas etis. Menyatukan keduanya bukan kompromi lemah, tetapi justru kebutuhan metodologis.

Pendekatan yang lebih menjanjikan adalah membangun ekonomi Islam sebagai framework interdisipliner: berangkat dari prinsip-prinsip dasar (maqasid, keadilan, keberlanjutan), lalu mengembangkan model dan kebijakan dengan memanfaatkan—dan bila perlu mengoreksi—alat dari ekonomi modern (termasuk Ekonomi Kelembagaan dan Ekonomi Perilaku). Di sini, “diturunkan dari Islam” tidak berarti menolak ilmu lain, tetapi menentukan arah dan batasnya. Ini juga membuka ruang inovasi: bukan sekadar menghindari riba, tetapi merancang institusi yang benar-benar memperbaiki distribusi, mengurangi ekses spekulasi, dan memperkuat ekonomi riil.

Jadi, pendapat tersebut ada benarnya sebagai kritik terhadap ketergantungan berlebihan pada kerangka lama. Namun jika ditarik terlalu jauh, ia berisiko jatuh pada idealisme yang tidak operasional. Tantangannya bukan memilih salah satu sumber, melainkan membangun sintesis yang jujur: normatif kuat, analitis tajam, dan empiris teruji. Tanpa itu, ekonomi Islam bisa terjebak antara dua kutub yang sama-sama problematik—terlalu teoretis untuk diterapkan, atau terlalu adaptif hingga kehilangan jati dirinya.

******

"Agricultural Economics" Must Be Freed from "Economics"

"...how is it possible that the most uncertain sector (agriculture) is actually explained by the most certainty-preferring model (the manufacturing sector)?"

Question: Is the discipline of 'Agricultural Economics', as it has developed since its inception and continues to this day, truly suited to the unique characteristics of agricultural businesses and systems?

AI's answer: Not entirely. While the discipline of Agricultural Economics, as it has developed since its inception, is indeed very useful, many of its components are built on a Neoclassical Economics framework that does not always fit the unique characteristics of agriculture. Therefore, to this day, this discipline continues to be "corrected" and expanded.

Agricultural Economics was founded from its inception with a noble ambition: to explain and improve the performance of the agricultural sector through the logic of efficiency and economic rationality. However, its analytical foundations are heavily borrowed from Neoclassical Economics—a framework born of the relatively controlled industrial world, not the fields subject to rain, pests, and biological uncertainty. This is where the first irony arises: the most uncertain sector is actually explained by the most certainty-preferring model. While classical studies, such as that of Theodore W. Schultz, have shown that farmers are “rational” within their limits, this rationality is clearly not as simple as a neat production function on a blackboard.

Furthermore, agricultural economics tends to treat farmers as small firms seeking maximum profits, when in reality they are households balancing production, consumption, risk, and even social values. This assumption has long been criticized by Alexander Chayanov, who emphasized that the economic logic of farm households is not identical to corporate capitalism. However, rather than embracing this as the primary foundation, many analyses persist in imposing a perfect market model on a rural context characterized by limited credit, asymmetric information, and dense social relations. The result? Models that are mathematically elegant, but often clumsy when confronted with rural realities.

As reality becomes more “resilient,” the discipline has begun to adapt by borrowing from other perspectives, such as Institutional Economics (for example, through the work of Douglass C. North), which recognizes that rules of the game, norms, and power shape economic behavior. Behavioral Economics, on the other hand, demonstrates that farmers’ decisions are not always rational in the strict sense, but are instead influenced by biases, experience, and risk perception. In fact, approaches such as the Agricultural Innovation System have emerged that implicitly recognize that agriculture is not simply about production and prices, but about networks of actors, knowledge, and institutions. Ironically, these approaches often appear as "additional" approaches, rather than as mainstream approaches that replace old assumptions.

In the context of developing countries like Indonesia, this tension is even more pronounced. Smallholder farmers operate in an environment far from ideal market assumptions, with a heavy reliance on public policies, government programs, and local social networks. However, agricultural economic analysis often continues to proceed from the logic of individual efficiency and market mechanisms, as if villages were miniature competitive markets. It is not surprising that many policies based on this analysis end up with recommendations that sound rational on paper but are difficult to implement or even counterproductive in practice. At this point, agricultural economics appears to be a discipline continually trying to explain a reality that is reluctant to follow its logic.

Thus, the question is not whether agricultural economics is "wrong," but rather whether it is honest enough to acknowledge its limitations. So far, the answer has tended to be half-hearted: there have been attempts to broaden perspectives, but the basic framework inherited from neoclassical economics remains dominant. Perhaps what is needed is not mere theoretical patching, but the courage to accept that agriculture is a complex socio-ecological system—one that cannot be reduced to supply and demand curves alone. Until that point is reached, agricultural economics will remain in a somewhat awkward position: supremely confident of being a science, but secretly relying on assumptions that are increasingly difficult to maintain.

******