Pandangan Hukum Islam terhadap Status Muflis (Debitur Pailit) sebagai Gharimin (Mustahik Zakat)

The development of sharia economy in Indonesia is increasing. Islamic economic development can be seen from the development of Islamic financial institutions and the Islamic financial instruments they offer, ranging from Islamic banks, Islamic capital markets, and Islamic insurance. With these developments, nowadays financing activities with sharia contracts are increasing and growing rapidly. However, only a few can pay it off. In other words, non-performing financing or bad loans at Islamic financial institutions often occur. Non-performing financing caused by the inability of the customer as a debtor to pay debts to a financial institution as a creditor resulted in the customer being bankrupted by the financial institution as a creditor. Bankruptcy is defined as the inability of the debtor or debtor (can be a person, legal entity, company) which is proven based on a court decision that the debtor has stopped paying his debts (unable to pay off debts) which results in general confiscation of his assets, so that the debtor is no longer entitled to manage his assets. . If it is associated with zakat, one of the ashnaf of zakat is gharimin or people who are in debt. Zakat institutions in Indonesia have not made bankrupt customers as gharimin who are entitled to receive zakat. The formulation of the problem in this paper is to find out the views of Islamic law on the status of bankrupt debtors as gharimin. The conclusion is that the status of a bankrupt debtor can be determined as a gharimin who is entitled to receive zakat. The use of debt in question can be for personal or public interest. The distribution pattern can use the qardh hasan pattern where the zakat given to the gharimin is not to be owned but to be returned again. The zakat funds are not only used to pay off debts, they can also be used as initial capital for bankrupt debtors to restart their business. Keywords: bankrupt debtor, gharimin, zakat mustahik.

"I Felt a Little Crazy Following a 'Doll'"

Virtual Influencers (VIs) are computer-generated characters, many of which are often visually indistinguishable from humans and interact with the world in the first-person perspective as social media influencers. They are gaining popularity by creating content in various areas, including fashion, music, art, sports, games, environmental sustainability, and mental health. Marketing firms and brands increasingly use them to capitalise on their millions of followers. Yet, little is known about what prompts people to engage with these digital beings. In this paper, we present our interview study with online users who followed different VIs on Instagram beyond the fashion application domain. Our findings show that the followers are attracted to VIs due to a unique mixture of visual appeal, sense of mystery, and creative storytelling that sets VI content apart from that of real human influencers. Specifically, VI content enables digital artists and content creators by removing the constraints of bodies and physical features. The followers not only perceived VIs' rising popularity in commercial industries, but also are supportive of VI involvement in non-commercial causes and campaigns. However, followers are reluctant to attribute trustworthiness to VIs in general though they display trust in limited domains, e.g., technology, music, games, and art. This research highlights VI's potential as innovative digital content, carrying influence and employing more varied creators, an appeal that could be harnessed by diverse industries and also by public interest organisations.

The Attorney General, Politics, and the Public Interest. Contributions to an Evolving Constitutional Convention

The prosecutorial independence of the Attorney General (AG) is a firmly established constitutional convention in Canada, but it is also an evolving convention, subject to ongoing contestation and debate. This article is a contribution to that debate. It defends a normative constitutional framework wherein the AG’s authority to make final decisions in matters of criminal prosecution is balanced against a corresponding duty to consult with cabinet and the prime minister on the public interest implications of prosecutorial decisions when the circumstances warrant. Within this normative framework, respectful contestation and debate amongst ministers, the prime minister, and the AG in determining the public interest merits of prosecution is welcomed, even encouraged, and if conducted with the requisite integrity, objectivity, and transparency, it is regarded not as a threat but as a valuable check and balance on AG independence and an indispensable form of quality control on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.