The rich does not hoard fiat, they own assets which go up in price as the money supply increases.

Meanwhile the poor has its savings eroded, their paychecks have less and less buying power and they are forced to negotiate to get a raise to simply stop becoming poorer.

If you have substantial savings, you are not poor. "The poor" generally is in debt. As are states. And that debt in turn forms part of the assets held by the rich.

The rich are also in debt, because the debt is cheap, especially if you're already rich. So inflation benefits the rich not only by increasing the value of their assets but also by wiping out their debt.

Government flooding the market with cheap money has so far gone mostly to inflating asset prices. Who owns the assets? The rich. Who does not? The poor.

Note that I did not mention assets, I mentioned debt. Who is in debt? The poor. Who owns that debt as creditors? The rich.

> by pumping up the value of debt relative to labor, i.e. making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

In other words, interest based debt is bad because it is exploitative. Something we've known for a long time now. Interest based lending is prohibited in Islam for that reason (as well as in Judaism and Christianity).

Whether it's interest based or not makes zero difference in regard to how it's affected by inflation and deflation.