Religious moderation has become an important discourse in contemporary Islamic legal studies, particularly in responding to extremism and the dynamics of religiosity in pluralistic societies. This study aims to analyze religious moderation as living Islamic law in Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam using the perspective of maqāṣid al-sharī‘a as an analytical framework. This study uses a qualitative approach through analysis of policy documents and Islamic legal literature in Indonesia as well as in-depth interviews with religious authorities and academics in Brunei Darussalam. The results show that religious moderation operates as a normative and institutional practice in the social, legal, and policy spheres. In Indonesia, religious moderation functions as a public legal ethic that integrates Islamic values within a pluralistic national legal system, while in Brunei Darussalam, religious moderation acts as an institutional principle that guides the gradual and proportional implementation of Islamic law. This research offers a novelty in the form of a comparative perspective that positions religious moderation as a living Islamic law that bridges normative Islamic legal theory with institutional practice, while also proposing a maqāṣid-based framework that ensures Islamic law remains contextual, balanced, and oriented towards public welfare.
This article unveils how scientists, alongside ulama, have come to gain religious authority. Following the enactment of the Halal Product Assurance Law in 2014, the state has assumed a central role in structuring halal discourse, displacing civil society as its primary driver. One of the clearest manifestations of this state-driven shift is the establishment of the Fatwa Committee under the Ministry of Religious Affairs in 2023. Through a qualitative approach and a religious authority framework, this study advances three main arguments. First, the institutional arrangement of the Fatwa Committee has enabled scientists to possess an equal degree of religious authority alongside the ulama, effectively positioning scientists as academic muftīs. As a state-affiliated body, the Fatwa Committee transforms its members into official religious authorities, reinforcing the state-centric nature of Indonesia’s halal movement despite its non-Islamic constitutional foundation. Second, halal determination has shifted away from being exclusively a domain of traditional Islamic legal reasoning, no longer requiring extensive fiqh-based deliberation. Third, halal certification cannot be fully understood as a conventional fatwa within classical Islamic legal doctrine; rather, it represents a novel hybrid form of religious ruling. This phenomenon challenges efforts to preserve flexibility and democracy in Islamic legal discourse.
Land ownership disputes often result in final and binding civil judgments that are ineffective in practice, leaving the prevailing party with only a normative victory and no actual restoration of rights. Dwangsom functions as a coercive mechanism to ensure compliance with judgments; however, its application in Indonesia remains jurisprudential and lacks a standardized operational framework. Moreover, studies integrating dwangsom within the frameworks of justice in judgment enforcement, maqāṣid al-sharī‘a, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remain limited. This article examines dwangsom as an instrument of judgment enforcement by analyzing Supreme Court Decision No. 1429K/Pdt/2006. It evaluates its relevance from the perspectives of maqāṣid al-sharī‘a and SDG 16. Employing a normative juridical method with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches, the study finds that dwangsom is effective in enforcing non-monetary obligations by altering the incentives of non-compliant parties and accelerating the restoration of rights. It further develops a maqāṣid-based framework for the enforcement of judgments, comprising three indicators: legal certainty, expediency, and proportionality. This framework positions dwangsom as a strategic tool to strengthen the effectiveness of court decisions and enhance access to justice.
This study examines the sociocultural determinants and mechanisms of family resilience among young couples in the Dayak Meratus community, South Kalimantan. Contrary to the global narrative that views early marriage as a structural vulnerability, this study demonstrates the existence of resilience mechanisms rooted in local culture. Using a qualitative phenomenological approach with 22 informants, data were collected through in-depth interviews, observation, and document analysis, and then analyzed thematically. The results indicate that institutionalized social practices such as arranged marriages, communal living patterns, land grants as initial economic capital, and minimal external intervention serve as social capital that strengthens family resilience. Resilience is determined not only by biological age but also by kinship support, cultural values, and the interaction between customary law, Islamic law, and state law. From the perspective of maqāṣid al-sharī‘a and ‘urf, these practices contribute to the protection of offspring, honor, and economic stability, although they still pose potential conflicts with marriage age regulations. This study emphasizes the importance of a contextual socio-legal approach in understanding the phenomenon of early marriage in Muslim indigenous communities.
This study examines the legal implications of applying the valid agreement requirements under Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code to waqf land transfers, addressing the governance gap between Islamic jurisprudence and Indonesian positive law. Employing empirical legal research with statutory and comparative approaches, the study analyzed fifteen cases in Semarang City through semi-structured interviews with nādhir, wāqif, waqf foundation administrators, and members of the Indonesian Waqf Board (BWI) conducted between August and November 2025. Findings reveal that none of the examined transfers met the full legal requirements: all lacked valid Waqf Pledge Deeds, nādhir registration was deficient, and the transfers were conducted outside the formal waqf regime. Applying Article 1320's framework, transfers violating subjective conditions (consent and capacity) render agreements voidable, while violations of objective conditions (object and lawful cause) render them void ab initio. From the maqāṣid al-sharī’a perspective, such transfers fail the test of maṣlaḥa mu'tabara and undermine hifẓ al-māl. These findings imply an urgent need for nādhir professionalization, enhanced BWI supervision, mandatory waqf certification, and integration of maqāṣid principles with civil law governance frameworks.
