Determining Ramaḍān in Indonesia raises questions about the relationship between religious autonomy and state administrative authority. This article examines how religious organizations and the state distribute, negotiate, and institutionalize Islamic legal authority. Using socio-legal and philosophical approaches, it analyzes regulations, institutional documents, and religious decisions. The findings identify a polycentric structure in which Nahdlatul Ulama’s ihkbār, Muhammadiyah’s maklumat, and the government’s ithbāt derive legitimacy from distinct but interacting normative and institutional foundations. Islamic legal pluralism therefore reflects both differing fiqh interpretations and multiple institutions claiming authority to operationalize Islamic norms. Bureaucratization translates religious reasoning into administrative decisions shaped by public authority, substantive standards, procedural legitimacy, and institutional accountability, while preserving non-state sources of religious authority. The state consequently coordinates religious governance without monopolizing Islamic legal interpretation. The article recommends a legally structured, participatory framework for institutionalizing ḥisāb-ru’ya that clarifies institutional responsibilities, coordinates governmental and religious authorities, and safeguards organizational autonomy and the plurality of ijtihad within Indonesia’s system of Islamic legal governance.
The development of Islamic financial technology requires ḥadīth norms originating in pre-digital contexts to be applied to increasingly complex transactions. This study examines the patterns, methodological transparency, and juridical adequacy of ḥadīth-based reasoning in DSN-MUI Fatwas Nos. 116/2017, 117/2018, and 140/2021. Employing a qualitative socio-legal approach, the study combines content analysis of fatwas with semi-structured interviews with DSN-MUI members, Sharia Supervisory Board members, and Islamic fintech practitioners. The findings reveal that ḥadīth mobilization is principle-based, contract-sensitive, and functionally layered, operating as prohibitive evidence, contractual legitimation, and ethical-regulatory reinforcement. Prohibitive reasoning is more readily traceable than the interpretive processes that make novel digital transactions permissible. This compression of legal reasoning is conceptualized as normative telescoping. At the same time, epistemic traceability measures how well one can reconstruct the relationship between ḥadīth and digital rulings. The study recommends a methodological appendix documenting the relevant evidence, takyīf fiqhī, operative ʿillah, method of legal extension, maqāṣid, and implementation responsibilities to enhance the transparency and adaptability of Islamic fintech fatwas.
Indonesia has issued sovereign green ṣukūk since 2018, yet project financing regulations do not link environmental and social safeguards to eligibility. This article examines the legal force of the safeguards and whether maqāṣid obliges the state to address this gap. Using normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, it maps Government Regulation Number 16 of 2023 against the World Bank’s ten environmental and social standards. It interprets findings through classical and contemporary maqāṣid theory and the Indonesian Ulema Council’s climate change fatwa, comparing Indonesia’s regime with Malaysia’s sustainable and responsible investment ṣukūk framework. The regulation addresses environmental and social feasibility generally but provides no risk classification, exclusion list, grievance mechanism, or sanctions for safeguard breaches. Safeguards remain dispersed across nonbinding issuer frameworks and sectoral statutes, creating a norm-linkage gap. The article recommends dual assurance that incorporates safeguards into binding project eligibility criteria through regulatory provisions and the Sharia compliance channel, making environmental and social protection enforceable obligations within sovereign green ṣukūk financing.
This study examines the socio-economic dynamics and governance of ḥalāl in Hong Kong, where a minority Muslim community faces an absence of specific regulations within a secular, laissez-faire market. Employing a qualitative-inductive approach, the research uses primary data gathered through interviews with consumers and community organizations, as well as field observations. The findings indicate that this regulatory gap pertains solely to religious standardization—rather than a total absence of law—as the state retains the authority to prosecute commercial fraud. A market-driven approach has led to institutional fragmentation, characterized by a diverse and non-uniform array of foreign ḥalāl logos. This situation shifts transaction costs and the cognitive burden of verification onto Muslim consumers, who respond by relying on heuristic-based trust and engaging in active auditing. Community organizations, such as the ITICFHK, fill this void through informal governance rooted in communal trust and moral authority. The study concludes that community-based governance can sustain the religious practices of a minority group through social legitimacy. Yet, it cannot substitute for the coercive power of formal public law.
Marriage dispensations create tension between minimum marriage age requirements and child protection when pregnancy or social pressure overrides risk assessment. This study develops a reconstruction framework that integrates human rights and maqāṣid al-sharī’a. Normative legal research combines statutory, conceptual, illustrative case, and limited comparative approaches, examining Indonesian legislation, a Surakarta determination, a curated Soreang summary, and Egyptian provisions. Findings show that procedural compliance does not establish substantive protection. The cases illustrate divergent outcomes through harm-prevention reasoning, although unequal source completeness limits comparison. Egyptian provisions offer normative insight into registration accountability, medical examinations, and protective monitoring. The proposed framework assesses urgency, risk, and children’s views, alternatives, and protection after determination. Recommendations emphasize individualized assessment, meaningful participation, coordinated services, and monitoring parental commitments within institutional mandates, whether applications are granted or denied. Pregnancy should not automatically justify dispensation. These normative findings establish neither nationwide judicial patterns nor the effectiveness of implementation, requiring further empirical investigation.
