Marriage in Islam is a contract (akad) that legalizes the husband-wife relationship. Today, technology enables people to marry at a distance via video conference. This raises a legal question: must the requirement of "one place" (ittihad al-majlis) be physically present, or can it be fulfilled through an internet connection? This study aims to analyze the views of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiʼi, and Hanbali) regarding the legal validity of online marriage and the requirements for online transactions from the perspective of Islamic law. This study employs a qualitative descriptive approach. Data were collected in depth to explore the phenomena of marriage and digital transactions, then processed through thematic analysis of the pillars and conditions of marriage from classical literature to produce comprehensive conclusions. Findings reveal differences of opinion among scholars. The Hanafi and Hanbali schools tend to consider online marriage valid, interpreting the unity of the assembly as the continuity of the proceedings without interruption by other activities, rather than requiring a single physical space. The Hanafi school even draws an analogy with correspondence. In contrast, the Shafiʼi school considers online marriage invalid due to its strict emphasis on physical presence in one location (al-muayyanah) so that witnesses possess absolute certainty (haqqul yaqin). Regarding online transactions, all four schools generally agree on their validity, provided there is clarity of contract, specification of goods, and a transparent price agreement.

This study examines the legal problems of PayLater within the framework of Islamic commercial jurisprudence, focusing on the tension between qardh-based structures and the prohibition of riba. Employing a normative-conceptual approach with critical legal analysis, the research evaluates the contractual construction, operational mechanisms, and compliance of PayLater practices with Islamic economic principles. The findings indicate that although PayLater is often presented as a deferred payment system linked to sale transactions, its practical implementation frequently reflects a loan-based structure accompanied by additional charges, thereby falling into the category of riba. From a maqashid al-shariah perspective, such practices pose risks to wealth protection due to the potential accumulation of disproportionate financial burdens. Nevertheless, the study identifies the possibility of reconstructing PayLater into a Sharia-compliant model through appropriate contractual frameworks and transparent profit mechanisms, contributing to the development of ethically aligned financial technology systems.

Khulu’ is one of the divorce mechanisms in Islam that grants a wife the right to terminate the marital bond by providing certain compensation to the husband. This study aims to analyze the concept of khulu’ based on thematically relevant hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as well as to explain the normative, procedural, and moral foundations of its practice in Islam. The method employed is library research with a qualitative approach, involving the collection and analysis of hadiths on khulu’ found in various hadith compilations, complemented by an examination of classical fiqh literature to explore the views of the four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali), as well as contemporary scholars. The collected data are then classified thematically, analyzed comparatively, and interpreted contextually. The findings indicate that khulu’, from the perspective of thematic hadith, is understood as a form of Islamic justice that provides protection for women in disharmonious marital relationships. The hadiths on khulu’ emphasize mutual consent, the obligation to return the dowry, and the prohibition of abuse of rights by either spouse. Therefore, khulu’ is not merely a legal instrument of divorce, but also a conflict resolution mechanism oriented toward public welfare (maṣlaḥah) and the balance of rights within Muslim families.

This study focuses on the analysis of pricing strategies implemented by contemporary culinary entrepreneurs, by taking the business entities of Kue Balok Lumer and Teh Saring franchises (such as Es Teh Solo) as case studies, to then be critically evaluated using the epistemological framework of Sharia Economic Law (Fiqh Muamalah). Through qualitative methods with an in-depth literature study approach (library research) and market phenomenological observations, this study dissects the anatomy of cost structures, cross-promotion schemes, bundling tactics, exponential price markups on online delivery applications, and indications of predatory pricing practices. The results of the study describe that entrepreneurs currently implement pricing strategies based on platform differentiation and market penetration that result in very high profit margins (reaching more than 400% for Teh Saring products) and price disparities between offline and online outlets due to platform commissions of 20-30%. A critical analysis of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh Muamalah) concludes that high profit margins do not automatically constitute Ghabn Fahisy (excessive profit-making) as long as they are based on the principles of mutual consent and transparency, considering that contemporary culinary products are considered tertiary needs (Tahsiniyyat) that complement lifestyles. However, price manipulation practices such as predatory pricing (Siyasah al-Ighraq) and double markups without transparency have the potential to violate the principle of Thaman al-Misl (fair pricing), trigger Gharar (unclear information), and undermine the Islamic business ethics of simplicity (Iqtishad).

The utilization of cash waqf as an instrument for sustainable madrasah education in Indonesia still faces significant obstacles, rooted in low literacy and understanding among the academic community. This condition is triggered by the lack of systematic integration of cash waqf material into the curriculum, as well as the lack of contextual teaching materials that can connect classical Islamic jurisprudence doctrine with modern social finance practices. This policy paper aims to formulate a strategy for mainstreaming cash waqf as a strategic issue in the madrasah education system to create financial independence for the institution. The policy methodology applied is a descriptive qualitative analysis through an Evidence-Based Policy Making (EBPM) approach, which includes a systematic literature review, a comparative analysis of regulations between Law Number 41 of 2004 concerning Waqf and national curriculum standards, and stakeholder mapping. The analysis shows that without a clear formulation of competencies in the domains of knowledge, attitudes, and practical skills, cash waqf will continue to be viewed as peripheral, supplementary material. The study recommends three key policy interventions: reorienting Graduate Competency Standards (SKL) to prioritize philanthropic literacy, developing digital modules based on investment instruments such as Cash Waqf Linked Sukuk (CWLS), and institutionalizing waqf management units as practical laboratories in madrasas. This integrated strategy is expected to transform madrasas from mere educational subjects into centers of an accountable Islamic philanthropic ecosystem, while equipping students with financial literacy relevant to future economic challenges.

This article examines the controversy surrounding ḥudud laws within Islamic jurisprudence and their perceived incompatibility with international human rights standards. It explores how punishments associated with ḥudud, such as amputation, flogging, and stoning, are widely criticised for violating global norms that prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The paper further analyses tensions between Islamic moral codes and Western conceptions of individual freedoms, particularly in areas such as religious conversion, privacy, and sexual autonomy. The study also engages with the reformist perspective of Tariq Ramadan, who advocates for a contextual reinterpretation of Islamic texts and calls for a moratorium on the application of ḥudud punishments. While acknowledging the scriptural basis of these laws, Ramadan emphasises the importance of historical context, strict conditions of application, and contemporary socio-political realities. The article concludes by highlighting the ongoing debate between traditionalist and reformist approaches, demonstrating the complexity of reconciling Islamic legal traditions with modern human rights frameworks.

This study reconstructs the value of judge's requirements for persons with disabilities through a comparative analysis between the opinions of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) and modern positive law, especially related to legal proficiency (ahliyyah). Normative-comparative methods are used to examine classical jurisprudence literature and contemporary legal frameworks in Saudi Arabia as well as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The main findings show that classical jurisprudence emphasizes mental proficiency as the main requirement, while physical disability does not automatically abort the eligibility of a judge. Modern positive law and practices in Saudi Arabia adopt an inclusive approach with reasonable accommodations and technological support. This study proposes a new paradigm based on maqāṣid al-syarī'ah that places justice, human dignity, and welfare as the foundation of judicial requirements reform, as well as introduces an Inclusive Judicial Qualification Framework (IJQF) model that integrates the principles of fiqh, human rights, and institutional accommodation to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities in judicial service in a fair and dignified manner.

This paper critically re-examines prevailing interpretations of Iran’s regional policy in sponsoring the axis of resistance, with particular focus on the theory of forward defence. The uncoordinated Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, which put Iran in grave danger, challenged the assumption that Tehran has established resistance groups for defensive purposes. Despite the security costs of Hamas’s unilateral action, Iran maintained support for the group, suggesting that its policy is driven less by strategic calculation than by Islamic obligations. Existing strategic, ideology and identity-based approaches fail to account for these commitments. As an alternative to the existing literature, this paper argues that Iran’s regional policy is best understood through the lens of Islamic jurisprudence, the foundational framework of the Islamic Republic’s policymaking. To support this claim, the study introduces a conceptual framework based on the jurisprudential triad of jihad (armed struggle), vilayat (solidarity among mujahedeen), and taqiyyeh (expediency). This perspective resolves a central paradox in Iran’s conduct: its unwavering support for the Palestinian cause at significant cost, alongside a cautious approach towards other resistance actors facing Israeli defeats. The first reflects vilayat, the second taqiyyeh, representing complementary dimensions of jihad as a single strategic logic.

This study aims to analyze the legality of medical injections during fasting from an Islamic jurisprudence perspective by examining two main approaches: textual and substantial. The research arises from contemporary issues caused by the development of medical technology, which has introduced modern treatment methods such as injections that are not explicitly discussed in classical fiqh literature. Using a qualitative method with a library research approach, this study draws on classical fiqh texts, contemporary literature, and related scientific journals. Data were analyzed inductively through a review of concepts, arguments, and the legal istinbath methods used by scholars. The findings reveal two main trends in understanding the legality of medical injections during fasting. The textual approach argues that injections do not invalidate the fast because they do not enter through natural channels (al-manafiz al-ma‘rufah), such as the mouth and nose, and are not categorized as eating or drinking. In contrast, the substantial approach holds that injections may invalidate the fast if they function as substitutes for eating and drinking, particularly nutritional injections. Therefore, classifying the type of injection is crucial in determining its legal ruling. This study concludes that an integrative-substantial approach is more relevant for addressing contemporary issues by distinguishing between nutritional and non-nutritional injections. Non-nutritional injections do not invalidate the fast, whereas nutritional injections do. These findings contribute to the development of more contextually grounded contemporary Islamic jurisprudence and provide practical guidance for Muslims and medical professionals in observing the fast without neglecting health considerations.

When Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) overthrew Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, its leader Ahmed al-Sharaa pledged to govern an inclusive Syria in which diversity would be treated as a national strength. Fifteen months later, that pledge has been systematically contradicted. Drawing on constitutional documents, human rights reports, and documentary evidence through March 2026, this article examines how Syria's transitional government has pursued the Islamization of governance while failing to prevent, and in key instances enabling, mass sectarian violence against the country's religious and ethnic minorities. The new constitutional declaration formally elevated Islamic jurisprudence as the principal source of legislation; an all-Sunni Fatwa Council was established to vet legislation; and a series of social norm directives have imposed conservative Islamic standards on a religiously diverse population. Pro-government forces conducted massacres of Alawite civilians in March 2025, with a confirmed death toll exceeding 1,400, followed by mass killings of Druze in July 2025 leaving over 1,000 dead. Christians face systematic intimidation and structural exclusion. The regime's accountability mechanisms have been opaque and inadequate. This article argues that the gap between al-Sharaa's inclusive rhetoric and HTS governance reflects a structural tension between Islamist ideology and Syria's irreducible pluralism, with profound implications for domestic stability and international human rights.

This study examines freedom of movement for the stateless (Bidoon) population in Kuwait from two perspectives: purposive Islamic jurisprudence (Maqasid) and constitutional law. Adopting a comparative analytical approach and utilizing descriptive data, it assesses the gap between the theoretical principle of freedom and its practical realization, amidst limited official statistics and the topic's sensitivity. Findings reveal that the decisive factor restricting movement is not constitutional text, but administrative complexities and documentary requirements. This negatively impacts mobility, travel, employment, and education, generating cumulative socioeconomic consequences. From a Maqasid perspective, preserving dignity and alleviating hardship dictate that restrictions must not exceed necessity, preventing the right from being emptied of its core essence. The study concludes that a practical harmonization between public order and fundamental rights is essential. This requires cumulative procedural improvements in issuing basic documents for settled populations in Kuwait, without compromising legal verification tools. This approach aims to reduce daily frictions and expand access to services, thereby enhancing social stability and offering practical pathways to address this issue.

This article investigates the historical underpinnings of maqāṣid al-sharīʿah by following their development in early Islamic legal thought from the Qurʾānic context to the jurisprudential contributions of religious scholars. Although subsequent thinkers like al-Ghazālī and al-Shāṭibī are frequently linked to the systematic theory of maqāṣid. This study contends that purpose-oriented legal reasoning was already present, however subtly, in the fundamental texts of Islam and the early years of Islamic jurisprudence. The normative foundation for maqāṣid-based reasoning was established by the Prophetic Sunnah’s consideration of context and public interest, as well as the emphasis on justice, mercy, welfare, and the eradication of hardship. The paper also looks at how early jurists and uṣūl scholars approached ideas like legal causation (ʿillah), maṣlaḥah, and ḥikmah al-tashrīʿ. This leads to Imām al-Shāfīʿī’s methodological consolidation of legal principles in al-Risālah. The eventual development of maqāṣid theory was greatly inspired by al-Shāfīʿī’s structure of legal reasoning and balance between scriptural authority and logical inference, even though he did not explicitly express maqāṣid as an independent concept. This study challenges the idea that maqāṣid is a solely post-classical invention and emphasizes its deep roots in the early stages of Islamic law by placing it within its early historical and philosophical background.

This article examines the reconstruction of disability-friendly fiqh kebangsaan (national Islamic jurisprudence) through a paradigmatic shift from the rukhsah (legal concession) approach to ‘azīmah (normative obligation) within the context of the Indonesian nation-state. Prevailing discourses on disability in classical Islamic jurisprudence predominantly frame persons with disabilities as recipients of individual dispensations, resulting in a charity-based approach that inadequately addresses systemic discrimination embedded in public policy, employment, and social institutions. Employing a normative-critical analysis of classical fiqh texts, legal maxims, national regulations, and international human rights instruments—particularly the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)—this study argues that the rukhsah paradigm must be transformed into an ‘azīmah-oriented framework that positions the state as an active duty-bearer in guaranteeing disability rights. The findings reveal three major insights: first, legal maxims such as al-mashaqqah tajlib al-taysīr and al-ḍarar yuzāl should not be narrowly interpreted as individual exemptions but rather as normative mandates for inclusive public policies; second, classical Islamic political jurisprudence has implicitly articulated state responsibility toward vulnerable groups, although this dimension has not been systematically developed in contemporary fiqh discourse; and third, the integration of fiqh kebangsaan with principles of social justice and international human rights law produces a jurisprudential model oriented toward empowerment rather than benevolence. This article concludes that the ‘azīmah approach is more contextually relevant to Indonesia and aligns with both maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah and substantive justice. Policy recommendations include strengthening derivative legislation of the Disability Law, allocating inclusive public budgets, and enhancing the institutional authority of the National Disability Commission.

Purpose The study aims to explore the influence of organisational policies in line with the Maqasid Shariah on the cultivation of a whistleblowing culture in the Malaysian workplaces. It fills the void in the literature of whistleblowing by bringing together Islamic ethics and international governance systems, providing a local, religion-based form of ethical whistleblowing. Design/methodology/approach The qualitative case study approach was used, where four different organisations, including two public organisations, one private and one financial institution, were used to gather data using semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Thematic analysis and ground theory were used to highlight the important themes and develop the suggested Shariah-oriented ethics ecosystem of whistleblowing. Findings The study establishes the existence of five thematic dimensions of institutionalisation of the policy, ethical leadership, psychological safety, religious internalisation and policy-practice gaps that inform the culture of whistleblowing in the Islamic organisational settings. Results indicate that introducing Maqasid-oriented principles into organisational policies can greatly improve the level of moral clarity, institutional trust and position the problem of whistleblowing as a legal right and religious obligation. Research limitations/implications The study has a rich contextual background, but due to the qualitative scope of the research, it is not generalisable. The study can be reduced to the selected firms and therefore might not comprehensively represent other industries or multi-faith settings. They must use mixed methods or longitudinal designs in future studies to confirm the results of the study in other industries and other multi-faith settings. Practical implications The findings can be put into practical use by the policymakers, compliance officers and organisational leaders to guide the design of Shariah based integrity systems. The recommendations encompass the incorporation of Maqasid values into the code of ethics, leadership education and reporting systems as well as safeguard to provide dignity and psychological security to whistleblowers. Social implications By assessing whistleblowing in line with the Islamic moral duties, the study promotes Sustainable Development Goal 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions), which encourages the people to trust the government and could engage in anti-corruption activities. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the study is one of the first attempts to explore the culture of whistleblowing empirically in the Maqasid Shariah perspective. It promotes an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates moral psychology, Islamic jurisprudence and organisational behaviour and helps in the formulation of indigenous governance models that are culturally responsive to people and globally acceptable.

ABSTRACT The relationship between Islam and human evolution remains contested. One possible tension concerns language, since Q. 2:31 is often read as implying that Adam was taught a complete revealed language, leaving little room for gradual linguistic development. Yet Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1210), in The Compendium on the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (al-Maḥṣūl fī ʿilm uṣūl al-fiqh), examined four theories of language origin and suspended judgement (tawaqquf) after finding no decisive proof for any one view. This article argues that al-Rāzī’s analysis weakens a key theological barrier, allowing Muslims to consider scientific accounts of language origins within an Islamic framework.

This paper presents a critical examination of Taha Jabir al-Alwani’s methodological approach to redefining the relationship between the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Building on his seminal work Reviving the Balance: The Authority of the Qur’an and the Status of the Sunnah, the study investigates al-Alwani’s principal argument that the Qur’an should serve as the supreme criterion (mīzān) for evaluating the authenticity, interpretation, and practical application of the Sunnah. Al-Alwani proposes a classification of Prophetic traditions based on their degree of conformity with the Qur’an, assigning distinct levels of authority in accordance with this alignment. In his view, the Sunnah derives its authority and interpretive significance from the Qur’an, functioning as a practical exposition of its teachings rather than as an independent and autonomous source of revelation. The study focuses on three core methodological dimensions that define al-Alwani’s approach: (1) Methodological Difficulties in Dealing with the Sunnah, which address the inconsistency and overreliance on transmitted reports without adequate Qur’anic contextualization; (2) Difficulties Relating to the Legacy Left by Usulī Scholars, which critiques how classical juristic frameworks contributed to the epistemological separation between the Qur’an and the Sunnah; and (3) Isnad Methodology in Isolation, which challenges the traditional emphasis on the chain of transmission without sufficient textual (matn) scrutiny in light of Qur’anic principles. However, al-Alwani’s perspective is critically examined against the views of the jumhūr (majority) of hadith scholars, who hold a different stance on the legitimate value of the Sunnah. Through this comparative and analytical lens, the paper evaluates al-Alwani’s efforts to construct a Qur’an-centered hermeneutical framework that seeks to harmonize authenticity, ethical intent, and contextual relevance. Ultimately, the study situates his approach within the broader landscape of modern Islamic reformist thought, underscoring his contribution to reaffirming the Qur’an’s central position in the interpretation of the Sunnah and in the renewal of Islamic jurisprudence.

The rapid expansion of digital media has significantly altered the circulation of religious authority, raising new questions about how Islamic legal interpretation operates beyond traditional scholarly institutions. This article investigates how digital fatwas reshape the production and legitimacy of Islamic legal authority in Nigeria, a context where Islamic jurisprudence interacts with diverse social, institutional, and technological environments. The study positions digital fatwas not merely as new channels of dissemination but as socio-legal arenas in which authority is negotiated among scholars, digital platforms, and religious audiences. Drawing on qualitative socio-legal methods, including discourse analysis of online fatwas, platform observation, and interviews with scholars and digital religious actors, the article examines how Islamic legal opinions circulate and gain legitimacy within contemporary digital ecosystems. The findings demonstrate that digitalisation does not eliminate traditional scholarly authority; rather, it reconfigures it into a relational and networked form in which credibility is co-produced through scholarly reputation, technological mediation, and audience engagement. By analysing the transformation of fatwa practices in Nigeria, the article contributes to broader debates on Islamic law as a discursive and institutional phenomenon. It shows how emerging digital infrastructures reshape the dynamics of ijtihād, authority, and legal interpretation in the Global South, offering new insights into how Islamic legal authority adapts to evolving socio-technological contexts.

The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has given rise to the deepfake phenomenon, an audio-visual manipulation that mimics a person's face and voice with a high degree of similarity. The misuse of deepfakes in the creation of pornographic content raises serious issues related to privacy violations, the destruction of dignity, and the lack of legal norms. National regulations such as the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) and the Pornography Law do not specifically address AI-based digital crimes, so an Islamic legal perspective is needed to provide a more comprehensive normative approach. This study aims to analyze the phenomenon of deepfake pornography through the framework of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh jinayah) by emphasizing the principle of maqāṣid al-syarī‘ah, particularly the protection of honor (ḥifẓ al-‘ird). The research method used is qualitative with a normative-juridical approach through a literature study of Islamic legal sources and contemporary legal studies. The results of this study indicate that Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh jinayah) has high flexibility in responding to new crimes unknown in classical literature through the concept of ta'zīr and the principle of benefit (maṣlaḥah mursalah). The maqāṣid al-syarī‘ah approach strengthens the ethical basis to emphasize that the distribution of deepfake pornography content is a violation of human dignity and must be sanctioned based on the principles of substantive Islamic justice. Thus, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh jinayah) and maqāṣid al-syarī‘ah can be an alternative paradigm in formulating contemporary Islamic legal policies to protect human dignity in the digital era.

This study introduces a novel conceptual model, "Dual Participatory Procedural Justice," as a theoretical legal framework for implementing the "Divide and Choose" principle in bilateral divisible disputes in private law, addressing contemporary challenges in civil and commercial dispute resolution. This system diverges from the mathematical idealism of Western theory and the fragmented applications of traditional Islamic jurisprudence by integrating the procedural precision of Game Theory with Islamic legal maxims, especially the principles of preventing harm and alleviating hardship. Employing a critical comparative methodology grounded in Natural Law jurisprudence, the study challenges the prevailing notion of symmetry in Western models and contextualises the mechanism within the historical operational frameworks of Islamic courts. The resulting framework establishes enforceable safeguards, including mandates for functional symmetry and expert intervention. The study primarily focuses on situating the proposal within the framework of UAE Civil Procedure Law and constitutional Sharia principles, while offering a comparative analysis of its applicability in Southeast Asian jurisdictions, particularly highlighting parallels with the Indonesian Musyawarah and Malaysian Sulh systems. The model is only for disputes that can be split into two and does not cover issues of child custody or public policy (ordre public). The results show that this participatory approach significantly reduces court backlogs and makes people in Arab and Southeast Asian countries happier with the law.

HRMARS - Addressing the issues faced by children living outside traditional family structures requires more than simply applying legal or religious texts; it necessitates a deep understanding of the nature of these situations and an awareness of the responsibility of judicial authorities to protect this vulnerable group. Homelessness is not merely the absence of shelter, but a complex social and legal situation that can lead to direct violations of a child's rights to care and protection. This research examines this phenomenon from two complementary perspectives: the first, derived from Islamic jurisprudence, which includes principles and rulings that uphold the protection of minors and their dignity; and the second, through the Saudi judicial system, which has sought to codify and implement these principles within a modern legal framework. Through this comparative study, the research aims to highlight how both jurisprudence and the legal system address this issue, in terms of concepts, methods, and outcomes. The study discusses the extent to which Islamic jurisprudence and the Saudi legal system converge in recognizing the principle of "the best interests of the child," the state's responsibility, and the judge's authority to take appropriate measures for the child's protection. It also addresses areas of divergence, particularly in judicial structure and procedural rules, compared to the flexibility of jurisprudential approaches based on the objectives of Islamic law (Maqasid Al-Shari'ah). This study seeks to move beyond mere description, analyzing the extent to which the Saudi judicial system has succeeded in providing effective solutions that respect religious principles without neglecting institutional and legal realities. The study concludes with a critical perspective that examines points of convergence and divergence, and suggests areas for development to achieve more comprehensive legal protection that is consistent with religious principles and practical requirements.