Legal Reasoning Research Articles

Generative AI in Judiciary: Enhancing Accuracy and Preventing Manipulation with TGAT

The combination of Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems with Large Language Models (LLMs) shows great potential for legal artificial intelligence (AI) but major issues remain regarding temporal adaptation as well as explainability and ethical compliance. This literature review examines AI-driven legal technology progress through an evaluation of deep learning architecture development and legal-specific NLP techniques and hybrid RAG frameworks. Current systems show enhanced citation accuracy at 40% above standalone LLMs and improved retrieval efficiency through FAISS and LegalBERT tools but they need improvement in handling real-time statutory updates and algorithmic bias mitigation and cross-jurisdictional adaptability. The current methodologies face three major limitations which include static precedent retrieval and opaque decision-making processes and insufficient support for regional languages. The proposed Temporal-Aware Neurosymbolic Legal AI (TANLA) framework addresses these challenges by using dynamic temporal graph networks with probabilistic legal reasoning. TANLA introduces three main innovations including temporal graph attention networks (TGAT) for precedent evolution tracking and hybrid neurosymbolic inference which combines LegalGPT with ProbLog-encoded statutory rules and adversarial bias mitigation optimized for multi-lingual Indian legal contexts. The benchmark evaluations show that TANLA achieves a 12.7% better performance in case law relevance prediction and reduces legal research time by 34% while keeping 98% citation accuracy. The framework solves temporal concept drift by continuously updating precedent embeddings and provides explainability through counterfactual rationale generation. This research offers essential knowledge for creating legal AI systems that understand jurisdictions and emphasizes the requirement for standardized ethical auditing protocols in generative AI applications. The proposed architecture creates a new paradigm that balances computational efficiency with interpretability in judicial decision-support systems.

Maqasid Sharia and the Biomedical Ethics of E-Cigarettes: A Contemporary Islamic Legal Assessment

This study critically examines the consumption of electronic cigarettes through the integrative lens of Maqasid al-Sharia, health preservation, and legal evaluation. Employing a qualitative methodology grounded in document analysis, this research draws upon a diverse array of primary and secondary sources, including authoritative fatwas, peer-reviewed medical literature, and official public health data. The study adopts a Maqasid-based ijtihad framework, supported by principles from Ushul Fiqh and qawaʿid fiqhiyyah, particularly the maxim al-darar yuzal (harm must be eliminated). Given that e-cigarettes are a modern phenomenon not clearly stated in classical Islamic texts, the issue falls under the domain of fiqh al-nawazil (the jurisprudence of novel occurrences), requiring contemporary legal reasoning (ijtihad mu'asir) to determine their ruling. The findings reveal a substantial incongruity between the use of electronic cigarettes and the core objectives of Maqasid al-Sharia, particularly the imperative to safeguard life (hifz al-nafs) and intellect (hifz al-ʿaql). Moreover, Islamic legal pronouncements on this matter vary, yet a growing corpus of contemporary fatwas aligns with a precautionary stance rooted in the principle of harm prevention. The study underscores that while e-cigarettes are often perceived as less harmful than conventional tobacco, their adverse health effects and potential to undermine societal welfare necessitate a reevaluation within Islamic ethical-legal frameworks. Limitations of the study include its reliance on secondary data and the evolving nature of medical consensus. These findings contribute to a nuanced interdisciplinary dialogue at the intersection of Islamic jurisprudence, public health, and ethical consumption.

Sorting, reporting and ways to use registration: Habsburg Austria from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century

ABSTRACT In late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Habsburg Austria, regulations permitted residents free movement, while at the same time the government strived for ubiquitous monitoring and surveillance of any change of place and stay. This policy relied on reporting by several parties, such as landlords, innkeepers or employers – and not only the police and local authorities. Registration was based on and created differences and inequalities between citizens and foreigners as well as among citizens, who were subjected to vigilance that was strict in different ways. The article compares various registration practices; it describes social sorting through registration; and it highlights incentives for registering or avoiding registration for legal, material or symbolic reasons and status.

The Myth of Neutrality: Judicial Review, Ideology, and Constitutional Interpretation in Pakistan and the United Kingdom

This article critically examines the notion of judicial neutrality in the context of constitutional interpretation and judicial review, using Pakistan and the United Kingdom as comparative case studies. While courts often project an image of impartiality and legal objectivity, their rulings in politically sensitive cases reveal underlying ideological and institutional influences. The purpose of this study is to deconstruct the myth of neutrality and to explore how judicial decisions are shaped by broader political and cultural contexts, especially in systems with divergent constitutional frameworks—one codified and fragile, the other uncodified yet resilient. Employing a qualitative, doctrinal research method, the article analyses landmark judicial decisions, constitutional texts, and scholarly critiques to expose the value-laden nature of constitutional adjudication. In both jurisdictions, the judiciary has at times reinforced dominant political structures under the guise of legal reasoning, while at other moments it has asserted democratic values through selective activism. The key finding is that claims to judicial neutrality often mask deeper ideological commitments and strategic institutional positioning. Recognising this complexity is essential for a more transparent and accountable model of constitutional governance. The article ultimately calls for a candid reassessment of the role of courts in shaping constitutional meaning within contested democratic orders. This article interrogates the assumption of judicial neutrality in constitutional adjudication by comparing the practice of judicial review in Pakistan and the United Kingdom. While courts in both jurisdictions often purport to act as neutral arbiters applying objective legal principles, their decisions frequently reflect underlying ideological frameworks and political contexts. By examining key case law and the constitutional arrangements in each country, this article contends that the rhetoric of neutrality conceals the inherently political nature of constitutional interpretation. The analysis underscores the need to reassess the normative claims of judicial objectivity, particularly in societies marked by deep constitutional and political contestation.

Aligning Maqasid al-Shari'ah and Ijtihad: A Framework for Contemporary Islamic Jurisprudence

This paper examines the nuanced relationship between Maqasid al-Shari'ah (objectives of Islamic law) and Ijtihad (legal reasoning) within the framework of contemporary Islamic jurisprudence. Through a structured analysis of both classical and contemporary works, it explores how Maqasid al-Shari'ah provides an essential foundation that guides and validates Ijtihad. This research reveals that Maqasid emphasizes public interest (maslahah) over individual benefit, equipping Islamic legal theory with methodological tools relevant to modern issues. It highlights that a comprehensive understanding of Maqasid is crucial for effective Ijtihad, ensuring that legal interpretations remain aligned with Islamic law's overarching objectives while adapting to contemporary challenges. This study contributes to ongoing discourse in Islamic legal theory by analyzing the dynamic interplay between these two concepts.

Adjudication in the Rhetorical Context of Chinese Ideological Speech

Abstract Does recent Chinese ideological speech on the rule of law add anything new to Chinese legal reasoning and adjudication? This article argues that the significance of Chinese ideological speech is easier to appreciate when it is studied as rhetoric rather than as legal theoretical arguments or as policy concepts. Recent texts on the Chinese Communist Party’s rule of law ideology are mostly based on preexisting concepts of Chinese legal thought. From a conceptual perspective, these efforts may appear to have little bearing on adjudication in Chinese people’s courts. From the rhetorical perspective, however, the influence of Party ideology on Chinese legal reasoning and adjudication can be seen to emerge from the overall rhetorical context of the Chinese party-state. The result of this influence may be best theorized as an implicit ideological sensibility, which supports the changing priorities of the Chinese party-state. Rhetorical theory also facilitates comparisons between Chinese ideological advocacy efforts and the promotion of policy concepts in other organizations. This article finds a point of comparison for Chinese ideological advocacy in the promotion of the Human Rights-based Approaches to Development within the United Nations system. This comparison casts light on the motivations and challenges of ideological advocacy in organizational settings.

From distance to embodiment-objectivity and empathy in Swedish rape trials.

This article investigates how objectivity is performed and embodied in Swedish rape trials, where legal decisions often hinge on oral testimonies rather than technical evidence. Drawing on the sociology of emotions and feminist legal theory, the article challenges the positivist notion of objectivity as dispassionate detachment. Instead, it conceptualizes objectivity as a situated and emotionally regulated practice, co-produced through empathic translation and imagination. Based on ethnographic fieldwork-including observations, interviews with legal professionals, and analysis of 18 rape cases-the study shows how empathy serves as a critical epistemic tool in the courtroom. Judges and other legal actors must translate everyday experiences into legal logics while maintaining impartiality. Concepts such as himpathy and herasure (Manne), female fear, and male fear are used to explore how gendered norms shape credibility assessments and emotional orientations in rape trials. The article argues that empathy does not undermine objectivity, but rather constitutes its condition in cases where normative assumptions and lived experiences diverge. Harding's standpoint epistemology and concept of strong objectivity inform a model of legal reasoning that is reflexive, perspectival, and emotionally attuned. The study identifies how empathic trials-where legal actors actively engage with gendered perspectives-can counteract testimonial and hermeneutical injustice, thus fostering more equitable adjudication. Ultimately, the article advocates for a reconceptualisation of objectivity as embodied and relational, particularly crucial in the legal treatment of sexual violence.

Judicial Independence in Croatia Under European Scrutiny: Analysis of the Ruling Hann-Invest and Others (Or How to Save Judges from Other Judges)

This contribution analyses the first case presented to the Court of Justice of the EU that questions the independence of the judiciary in Croatia. The case has several unique aspects. First, it addresses threats to judicial independence from within the judiciary itself, which is unusual, as most cases typically involve external pressures from the executive or legislative branches. Second, while the judicial practice under scrutiny was deemed contrary to EU law, interestingly the Court explained to Croatian authorities how they could rectify the situation. Third, the Advocate General’s Conclusions largely diverge from the Court’s ruling. While this is not so uncommon, it proves that this was not an easy case. Last, the case challenges and ultimately deems unjust a judicial practice that persists in Croatia as a remnant of the country’s communist past and which draws inspiration from an era when judges were subject to a strict judicial hierarchy to the detriment of their own autonomous opinion. The paper delves into the specifics of the Croatian case. It compares the legal reasoning of the Advocate General and that the Court of Justice, illustrating their differing approaches. The contribution explores other arguments that were not raised in the Conclusions that, interestingly, were included in the Court’s judgement. The Court ruled that Croatia’s practice – where a registrar judge, not involved in the case, could override a decision made by the court handling the case, and where an extended section of the court could also force the judges handling the case to give up their legal reasoning before they could even rule on the case – was incompatible with Article 19 TEU.

SÉRIE TEMPORAL DA MORTALIDADE MATERNA POR SÍNDROMES HEMORRÁGICAS NO BRASIL

Hemorrhage is considered the main cause of preventable maternal mortality globally, occurring during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum. It can be classified as immediate (up to 24 hours after birth) and late (after 24 hours). The objective of this research is to develop a time series with epidemiological data on maternal mortality due to hemorrhagic syndromes in Brazil in the period 2003-2022. Epidemiological study of a time series of mortality due to hemorrhagic syndromes in Brazil, data for the last nineteen years available on the DATASUS website were collected. Therefore, deaths whose causes were registered under the ICD-10 Groups (WHO, 1994) were selected: O20 – Hemorrhage in early pregnancy; O00 – Ectopic pregnancy; O04 – Abortion for medical and legal reasons; O019 – Unspecified hydatidiform mole. Data collection covered the period 2003-2022. The original variables of this study included age, gender and ethnic origin, year of death, educational level, marital status, place of residence and population. To calculate mortality rates, deaths that occurred in the states and regions of Brazil during the research period were considered. According to the results obtained, ectopic pregnancy was the most common hemorrhagic syndrome in Brazil, and among the most affected age group was 20 to 29 years old, with the highest incidence in the Southeast region, which represented 39.1% of cases. In second place, the Northeast region demonstrated 33% of cases, being more frequent among women aged 30 to 39 years old.

Interfaith Marriage

A few decades ago, the idea of a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man was inconceivable in Muslim communities. While Muslim men were able to marry from other faiths (Christian and Jewish), Muslim women, on the other hand, were not permitted to marry non-Muslims. This presentation examines the legal reasoning behind the law which forbids Muslim women from marrying outside their faith. The aim of this presentation is to unpack the arguments employed by Muslim jurists and exegetes throughout the ages which have allowed these laws to remain on the books until today. In this essay, I provide an analysis of these laws in order to determine whether these rulings were rooted in the Islamic tradition—specifically, the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet. Islamic legal scholars and jurists have long claimed that it is forbidden for women to marry from outside the Islamic faith, maintaining that their reasoning is based on evidence from within the Islamic primary source of law (the Qur'an). This essay, however, shows that such claims by Muslim jurists have no base in the Qur'an or traditions of the Prophet, and, instead, jurists have relied on one of the most strenuous methods of Islamic law—jurists’ consensus (ijma)— to reach these conclusions. Jurists’ rulings, which later became law in almost every Arab-Muslim state, tend to discriminate against women, especially with regard to their right to choose their own spouse. Though widely considered to be among the strongest and most reliable forms of evidence in Islamic law, Jurists’ consensus has proven itself to be fertile ground for the creation of laws which restrict the rights of women, while at the same time protecting and even favoring the rights of men.

Reasoning and reconciliation in twelfth-century Anglo-Norman legal writing

This article explores legal reasoning and reconciliation of sources in late twelfth-century legal writing, focusing on four Romano-canonical procedural treatises (‘Olim edebatur editio’, the ordo of Ricardus Anglicus, Actor et reus and the Ordo Bambergensis) and the English common law treatise known as Glanvill. Through a comparative lens, the study highlights how these works addressed conflicts between legal authorities while reflecting broader intellectual trends of the twelfth century. The ordines employ rhetorical techniques, such as contrasting old and new law and learned opinion, to guide legal practitioners through complex legal landscapes. Each text showcases distinct approaches to balancing practical legal knowledge with theoretical discourse. Meanwhile, Glanvill engages more extensively with dilemmatic methods, using questions as a foundational tool for systematic inquiry. Ultimately, these works reveal the authors’ efforts to reconcile diverse legal traditions, highlighting the role of rhetorical strategies in shaping legal reasoning and the broader evolution of legal thought during this period.

Role of Technology in a Social, Economic and Ethical Environment: Jurisprudence Approaches to Legal Reasoning

Technology has dramatically transformed legal reasoning and impacted social, economic, and ethical frameworks. This article explores the evolving role of technology in the law and analyses its impact from different legal perspectives. From digital communication tools and automation to artificial intelligence and forensic advances, technology is improving legal efficiency, access to justice, and decision-making processes. Digital case management systems, blockchain smart contract technology, and virtual courts have revolutionized legal practice, making legal services more efficient and convenient. However, the integration of technology into legal argumentation also raises significant ethical questions. Issues such as data privacy, cybersecurity threats, and algorithmic bias in AI-driven legal systems challenge the fairness and accountability of legal decision-making. The potential for job loss or displacement, particularly among younger legal professionals, further complicates the economic situation. The rise of technology-based legal services requires a rethinking of traditional billing structures and legal education in order to prepare future legal practitioners for digital careers. Legal theory, including legal positivism, natural law, and critical legal studies, offer different perspectives on how legal reasoning adapts to technological change. Legal positivists focus on the written rules governing technology, while natural law theorists emphasize ethical considerations and critical legal scholars criticize technology for its role in exacerbating power imbalances. This study argues that while technology offers many benefits, its regulation and ethical application remain essential to maintaining justice, fairness, and accountability. A balanced approach is necessary to align technological progress with legal principles, ensuring that legal systems remain adaptable yet firmly rooted in fundamental rights and due process. By adopting a proactive and ethically guided framework, legal institutions can harness technology’s potential while mitigating its risks in a rapidly evolving digital world.

Reconciling Statutory Protections and Constitutional Rights in Zambian Consumer Law: A Doctrinal and Normative Critique of Regulatory Gaps and Judicial Responses

This article interrogates the doctrinal and normative coherence between statutory consumer protection mechanisms and the broader constitutional rights enshrined in Zambia’s legal order. It critically examines the extent to which the constitutional framework supports, limits, or remains indifferent to evolving consumer protection regimes. Using a doctrinal legal research methodology complemented by comparative normative analysis, the study evaluates primary sources of Zambian law, particularly the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016, and core statutory instruments such as the Competition and Consumer Protection Act No. 24 of 2010. It draws upon judicial decisions and scholarly commentaries to assess how courts have interpreted constitutional guarantees in the context of consumer rights disputes. The article reveals that despite significant legislative strides, Zambia’s consumer law regime remains partially insulated from the normative force of constitutional supremacy, often resulting in fragmented enforcement and inconsistencies in legal reasoning. This analysis contributes to the discourse on aligning statutory regimes with constitutional imperatives and calls for deliberate judicial activism, harmonisation of laws, and constitutional entrenchment of socio-economic rights to secure substantive consumer justice.

ANALISIS YURISPRUDENSI GUGATAN DAN PELANGGARAN HUKUM KERUSAKAN LINGKUNGAN OLEH KEGIATAN PERTAMBANGAN

Legal disputes concerning environmental damage from mining activities pose a crucial challenge to environmental law enforcement in Indonesia, often involving large corporations and government oversight bodies. A significant case involves LSM Lestari's lawsuit against PT Bukit Asam (PTBA) and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (Kemen ESDM) regarding coal mining impacts in Lahat, South Sumatra, culminating in Supreme Court Decision No. 5246 K/PDT/2024. This paper aims to analyze the Supreme Court's legal reasoning (ratio decidendi) in this decision, specifically examining its construction of PTBA's unlawful environmental acts, the legal basis for ordering environmental restoration and imposing penalty payments (dwangsom), and its determination of Kemen ESDM's supervisory role. The research employs a normative legal methodology, primarily using a case law analysis approach focused on the Supreme Court decision, supplemented by a statute approach reviewing relevant environmental and mining legislation. The findings reveal the Court affirmed PTBA committed unlawful acts violating the Civil Code and environmental laws (UU PPLH), mandating restoration and dwangsom accordingly. The ruling also obligated Kemen ESDM oversight, reinforcing governmental accountability. This decision strengthens environmental jurisprudence and NGO legal standing, despite potential enforcement challenges.

Translating into Topic Chains in International Laws: a Corpus-based Study of English-Chinese Translation Shift

Abstract This study explores discourse restructuring in English-Chinese legal translation, focusing on the translation shift to Chinese-specific topic chain clauses. Using data from a parallel English-Chinese legal corpus, this research reveals that the shift from English “subject-prominent” clause combining to Chinese topic chaining is influenced by the textual status of the English grammatical subject. Parameters for determining textual status include semantic animacy, discourse saliency and position within the schematic structure of the genre. The more marked the English grammatical subject is according to these parameters, the higher its textual status, the more likely it is to be translated into Chinese as topic chaining clauses into sentence. The study argues that topic chain translation accounts for universal translation shifts, including explicitation, implicitation, and reference tracking shifts. It proposes that topic chain translation is the “hybridization” strategy adopted by translators to preserve the specific legal coherence of the source text while aligning with the linguistic and communicative norms of the target language. This makes translation shifts predictable. Viewing “translation as legal action” emphasizes the recreation of meaning, considering extra-linguistic factors relevant to the genre-specific discourse community. Topic chain translation offers a practical approach to achieving equivalent communicative purposes in the target genre, thereby facilitating the “text translation” of morphologically structured languages like English into Chinese, which is characterized by a freer word order. The corpus and empirical findings of this study can inform the teaching of legal translation and the development of algorithms in machine translation to assist in generating or annotating appropriate clause combining structures. The study also calls for further investigations into discourse restructuring in legal translation, particularly at the intersection of language contrasts, legislative contexts, and genre conventions, where the effective recreation of international legal reasoning occurs.

Judicial Ethics and Moral Reasoning in Legal Philosophy: A Deontological and Utilitarian Review of the Harvey Moeis Case

The purpose of this study is to explore the alignment between judicial decisions and ethical principles through the lens of legal philosophy, using the Harvey Moeis corruption case as a focal point. This research employs a descriptive qualitative method with juridical-normative and philosophical approaches. It involves the analysis of judicial decisions, legal norms, and ethical codes such as KEPPH, combined with theoretical frameworks from deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. The study finds that while the court’s decision attempted to uphold justice, concerns remain regarding judicial integrity and impartiality. The ruling emphasizes deterrence but reflects the need for stronger adherence to ethical and philosophical principles. This study contributes a philosophical-ethical analysis of a contemporary judicial case in Indonesia, highlighting the moral dimension of legal reasoning often overlooked in procedural legal analysis.

LEGAL REASONING BY JUDGES IN THE DECISION OF THE RELIGIOUS COURT IN THE DKI JAKARTA AREA REGARDING SHARIA FINANCING

This study aims to analyze the differences in religious court decisions on sharia economics based on the judge's ijtihad in interpreting and constructing the law. The legal interpretation carried out by the judge is ijtihad in finding the law on sharia economic problems in the decisions of the Religious Court in the DKI Jakarta area in 2016-2022. Ijtihad carried out by judges in making legal discovery efforts uses different methods or approaches so that there are differences in decisions. The concept of approach used in this study is: statute approach and case approach. The data sources in this study rely on the decisions of the Religious Courts in the DKI Jakarta area in 2016-2022 regarding sharia economic cases which include; Murābahah contract, musyārakah contract, mudarabah contract and istisna contract. The data analysis technique in this study uses qualitative descriptive. The findings in this study prove that the judge's ijtihād in making efforts to discover the law is based on laws and regulations and several related legal sources. Legal reasoning carried out by judges in examining, adjudicating and issuing judgments uses different interpretation methods or approaches so that there are differences in decisions in one sharia economic case. The ijtihad method or legal reasoning method used by judges is divided into juridical interpretation methods, namely grammatical, systematic and authentic interpretation. Meanwhile, the teleological interpretation method is the only method of legal reasoning used by judges as a contextual approach by looking at empirical evidence based on laws and regulations.    Â

Looking for Moderate Fiqh: The Thought of Mohammad Hashim Kamali on the Reformation of Rigidity and Inflexibility in Islamic Law

This article aims to examine Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s thoughts on the paradigm of moderate Islamic law (wasatiyyah), which emphasizes harmonious values and a humanistic approach as an integral part of maqasid al-shariah. The focus is on how Kamali’s moderate fiqh can address contemporary issues and offer an alternative to rigid, literal interpretations of Islamic law. This research employs a library research method, analyzing Kamali’s works and relevant literature to explore the foundations of his thought. A philosophical-normative analysis is used to discuss how Kamali’s ideas on moderate fiqh are rooted in the objectives of Islamic law (maqasid al-shariah) and how they align with contemporary needs for flexibility and human-centered legal reasoning. The study finds that Kamali proposes a reformation of Islamic law in response to the violence and rigidity fostered by formalistic legal understandings. His moderate fiqh, based on the principles of wasatiyyah, advocates for a balanced, context-sensitive approach to Islamic law that aligns with humanist values and social justice, all while upholding the core objectives of maqasid al-shariah. Kamali’s thought offers a significant contribution to the development of Islamic jurisprudence, proposing a moderate and adaptive legal framework that remains faithful to Islamic principles while responding to the complexities of the modern world. His approach can help reconcile traditional Islamic law with contemporary humanistic values, promoting peace, justice, and tolerance.

اثر احكام القضاء الدستوري في السياسة التشريعية للأقاليم والمحافظات غير المنتظمة في اقليم (المحكمة الاتحادية العليا نموذجاً)

The constitutional judiciary in Iraq, represented by the Federal Supreme Court, remains a relatively recent institution. Despite the explicit provisions of the 2005 Constitution of the Republic of Iraq, which grant regional authorities the right to exercise legislative, executive, and judicial powers in accordance with its provisions—excluding only those exclusive powers reserved for the federal authorities—the constitutional judiciary has frequently ruled on the validity of legislation enacted by regional legislative bodies. In several instances, it has declared such legislation unconstitutional on the grounds that it contravenes the federal constitution. These rulings, however, appear to overlook the unequivocal wording of Article 121 of the Federal Constitution, which explicitly affirms this right. Moreover, the constitutional legislator in Iraq has clearly delineated exclusive federal powers in Article 110 of the 2005 Constitution, leaving no room for ambiguity or alternative interpretations. Any powers not explicitly listed as exclusive to the federal authorities are, by default, vested in the regions and governorates not organized in a region. This principle is further reinforced by the amended Law No. 21 of 2008 on Governorates Not Organized in a Region, which adopts the same approach in Article 2, Paragraph 5. However, the rulings of the constitutional judiciary in this regard have been inconsistent, raising concerns about their implications for the legislative policies of the regions and governorates not organized in a region. Accordingly, this study seeks to analyze the impact of these rulings on legislative policymaking in such jurisdictions. It also aims to critically examine and assess these judicial decisions through a logical and objective legal analysis that remains free from political influence. Given that the constitutional judiciary serves as the guardian of rights and freedoms in any legal system, it is imperative to ensure that its rulings adhere to sound legal reasoning and constitutional principles. Keywords: Federal Supreme Court, constitutional review, legislation, legislative policy.

Studying Fiqh Based on the Quran and Hadith in the Modern Era by Revisiting the Methodology of Legal Istinbat

This study aims to re-examine the normative foundations of the Qur’an and Hadith as the primary sources of Islamic law in responding to contemporary social dynamics and legal challenges. The Qur’an is positioned as a sacred text that contains universal and eternal principles for all humankind, while the Hadith serves as a methodological guide for applying Qur’anic laws to present-day contexts. The study is grounded in the Ma‘na-Cum-Maghza theoretical framework, a contextual approach that emphasizes understanding the substantive meaning and message of the divine texts. This research adopts a qualitative method, employing literature review techniques from both classical and contemporary Islamic legal sources. The findings indicate the necessity for a renewed methodology of istinbat (legal reasoning) that is more responsive to social change, without neglecting the normative authority of Islamic legal sources. These findings are contextualized within the theoretical framework, highlighting the epistemological and methodological implications for the development of fiqh in Indonesia’s legal landscape. This study contributes originality by integrating the Ma‘na-Cum-Maghza approach with istinbat methodology, thereby enriching the discourse of contemporary Islamic legal studies and offering a new direction for lawmaking grounded in maqashid shariah and social justice. The findings provide practical insights for academics, practitioners, and policymakers in the field of Islamic law.