Search

Background: Accurate Qibla determination is a fundamental requirement of Islamic worship, requiring the integration of ʿilm al-falak, geospatial technology, and contemporary Islamic jurisprudence. Comparative studies examining its implementation in Muslim-majority and Muslim-minority societies remain limited.

Purpose: This study compares the implementation of modern Qibla determination technologies in Indonesia and South Korea to evaluate their accuracy, institutional support, and implications for contemporary Islamic law from the perspective of maqāṣid al-sharīʿah.

Methods: A qualitative comparative approach was employed through doctrinal legal analysis, literature review, institutional document analysis, and geospatial verification using GPS, GIS, and astronomical software. Artificial intelligence assisted only in literature organization and comparative synthesis under researcher verification.

Results: Modern geospatial technologies provide highly accurate Qibla orientation in both countries. Indonesia demonstrates stronger institutional governance through standardized ʿilm al-falak education and religious authorities, whereas Muslim communities in South Korea rely primarily on digital applications because of limited institutional infrastructure. Effective implementation depends on the integration of technology, legal interpretation, and institutional capacity.

Conclusion: Modern Qibla determination requires harmonizing Islamic astronomy, digital technology, and Islamic legal principles to ensure accuracy, accessibility, and legal certainty across diverse Muslim communities.

Novelty: This study proposes an interdisciplinary framework integrating ʿilm al-falak, geospatial technology, and maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, demonstrating that institutional governance is as important as technological precision in contemporary Qibla determination.

Background: The legal validity of anti-polygamy clauses in Islamic marriage contracts remains contested between classical Islamic jurisprudence and contemporary statutory reforms. Although previous studies discuss polygamy from doctrinal, sociological, and judicial perspectives, limited research comparatively examines the legal enforceability of such clauses under classical Shāfi'ī jurisprudence and Indonesia's Kompilasi Hukum Islam (KHI).

Objective: This study analyzes the legal validity of anti-polygamy clauses under classical Shāfi'ī jurisprudence and the KHI, compares their underlying legal reasoning through maqāṣid al-sharī'ah, and evaluates their implications for Islamic family law reform in Indonesia.

Methods: This qualitative doctrinal legal research applies a comparative approach using classical Shāfi'ī legal texts, the Qur'an, relevant ḥadīth, the KHI, and contemporary Islamic family law literature. Data were analyzed through doctrinal interpretation, comparative legal analysis, and the maqāṣid al-sharī'ah framework.

Findings: Classical Shāfi'ī jurisprudence considers anti-polygamy clauses legally non-binding while maintaining the validity of marriage. In contrast, the KHI recognizes their enforceability to promote justice, family welfare, and legal certainty. Comparative analysis demonstrates that maqāṣid al-sharī'ah provides a normative framework for reconciling classical jurisprudence with contemporary statutory reforms.

Conclusion: A maqāṣid-based approach enables Islamic family law to preserve doctrinal authenticity while strengthening contractual autonomy and protecting family welfare.

Novelty: This study proposes an integrated maqāṣid-based comparative framework that bridges classical Shāfi'ī jurisprudence and Indonesia's statutory Islamic family law in assessing the legitimacy and enforceability of anti-polygamy clauses.

Background: Violent extremism remains a major challenge to governance and social stability. Although ISIS and Boko Haram have been widely examined from political and security perspectives, limited comparative research explains how these organizations manipulate Islamic law to construct pseudolegal authority and alternative systems of governance. This study addresses that gap by analysing their reinterpretation of Islamic legal concepts.

Methods: This study employs a qualitative comparative case study using discourse analysis of speeches, propaganda publications, official declarations, and other documentary sources produced by ISIS and Boko Haram. The analysis is guided by Legal Pluralism Theory and Radicalisation Theory and interpreted through classical Islamic jurisprudence and maqāṣid al-sharīʿah.

Results: The findings reveal that both organizations strategically manipulate takfīr, jihād, and ḥudūd to establish pseudolegal authority and legitimize violence. ISIS institutionalized these narratives through centralized bureaucratic structures and a pseudo-state model, whereas Boko Haram adopted a decentralized insurgent governance model adapted to local socio-political conditions.

Discussion: The comparative analysis demonstrates that extremist governance is sustained through selective interpretation of religious texts, decontextualization of classical jurisprudence, and legal instrumentalization, transforming Islamic legal discourse into a mechanism of ideological domination and political control.

Conclusion: Countering extremist pseudolegal narratives requires strengthening authentic Islamic jurisprudence through maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, constructive legal pluralism, religious literacy, and credible religious institutions to promote peaceful governance and sustainable counter-radicalization.

Novelty: This study develops an integrated analytical framework combining Legal Pluralism Theory, Radicalisation Theory, and maqāṣid al-sharīʿah to conceptualize pseudolegal authority as a mechanism of extremist governance while proposing a normative framework for counter-radicalization grounded in authentic Islamic legal principles.

Background: The determination of Islamic lunar months through rukyatul hilal constitutes a critical intersection between Islamic jurisprudence and astronomy because it establishes the legal timing of marriage, divorce, iddah, inheritance, and other matters of Islamic family law. Despite extensive studies on rukyat and hisab, limited empirical socio-legal research has examined their implications for legal certainty at the local level.

Methods: This study employed a qualitative socio-legal case study integrating normative analysis of Islamic legal sources with empirical data collected through semi-structured interviews involving Religious Court judges, Ministry of Religious Affairs officials, religious leaders, and community representatives in Banjar City, West Java, Indonesia. Documentary analysis, triangulation, and thematic analysis were applied within the framework of maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah.

Results: The findings reveal that legal certainty is strengthened through the integration of rukyat, hisab, MABIMS Neo-Visibility criteria, and the national Sidang Isbat. Although Religious Courts consistently implement the official Hijri calendar, some communities continue following organizational determinations, creating limited differences in the timing of family law practices without substantially disrupting legal administration.

Discussion: The implementation of Islamic family law depends on institutional coordination among religious authorities, state institutions, astronomers, and local communities rather than on a single method of lunar month determination.

Conclusion: Integrating religious, scientific, and institutional approaches enhances legal certainty while accommodating legitimate jurisprudential diversity in implementing Islamic family law.

Novelty: This study proposes the Integrated Rukyatul Hilal Governance Framework (IRHGF), an empirical socio-legal model explaining how astronomical observation, religious authority, institutional coordination, and public administration collectively strengthen legal certainty in Islamic family law.