Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): December - Third Edition

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: Islamic inheritance law (farā’iḍ) is frequently negotiated within Muslim societies where customary traditions, social relations, and economic conditions influence legal practices. Although legal pluralism in Islamic inheritance has been widely discussed, limited studies explain how rural Muslim communities receive, interpret, and reconstruct inheritance norms through everyday socio-cultural experiences, particularly in agrarian settings.

Objective: This study aims to examine how the community of Dusun Bakung, Cilacap, receives and negotiates Islamic inheritance law within an agrarian social context, particularly regarding the interaction between farā’iḍ, customary practices, and agricultural land preservation.

Methods: This study employed a qualitative socio-legal approach. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and document analysis. The data were analyzed using Stuart Hall’s reception theory to explore community interpretations and negotiations of Islamic inheritance principles.

Results: The findings reveal that the community adopts a negotiated reception of farā’iḍ, recognizing Islamic inheritance law as a religious foundation while adapting its implementation through family deliberation (musyawarah). The principle of tanah ora kena didum influences inheritance decisions by supporting agricultural land preservation, family harmony, and intergenerational sustainability.

Conclusion: Islamic inheritance practices in Dusun Bakung function as living Islamic law, shaped by the interaction between religious norms, customary values, and agrarian realities.

Novelty: This study contributes a new socio-legal perspective by integrating Stuart Hall’s reception theory, Islamic inheritance law, and sustainable land governance to explain how rural Muslim communities construct contextual inheritance practices within pluralistic legal systems.

Background: The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has accelerated judicial digitalization worldwide, yet its governance within Islamic Family Courts remains insufficiently examined from a comparative legal perspective. Existing studies largely emphasize technological innovation while overlooking the integration of judicial ethics, legal pluralism, and maqāṣid al-sharīʿah across different legal systems.

Methods: This study employed a qualitative comparative legal approach through doctrinal analysis, comparative legal research, and documentary review. Legal instruments, judicial policies, AI governance frameworks, and academic literature from Indonesia, Lithuania, and Türkiye were analyzed using thematic interpretation based on Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance, Judicial Decision-Making Theory, Legal Pluralism Theory, and maqāṣid al-sharīʿah.

Results: The findings identify three complementary governance models. Indonesia emphasizes normative adaptation within Islamic judicial institutions, Lithuania prioritizes transparency, explainability, and algorithmic accountability under European digital governance, while Türkiye integrates judicial digitalization with institutional modernization rooted in its legal traditions. Across all jurisdictions, AI functions as judicial decision support rather than replacing judges.

Discussion: Comparative analysis demonstrates that trustworthy AI governance requires transparent algorithms, meaningful human oversight, ethical accountability, data protection, and compatibility with Islamic legal principles to enhance judicial quality while preserving judicial independence.

Conclusion: AI governance should be institutionalized as a human-centered judicial support system that strengthens efficiency, consistency, and access to justice without compromising the normative objectives of maqāṣid al-sharīʿah or judicial discretion.

Novelty: This study develops an integrated comparative framework combining Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance, Judicial Decision-Making Theory, Legal Pluralism, and maqāṣid al-sharīʿah to explain AI governance in Islamic Family Courts across Indonesia, Lithuania, and Türkiye.

Background: Climate mobility increasingly affects Muslim families by disrupting marriage stability, child protection, inheritance, maintenance obligations, and access to justice. Existing studies primarily address climate mobility from environmental or human rights perspectives, while a comprehensive Islamic family law framework grounded in maqāṣid al-sharīʿah remains underdeveloped. This study proposes a Maqāṣid-Based Climate Family Resilience (MCFR) Model through comparative analysis of Egypt, Indonesia, and Spain.

Methods: This study employs a qualitative comparative socio-legal approach integrating doctrinal legal analysis, comparative Islamic family law, policy analysis, and documentary research. The analytical framework combines maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, Climate Justice Theory, Family Resilience Theory, and Legal Pluralism Theory.

Results: The findings indicate that climate mobility generates similar legal and social challenges across the three jurisdictions despite differing legal traditions. The MCFR Model integrates the five objectives of maqāṣid al-sharīʿah with climate justice, adaptive family governance, legal pluralism, and institutional collaboration to strengthen Muslim family resilience.

Discussion: The proposed model extends Islamic family law scholarship by providing a normative and adaptive framework that harmonizes religious principles with climate-responsive legal governance while promoting legal certainty, family welfare, and social justice.

Conclusion: Strengthening Muslim family resilience requires an integrated Islamic legal framework capable of addressing climate-induced family vulnerabilities. The MCFR Model offers a practical and theoretically grounded approach for climate-responsive family law reform in diverse legal systems.

Novelty: This study introduces the MCFR Model as an original comparative socio-legal framework linking maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, climate mobility, family resilience, and legal pluralism within contemporary Islamic family law.

Background: Rapid digital transformation has increased children's exposure to cyberbullying, online exploitation, harmful content, privacy violations, and algorithm-driven risks. Although digital child protection regulations have expanded across Asia and Africa, comparative socio-legal studies integrating Islamic family law, child rights, and digital governance remain limited.

Objective: This study examines regulatory approaches to digital child protection in Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and Nigeria and proposes the Islamic Digital Protection Framework (IDPF) as an integrative governance model.

Methods: This study employs a qualitative comparative socio-legal approach combining doctrinal legal research, regulatory comparison, documentary analysis, and policy evaluation. The analysis integrates maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, Child Rights Theory, Digital Governance Theory, and Legal Pluralism Theory.

Results: The findings reveal that the four jurisdictions recognize digital child protection as a regulatory priority but differ in approaches to age verification, parental responsibility, privacy protection, platform accountability, and institutional enforcement. These regulatory experiences are synthesized into the IDPF, consisting of five dimensions: adaptive regulatory compliance, technological safeguards, ethical platform governance, family and community participation, and Islamic normative values.

Conclusion: The IDPF offers a comparative socio-legal governance model that connects Islamic family law with contemporary digital governance by emphasizing legal certainty, technological accountability, ethical responsibility, and collaborative protection.

Novelty: This study introduces the IDPF as an original framework integrating Islamic legal principles, child rights, and digital governance through a comparative analysis of Asian and African jurisdictions.