THE JUST REGULATION OF IMMATERIAL LOSSES IN SHARIA ECONOMIC DISPUTES: RECONSTRUCTION OF TA'WID BASED ON MAQASID AL-SYARI'AH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21853263Keywords:
immaterial losses, Islamic economics, ta'wid, maqashid al-syariah, corrective justice.Abstract
This article examines the regulation of immaterial losses in sharia economic disputes and proposes a reconstruction through maqashid al-syariah as an analytical tool. The normative basis for compensation has been recognized through the concepts of ta'wid and daman in the Compilation of Sharia Economic Law (KHES) and the DSN-MUI fatwa, but this formulation stops at the principle and interprets "real losses" primarily as nominal costs. This study uses normative legal research methods with statutory, conceptual, and historical approaches. The first finding shows that a narrow reading of the term "real" is not a neutral stance, but rather creates a double maqashid deficit: on the one hand, the law only restores hifz al-mal and ignores hifz al-nafs , hifz al-'aql , and hifz al-'ird ; on the other hand, the lack of norms encourages judges to borrow general civil law without a sharia filter, thereby opening up the risk of gharar and unlawful enrichment. The second finding offers an ideal regulatory model that redefines “real” functionally, recognizes immaterial losses in a limited and measurable manner within the paradigm of recovery ( jabr al-darar ), maps four categories of losses to the maqashid they protect, establishes thresholds based on the hierarchy of darurriyyat–hajiyyat–tashiniyyat and the principle of proportionality, and designs layered evidence and guided discretion. The novelty of this article lies in providing an operative framework for immaterial losses guided by maqashid, which has not been provided by KHES, fatwas, or previous studies. The most realistic update is carried out through strengthening KHES within the framework of PERMA, affirmation of DSN-MUI, and the Supreme Court's technical guidelines for Religious Court judges.
Downloads
References
Afriana, A., Rahmawati, E., & Mantili, R. (2022). Batasan asas hakim pasif dan aktif pada peradilan perdata. Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum, 7(1), 142–154.
al-Ghazili, A. H. (1993). al-Mustasfa min ’Ilm al-Usul. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah.
al-Syatibi, I. (1997). al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shari’ah (M. Al Salman, Ed.). al-Khubar: Dar Ibn ’Affan.
Al-Zuhaily, W. (1995). al-Mas’uliyah ’an Fi’li al-Ghair. Damaskus: Dar al-Maktabi.
Al-Zuhaily, W. (1998). Naẓariyyat al-Daman aw Ahkam al-Mas’uliyyah al-Madaniyyah wa al-Jina’iyyah fi al-Fiqh al-Islami. Damaskus: Dar al-Fikr.
Asmuni. (2007). Teori ganti rugi (dhaman) perspektif hukum Islam. Millah, 6(2), 109–124.
Auda, J. (2008). Maqasid al-Shariah as Philosophy of Islamic Law: A Systems Approach. London: The International Institute of Islamic Thought.
Diantha, M. P. (2017). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
DSN-MUI. (2004). Fatwa Nomor 43/DSN-MUI/VIII/2004 tentang Ganti Rugi (Ta’wid).
DSN-MUI. (2019). Fatwa Nomor 129/DSN-MUI/VII/2019 tentang Biaya Riil sebagai Ta’wid Akibat Wanprestasi.
Hamidi, J. (2011). Hermeneutika Hukum: Sejarah, Filsafat, & Metode Tafsir. Malang: UB Press.
Hanifuddin, I. (2020). Ganti rugi perspektif fiqh ekonomi. Muslim Heritage, 5(1), 1–26.
Harahap, M. Y. (1986). Segi-Segi Hukum Perjanjian. Bandung: PT Alumni.
Ibn ’Asyur, M. Ṭ. (2001). Maqasid al-Shari’ah al-Islamiyyah (M. al-Ṭahir al-Mesawi, Ed.). Amman: Dar al-Nafa’is.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, M. (1961). al-Ṭuruq al-Hukmiyyah fi al-Siyasah al-Shar’iyyah. Kairo: Maṭba’at al-Madani.
Indonesia. (2006). Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2006 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 1989 tentang Peradilan Agama.
Indonesia. (2009). Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman.
Jalili, A. (2021). Teori maqashid syariah dalam hukum Islam. Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum, 3(2), 74–88.
Kurniawan, F., Marzuki, P. M., Agustin, E., & Amalia, R. (2018). Unsur kerugian dalam unjustified enrichment untuk mewujudkan keadilan korektif. Yuridika, 33(1), 133–155.
Mahkamah Agung RI. (2008). Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2 Tahun 2008 tentang Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syariah.
Mantili, R. (2019). Ganti kerugian immateriil terhadap perbuatan melawan hukum dalam praktik. Jurnal Hukum De’Jure, 4(2), 210–225.
Marzuki, P. M. (2011). Penelitian Hukum (Edisi Revisi, Cet. 7). Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
Maula, I. (2024). Tinjauan Hukum Ekonomi Syariah tentang Ganti Kerugian Immateriil dalam Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah (Tesis). Lampung: UIN Raden Intan Lampung.
Miharja, J. (2016). Konsep ganti rugi perspektif hukum Islam. Muamalat, 8(2), 133–155.
Muzlifah, E. (2013). Maqashid syariah sebagai paradigma dasar ekonomi Islam. Economic: Journal of Economic and Islamic Law, 4(2), 73–94.
Nasution, M. S. A., & Nasution, R. H. (2020). Filsafat Hukum Islam dan Maqashid Syariah. Jakarta: Kencana.
Santoso Az, L. (2011). Hak dan Kewajiban Hukum Nasabah Bank. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Yustisia.
Suryoutomo, M., Mariyam, S., & Satria, A. P. (2022). Koherensi putusan hakim dalam pembuktian
