Judicial Perceptions of Maslahah in Islamic Economic Dispute Resolution in Indonesia: A Phenomenological Study

Abstract

Despite the increasing use of ethical principles like maslahah (public interest) in Islamic legal systems, there remains limited empirical understanding of how judges interpret and apply this concept in practice. This study aims to fill that gap by examining how Indonesian Religious Court judges perceive and implement maslahah in resolving Islamic economic disputes. Islamic legal systems increasingly rely on ethical principles such as maslahah (public interest) to guide judicial reasoning in complex economic disputes. While jurisprudential texts outline the theoretical framework of maslahah, empirical insights into its courtroom application are scarce. This study addresses that gap by asking: how do Religious Court judges perceive and experience the application of maslahah in resolving Islamic economic disputes? Using a descriptive phenomenological approach, this research explores the lived experiences of judges to uncover the essential meanings underlying their legal decisions. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with ten Indonesian Religious Court judges, then analyzed thematically through eidetic reduction. The findings reveal that judges perceive maslahah as a multi-layered construct encompassing legal integrity, moral duty, and spiritual accountability. They interpret and apply maslahah through a dynamic process that integrates textual law with ethical reflection and contextual reasoning. These insights demonstrate that the practice of Islamic adjudication is not merely rule-based but profoundly interpretive and value-laden. This study enhances our understanding of ethical reasoning in Islamic law and provides a methodological foundation for further phenomenological inquiries into legal decision-making across Islamic jurisdictions.