Progressive Legal Reasoning in Contemporary Islamic Legal Reform: Negotiating the Maqāṣid and Hermeneutic Approaches

Abstrak

This research aims to negotiate and integrate two schools of progressive legal thought in Islamic legal reform: the maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah-institutional model proposed by Asrorun Niam Sholeh, and the hermeneutic-individual model developed by Abdullah Saeed. Both emphasize the urgency of Islamic law's responsiveness to the dynamics of the times, but they depart from different epistemological frameworks. In addition, this research aims to identify the fundamental similarities and differences between the two, as well as their integration. This research employs a qualitative method, utilizing a literature review and critical discourse analysis of Asrorun's legal framework, as presented in his works and his influence on the Fatwa Commission of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), as well as Saeed's academic works on contextual hermeneutics. The analysis reveals that Asrorun established a legal framework grounded in maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah through a collective institutional authority framework, emphasizing reform from within the MUI by recontextualizing the classical fiqh normative framework, while remaining open to social change. Meanwhile, Saeed promotes epistemological reform through a contextual hermeneutic approach that challenges traditional epistemological structures (literal authority over texts) and provides ample space for ethical rationality for universal ethical values in ijtihad. The integration of these two approaches yields an epistemological negotiation model that bridges institutional structures and hermeneutic interpretive dynamics in the context of Islamic legal renewal. The implications of this comparison reveal both tensions and opportunities for dialogue between the internal reform model (insider reform) and a more radical methodological transformation