JURIS (Jurnal Ilmiah Syariah)

Negotiating Marriage Guardianship in Banyumas, Indonesia: Religious Authority, Legal Administration, and Contemporary Change

2026-02-12T10:18:20+07:00

The determination of marriage guardianship constitutes an important issue within Indonesian Islamic family law, particularly in the intersection between religious authority, legal administration, and contemporary social change. This study examines how penghulu (marriage registrars) in Banyumas negotiate the validity of marriage guardianship amid evolving administrative regulations and changing social conditions. Employing a socio-legal approach, this research draws on interviews with penghulu from several Religious Affairs Offices (KUA) in Banyumas Regency, complemented by legal documents and relevant regulations. The findings demonstrate that the determination of marriage guardianship is not implemented through a single uniform legal framework, but rather through negotiated practices shaped by traditional religious authority, bureaucratic administration, and contemporary developments. In terms of authority preference, penghulu tend to exercise traditional authority in assessing the validity of guardianship, particularly in cases involving lineage (nasab), administrative documentation, and the status of first-born daughters. From a legal-administrative perspective, penghulu rely on documents such as birth certificates and parents’ marriage books to evaluate the legal status of guardianship. Furthermore, the implementation of Minister of Religious Affairs Regulation No. 20 of 2019 concerning distant guardians reveals varying interpretations among penghulu regarding the necessity of written authorization (tawkīl wali bil kitābah). While some continue to emphasize formal delegation, others reinterpret guardianship requirements in light of modern transportation and changing social realities. This study argues that marriage guardianship in contemporary Indonesia reflects an ongoing negotiation between religious legitimacy and state administration within a plural legal system. The article contributes to broader discussions on legal pluralism, Islamic family law, and the transformation of religious authority in contemporary Muslim societies.

Beyond Procedural Efficiency: Cumulative Itsbat Nikah, Divorce Litigation, and Women’s Post-Divorce Rights in Indonesia

2026-02-12T10:08:24+07:00

Unregistered marriages in Indonesia remain a deeply rooted social reality, not merely a legal anomaly. Women and children who come from such unions occupy a precarious legal position, especially when the marriage dissolves. Indonesia's Religious Courts have responded by allowing cumulative litigation that combines itsbat nikah (marriage validation) with divorce in a single proceeding, as permitted under Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 7 of 2012. The question this study pursues is whether that procedural solution delivers justice, or whether it stops at efficiency. Using an empirical legal approach, data were gathered through in-depth interviews with three judges and one senior court clerk at the Manado Religious Court, supplemented by document analysis and triangulation. The court handles cumulative cases through an integrated electronic system and completes them in roughly one month, compared to two or three months for separate filings. Judges apply three consistent criteria drawn from SEMA guidelines: verifying that the marriage does not violate legal requirements, confirming the legal connection between itsbat and divorce, and establishing the marriage through witness testimony. What the data reveal, however, is that procedural consistency has not translated into reliable protection of post-divorce rights. Nafkah iddah, mut'ah, and child support are inconsistently enforced. Judges do not uniformly exercise ex officio authority, economic barriers obstruct claims, and execution processes remain slow and costly. The study argues that in a legal pluralism context where state law, Islamic law, and living law interact, institutional flexibility and normative gaps tend to develop together. Procedural reform is necessary, but it is not enough.

Negotiating Legal Pluralism: Judicial Reasoning on Domestic Violence Divorce Cases in Indonesian Religious Courts

2026-02-28T21:40:31+07:00

This study examines how judges in the East Kalimantan Religious Courts construct their judicial reasoning and the extent to which they integrate the Domestic Violence Law (UUPKDRT) when deciding divorce cases involving domestic violence. Using a normative legal approach combined with qualitative case studies of six court decisions and interviews with judges, it addresses a research gap in studies of Indonesian Religious Courts that have rarely analyzed domestic‑violence‑related divorce through the lenses of legal pluralism and judicial behavior. The findings show that, although domestic violence is the dominant ground in women’s divorce petitions, judges inconsistently integrate the Domestic Violence Law and instead tend to prioritize the traditional marriage‑law framework (the Marriage Law, Government Regulation 9/1975, and the Compilation of Islamic Law), alongside theological and social–medical reasoning justified by concerns about the specificity of claims and jurisdictional limits. At the same time, the study highlights a more progressive pattern in the Penajam Religious Court, where judges explicitly invoke Articles 5 and 9 (1) Domestic Violence Law to define and qualify various forms of violence, including economic violence, as grounds for divorce within a civil context. Theoretically, the article contributes to debates on legal pluralism and judicial behavior by showing how religious judges in a plural legal order selectively integrate, restrict, or resist criminal law concepts in civil family litigation, thereby shaping the legal recognition of domestic violence and the pursuit of substantive justice for victims.

Between Repair and Domination: Taʻzīr, Restorative Moderation, and Power in Kitab Simbur Cahaya of Bengkulu, Indonesia

2026-02-14T01:27:56+07:00

Indonesian scholarship on religious moderation often treats local wisdom as a natural carrier of moderation, leaving the power dynamics of customary adjudication underexamined. This article asks whether the discretionary punishment (taʻzīr) provisions of Kitab Simbur Cahaya, a codified adat text still referenced in Bengkulu, Indonesia, can be read as moderate and restorative once those dynamics are taken seriously. Rather than assuming that answer, the study treats it as a question to be tested against field data. The research draws on nineteen in-depth interviews, direct observation of seven adjudication sessions and two peace ceremonies across four Bengkulu regencies, and documentary analysis of customary and archival records, analysed through interactive qualitative coding. The findings are deliberately mixed. Five recurring taʻzīr instruments, musyawarah, denda adat, public apology, setawar sedingin, and jamuan perdamaian, prioritise repair over retribution and partly enact the moderation principles of ʻadl, tawazun, and tasamuh. Yet the same forums route women’s voices through male kin and soften sanctions for offenders close to adat elites, exposing where moderation fails on its own terms. The article’s contribution is a Restorative Moderation Framework that reads taʻzīr-based systems critically rather than celebratorily, specifying three testable axes, restorativeness, moderation, and plural accommodation, along which any customary forum can be assessed. It reframes the recognition of living law in Indonesia’s 2023 Criminal Code as an opening that demands scrutiny, not endorsement.