@phdthesis{digilib76902,
           month = {April},
           title = {STUDI KOMPARATIF KEBIJAKAN HUKUM PERJUDIAN DI INDONESIA DAN MALAYSIA},
          school = {UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA},
          author = {NIM.: 20103060072 Syahril Konato},
            year = {2026},
            note = {Dr. H. Muhammad Anis Mashduqi, Lc., M.S.I.},
        keywords = {Perjudian, Kebijakan Hukum, Perbandingan Hukum, Maqasid as-Syari?ah, Istihsan bi al-Maslahah},
             url = {https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/76902/},
        abstract = {Gambling is a long-standing social phenomenon in society that has developed into a complex legal issue, as it is not only related to individual activities but also generates broad social and economic impacts. In practice, different countries adopt different policies in regulating gambling, including Indonesia and Malaysia, which reflect distinct legal approaches. Indonesia applies a total prohibition policy, while Malaysia adopts a limited regulatory approach under state supervision. This difference is important to examine as it is closely related to efforts to achieve public benefit (maslahah) and prevent harm (mafsadah).
This study is a qualitative research using a library-based method with a normative-analytical-comparative approach. The study applies a normative juridical approach combined with comparative legal analysis, as well as the theoretical frameworks of Maq{\=a}{\d s}id al-Shar{\=i}?ah and istihs{\=a}n bi al-maslahah. The primary legal sources include the Indonesian Penal Code, Law No. 7 of 1974 on Gambling Control, as well as the Betting Act 1953 and the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 in Malaysia. The data were analyzed qualitatively through the examination of legal norms and the concept of public welfare.
The findings show that Indonesia implements a total prohibition policy on gambling through criminal law provisions that are both repressive and preventive in nature, covering all parties involved, including organizers and players. In contrast, Malaysia applies a more regulatory approach characterized by detailed legal arrangements, an expansion of legal subjects, and limited legalized gambling activities under state supervision. This difference is influenced by distinct approaches to understanding public welfare, where Indonesia relies on Maq{\=a}{\d s}id al-Shar{\=i}?ah emphasizing the protection of wealth and intellect, while Malaysia applies istihs{\=a}n bi al-maslahah, which is more flexible and context-oriented in considering public benefit.}
}