HUKUM TRANSPLANTASI MENURUT FATWA AMJA (AMERICAN MUSLIM JURISTS ASSOCIATION) DAN IIFA (INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FIQH ACADEMY)NIM.: 20103060075Muhammad Galih SampurnaauthorOrgan transplantation represents a significant development in modern medicine; however, the practice sparks debate within Islamic legal perspectives regarding ethics, Sharia boundaries, and the protection of human rights. The American Muslim Jurists Association (AMJA) and the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (IIFA)—two prominent fatwa-issuing bodies—hold views that frequently serve as references for addressing these contemporary issues. This study is motivated by the need for a comprehensive understanding of how these two institutions determine the legal status of organ transplantation, particularly amidst advancements in medical technology and the growing demand for organ donors within Muslim communities. Consequently, this research addresses two primary questions: first, why do differences in opinion exist between AMJA and IIFA regarding the law on organ transplantation and second, what are the results of a comparative analysis of their views using the theory of comparative law This study employs a qualitative method based on library research with a normative approach. Primary data were obtained from the official fatwas of AMJA and IIFA, while secondary data were derived from relevant books, journals, and scholarly works. Data analysis utilizes the comparative law theory proposed by Ratno Lutiko, applying epistemological, methodological, and substantive comparative methods. Through this comparative law framework, the author identifies the reasons behind the divergent views held by AMJA and IIFA regarding organ transplantation laws and presents a comparative analysis of their respective positions on the matter. Research findings indicate that both AMJA and IIFA permit organ transplantation, subject to strict conditions. AMJA tends to adopt a more flexible stance by considering the social context and medical needs of the Muslim community in America, emphasizing voluntary consent, the prohibition of organ commercialization, and the objective of saving lives. As an international body, IIFA is more cautious, emphasizing the universal aspects of Sharia, the protection of human dignity, and the necessity of adhering to standardized medical and ethical procedures. Both agree that organ transplantation must not involve actions that damage the body without a valid Sharia justification and must align with the principles of maqasid alshari'ah (objectives of Sharia), particularly the preservation of life hifz alnafs. The differences in the fatwas issued by AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) and IIFA (International Islamic Fiqh Academy) lie in their nature, level of detail, and legal approaches. AMJA tends to be more practical, flexible, and responsive to the context of Muslim minority communities in the West—for instance, by permitting hair transplants and applying more lenient requirements for organ transplantation from deceased donors. Conversely, IIFA establishes rules that are more cautious, detailed, and globally comprehensive, reflecting the collective ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of international scholars; this includes imposing strict conditions for transplants from deceased donors, prohibiting transplants involving organs removed via hadd or qisas punishments, and explicitly banning the harvesting of brain cells from living fetuses.340.2 Hukum Perbandingan2026-08-21UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA;FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUMThesis