DISPARITAS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA DALAM EKSEKUSI JAMINAN HAK TANGGUNGAN AKAD MURABAHAH (PERSPEKTIF TEORI KEADILAN)

Anna Sayyida Sya’bani, S.H., NIM.: 23203011218 (2025) DISPARITAS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA DALAM EKSEKUSI JAMINAN HAK TANGGUNGAN AKAD MURABAHAH (PERSPEKTIF TEORI KEADILAN). Masters thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (DISPARITAS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA DALAM EKSEKUSI JAMINAN HAK TANGGUNGAN AKAD MURABAHAH (PERSPEKTIF TEORI KEADILAN)) 23203011218_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (11MB) | Preview
	Text (DISPARITAS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA DALAM EKSEKUSI JAMINAN HAK TANGGUNGAN AKAD MURABAHAH (PERSPEKTIF TEORI KEADILAN)) 23203011218_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (20MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Law enforcement in Indonesia continues to be marked by disparities in the application of justice principles, particularly in murabahah financing cases involving the execution of mortgage guarantees in religious courts. The public is often faced with the reality that legal decisions tend to prioritize legal certainty over substantive justice. In the context of religious courts, especially in sharia economic cases, disparities in judicial decisions frequently arise, directly affecting the protection of rights and the sense of justice for those seeking legal redress. This research is a qualitative study employing a philosophical approach, using John Rawls’ theory of justice as the main analytical framework. The primary data is derived from religious court rulings concerning the execution of guarantees in murabahah contracts, examined in depth through document study and content analysis. Additionally, secondary sources such as books, academic journals, and relevant regulations were utilized. This study analyzes how judges consider the principle of justice in making decisions and how John Rawls’ principles can be implemented in the context of Islamic economic law. The findings reveal differences in preference and legal reasoning among judges in resolving cases related to the execution of guarantees in murabahah contracts. Some rulings tend to reflect distributive justice by considering the property rights of third parties, while others emphasize formal legal procedures. This inconsistency highlights the need to strengthen the understanding of justice theory among judges, so that decisions not only meet legal formalities but also reflect a substantive sense of justice for all parties involved.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item