<![CDATA[The jurisprudential divergence between Indonesia and Malaysia over the validity of the Bay' al-'Inah contract has triggered market fragmentation. It poses a significant challenge to harmonization within the global Islamic finance industry. This study aims to evaluate the legal policies in both jurisdictions through the lens of Maqashid al-Shari'ah, assessing the trade-offs between economic pragmatism and legal idealism. The research employs a normative-qualitative comparative methodology, analyzing the DSN-MUI (Indonesia) fatwas and the SAC-BNM (Malaysia) resolutions utilizing a juridical-textual approach and teleological evaluation. The findings reveal a fundamental distinction between epistemological paradigms: SAC-BNM adopts a pragmatic formalism oriented toward Hifz al-Mal (the preservation of wealth) to enhance liquidity, albeit at the cost of reputational risks. Conversely, DSN-MUI implements a substantive-preventive approach (Sadd al-Dhari'ah) rooted in Hifz al-Din (the preservation of religion), which safeguards Sharia purity but inadvertently results in inefficiency in innovation. In conclusion, this regulatory divergence underscores that fatwas operate not merely within a binary halal-haram dichotomy but also as public policy instruments that require a dynamic equilibrium between market imperatives and Sharia integrity. To achieve adaptive harmonization, Malaysia's pragmatism necessitates circumscription via a transition toward Tawarruq contracts, whereas Indonesia's idealism must be incentivized to drive more cost-competitive product innovation.]]>
