<![CDATA[The division of joint marital property in polygamous marriages cannot always be resolved by applying the chronology of marriage as stated in Article 94 of the Compilation of Islamic Law (KHI). In practice, assets may be mixed, transformed, reinvested, increased in value, or used across more than one household, while the parties’ contributions may be material or non-material. This article reconstructs a jurisprudential-maqāṣidī method for adjudicating such disputes by systematizing judicial reasoning and evaluating it through maqāṣid al-sharīʿah. This normative legal research applies statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary legal materials consist of the Marriage Law, the KHI, and selected court decisions on joint property and polygamy; secondary materials consist of scholarly works on marital property, judicial discretion, substantive justice, and Islamic family-law reform. Legal materials were collected through document study and analyzed qualitatively-prescriptively by identifying legal norms, mapping legally relevant facts, extracting ratio decidendi, comparing patterns of judicial reasoning, and testing those patterns against maqāṣidī parameters. The analysis shows that Article 94 KHI provides a necessary normative foundation but not an operational method for tracing transformed or mixed assets and evaluating unequal contributions. Judicial reasoning, particularly Supreme Court Decision No. 266 K/AG/2010, demonstrates that a mechanical one-half division may be corrected when evidence shows substantial inequality in contribution and fulfilment of maintenance obligations. This article reconstructs those dispersed considerations into five stages: normative classification, asset tracing and transformation analysis, contribution assessment, controlled correction of mechanical division, and maqāṣidī justification. The novelty lies not merely in combining jurisprudence and maqāṣid, but in converting case-specific judicial considerations into a systematic decision-making procedure with objective limits on judicial discretion.]]>
