Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.61
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal AL-SULTHANIYAH Journal of Religious Policy Journal of Law Justice
Muhammad Arafat
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
PERBANDINGAN KEBIJAKAN TOLERANSI BERAGAMA DI INDONESIA DAN MALAYSIA: PELAJARAN DARI PENGALAMAN MULTIKULTURAL Muhammad Arafat; Anisah Budiwati
Journal of Religious Policy Vol. 3 No. 2 (2024): Juli-Desember 2024
Publisher : The Ministry of Religious Affairs, The Republic of  Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31330/repo.v3i2.91

Abstract

Penelitian ini mengkaji kebijakan toleransi beragama komparatif di Indonesia dan Malaysia, dua negara multikultural di Asia Tenggara yang menghadapi masalah serupa dalam mengelola pluralitas agama. Studi ini menggunakan metodologi kualitatif dan analisis kebijakan komparatif untuk mengkaji faktor penentu sosial, politik, dan hukum yang memengaruhi kebijakan toleransi beragama di kedua negara. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa Indonesia, yang dipandu oleh ideologi Pancasila, menekankan kerangka kebijakan yang inklusif dan berupaya untuk menjaga kebebasan beragama secara seragam meskipun ada kendala yang berkelanjutan dalam implementasi lokal. Sebaliknya, Malaysia mengadopsi strategi moderasi agama, dengan Islam sebagai agama negara, didukung oleh program pendidikan dan sosial, meskipun menghadapi kesulitan dalam melindungi hak-hak minoritas. Studi ini menunjukkan bahwa menyesuaikan kebijakan dengan situasi sosial dan politik tertentu sangat penting untuk membina kerukunan dan stabilitas masyarakat, memberikan wawasan bagi negara-negara lain yang ingin menangani pluralitas agama secara efektif.
Legal Analysis of Judges on Strike for Salary Increase: Ethical Violation or Constitutional Rights? Muhammad Arafat; Alexander Tito Enggar Wirasto
Journal of Law Justice (JLJ) Vol 3 No 1 (2025): Journal of Law Justice
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Sorong

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33506/jlj.v3i1.3797

Abstract

This study highlights the conflict between judges’ constitutional right to strike and their professional ethical code demanding integrity and neutrality in judicial duties. Using a normative approach through regulatory review, case analysis, and international policy comparison, this research finds that while the right to strike is acknowledged in Article 28E of the 1945 Constitution, its application to judges presents significant challenges. Judges, as enforcers of justice, have a responsibility to uphold the profession’s dignity, and engaging in strikes for salary demands risks eroding credibility and public trust. The findings show that strikes by judges in Indonesia often breach ethics as stipulated in the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judges’ Conduct (KEPPH), where such actions are viewed as prioritizing personal interests over judicial duties. Comparative studies indicate that judges’ involvement in similar actions may harm public perception and disrupt institutional stability. As a solution, this study recommends stricter regulations on judges’ work rights and limitations, along with comprehensive welfare policies to meet judges’ economic needs without compromising professional ethics. With clear regulations, a balance can be achieved between judges’ constitutional rights and the obligation to maintain judicial integrity and public trust.
Implementation of Maqashid al-Syariah in Islamic Criminal Law in Muslim Countries: A Comparative Study in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, and Indonesia Muhammad Arafat; Asmuni
AL-SULTHANIYAH Vol. 14 No. 1 (2025): AL-SULTHANIYAH
Publisher : Institut Agama Islam Sultan Muhammad Syafiuddin Sambas

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37567/al-sulthaniyah.v14i1.3577

Abstract

This article analyzes the implementation of Maqasid Syariah in criminal law in four. This research examines the implementation of Maqashid Sharia in Islamic criminal law in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia by highlighting the variations in implementation based on each country's legal system. Saudi Arabia and Iran fully implement Islamic criminal law, while Malaysia and Indonesia adopt it to some extent through their national legal systems. This study also assesses the extent to which Islamic criminal law in the four countries safeguards the five main aspects of Maqashid Sharia, namely religion, soul, mind, offspring, and property, and examines its effectiveness in upholding justice and social order. The main research question posed is: how is Maqasid Syariah implemented in the criminal law systems in these countries, and to what extent are these principles in line with human rights and national law? This study uses a qualitative approach with a library study method, where data is obtained from academic literature, legal documents, and related articles. The research findings show that the implementation of Maqasid Syariah varies from country to country depending on their respective socio-political contexts. The study found that the implementation of Maqashid Sharia in Islamic criminal law in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia varies, with Saudi Arabia and Iran implementing it strictly, while Malaysia and Indonesia adopted it in a dual legal system. The academic contribution lies in the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of Islamic criminal law in achieving justice and the challenges of harmonization with human rights. Its application can be a reference for policy makers in designing a more adaptive Islamic criminal law system, balanced between Islamic law and the demands of modernity.
Co-Authors Alexander Tito Enggar Wirasto Anisah Budiwati Asmuni