<![CDATA[This study examines divergent judicial reasoning in enforcing collateral in Islamic financing disputes and proposes a balanced framework reconciling creditor recovery with debtor protection. It qualitatively evaluates four concepts: default, collateral enforcement, proportionality, and Sharia-based fairness. Using normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative case approaches, the study analyzes two Indonesian Religious Court decisions alongside legislation, Supreme Court instruments, Sharia economic principles, and relevant legal scholarship, with materials observed up to August 2026. The findings show that differences in judicial reasoning arise from varying assessments of breach, procedural fairness, and the proportionality of collateral sales. The study argues that collateral enforcement should remain legally effective while requiring stronger judicial scrutiny to prevent disproportionate harm to debtors.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
