Text, Context and Natural Conservation: An Analysis of Muhammadiyah’s and Nahdlatul Ulama’s Islamic Legal Thought on Fiqh of Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to examine the dynamics of Islamic legal reasoning applied by Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) in addressing environmental challenges, with particular attention to the paradox reflected in their acceptance of mining concessions granted by the state. In Indonesia, Muhammadiyah and NU have long played significant roles in environmental discourse through fatwas, congress resolutions, and official statements that emphasize ecological responsibility. However, their recent acceptance of mining concessions raises critical questions regarding moral consistency and the direction of Islamic legal reasoning. This research employs a socio-legal approach by examining official documents issued by both organizations using the combined framework of uṣūl al-fiqh and socio-legal theory. The analysis focuses on patterns of legal reasoning, sources of legitimacy, and the socio-political dynamics shaping institutional ijtihād. The findings indicate that Muhammadiyah predominantly applies a purificatory, normative textual, rational, and systematically organized approach, while Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) demonstrates a more flexible and contextual orientation that is deeply rooted in classical fiqh traditions. Nevertheless, in the context of mining concessions, both organizations exhibit a shift toward pragmatic-economic interpretations of religious texts and maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah. This shift exposes a fundamental tension between normative ideals and political–economic realities, highlighting the susceptibility of Islamic legal reasoning to structural pressures. This article contributes to the advancement of fiqh al-bi’ah within Indonesian Islamic legal scholarship by providing a critical reflection on the future direction of Islamic jurisprudence that maintains a strong commitment to ecological justice while engaging the complexities of contemporary socio-political realities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".