DIVERGENSI METODOLOGI ISTINBAT HUKUM YUSUF QARADHAWI DAN MUHAMMAD SAYYID THANTAWI: ANALISIS KONTEKSTUAL DAMPAK TERHADAP REGULASI PERBANKAN SYARIAH DI INDONESIA

Abstract

Abstrak

Divergensi metodologi istinbat hukum di kalangan ulama kontemporer tidak hanya fenomena akademis-teologis, tetapi juga berdampak nyata pada struktur regulasi keuangan Islam. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis secara mendalam dan kontekstual perbedaan metodologi istinbat hukum antara dua ulama terkemuka, Yusuf Qaradhawi dan Muhammad Sayyid Thantawi, khususnya dalam kaitannya dengan penetapan status dalam menetapkan status hukum riba dan kepentingan bank, sementara juga meneliti konsekuensi dari divergensi pada regulasi perbankan Islam dalam konteks Indonesia. Penelitian ini berbasis kualitatif melalui studi pustaka (library research), dengan pendekatan komparatif analitis serta pendekatan konseptual yuridis. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa divergensi metodologis kedua tokoh berasal dari cara menentukan ‘illat (sebab hukum keharaman riba) dan penerapan maqashid al-syariah. Qaradhawi, berdasar pada nas-Al-Qur’an, hadits, ijma’ ulama, qiyas, dan prinsip-prinsip fiqh, secara konsisten memandang bunga bank sebagai riba nasi’ah yang dilarang. Sebaliknya, Thantawi membolehkan bunga bank tertentu yang disepakati secara sukarela berdasarkan (maslahah mursalah) dan kerelaan kedua belah pihak. Di Indonesia, paradigma Qaradhawi lebih lazim dalam praktik regulasi, yang menjadi dasar Fatwa No. 1 yang dikeluarkan oleh Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) pada tahun 2004 yang secara eksplisit melarang bunga bank, mendorong sistem perbankan dualistik (dual banking system), dan mempercepat pertumbuhan perbankan syariah nasional dengan total aset mencapai Rp980,30 triliun dengan market share 7,72 persen pada akhir tahun 2024.

Kata Kunci: Divergensi Metodologi;Istinbat Hukum; Yusuf Qaradhawi; Muhammad Sayyid Thantawi; Regulasi Perbankan Syariah

Abstract

This study investigates the methodological divergence in istinbat al-hukm (legal derivation) between two prominent contemporary scholars, Yusuf Qaradhawi and Muhammad Sayyid Thantawi, concerning the legal status of riba and bank interest, and examines the contextual implications of this divergence for Islamic banking regulation in Indonesia. Using a qualitative approach based on library research with a comparative-analytical and juridical-conceptual method, this study finds that Qaradhawi constructs his legal conclusions upon a strict hierarchy of evidence the Qur'an, hadith, qiyas upon riba nasi'ah, and the jurisprudential maxim of sadd al-dzara'i' consistently identifying bank interest as prohibited riba. Thantawi, by contrast, employs maslahah mursalah as his primary methodological instrument and rejects direct analogical reasoning from classical riba to modern bank interest, which he regards as fundamentally different in context and mechanism. The core of their divergence lies in two fundamental points: their differing identification of the 'illat (ratio legis) of the prohibition al-ziyadah ala al-asl (surplus over principal) for Qaradhawi versus al-zulm wa al-istightal (injustice and exploitation) for Thantawi and their divergent hierarchies of legal evidence. In the Indonesian regulatory context, the Qaradhawi paradigm has proven more dominant, serving as the normative foundation of the 2004 MUI Fatwa on bank interest, driving the dual banking system architecture, and contributing to the growth of the national Islamic banking sector, which reached total assets of IDR 980.30 trillion with a market share of 7.72 percent by the end of 2024. These findings demonstrate that the choice of istinbat al-hukm methodology is not merely an academic matter, but a decisive variable that directly shapes Islamic financial policy and the developmental trajectory of Islamic banking.

Keywords: Methodological Divergence; Istinbat al-Hukm; Yusuf Qaradhawi; Muhammad Sayyid Thantawi; Islamic Banking