Collective Ijtihad (Ijtihād Jamāʿī) as a Method of Contemporary Legal Reasoning in Indonesia

Abstract

The increasing complexity of modern socio-legal issues such as financial technology, bioethics, environmental crises, and public health has challenged the adequacy of classical individual ijtihad in providing comprehensive legal responses. In this context, Ijtihad Jama'i, or collective reasoning, has emerged as a methodological alternative that combines scriptural fidelity with institutional legitimacy. This study examines how Ijtihad Jama'i has been institutionalized and practiced in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country. Employing a qualitative methodology that integrates normative legal analysis, socio-legal inquiry, and content analysis, the research draws on fatwas and institutional rulings from the Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI), Nahdlatul Ulama’s Bahtsul Masail, and Muhammadiyah’s Majelis Tarjih, alongside interviews with scholars and a review of secondary literature. The findings show that Indonesian collective reasoning functions as a negotiation between textual sources and contextual realities. Fatwas on Covid-19 vaccination, environmental protection, and Islamic finance illustrate how institutions integrate classical juristic methods with scientific knowledge, public welfare considerations, and policy frameworks. This process has given rise to what can be termed collective epistemic authority, in which legitimacy is constructed through inclusivity, deliberation, and representativeness rather than individual scholarship alone. Despite tensions such as internal power hierarchies and institutional politics, the trajectory of Ijtihad Jama'i reflects a maturing legal culture capable of balancing tradition with modern demands