Article Sidebar

Vol. 3, No. 1, September 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 47 Download : 39

Main Article Content

Abstract

The paradigm of fiqh that is currently developing has not been able to answer the demands of sustainable development that has become a global agenda. The weakness of the fiqh perspective is because it uses the perspective of a third person who positions Al-Quran as the object of interpretation. This paper uses a second-person perspective and social system paradigm. These two perspectives form the fiqh paradigm of sustainable development. Based on this paradigm, the problems that become the priorities of sustainable development are understood as the excesses of dominating cognitive (subjective) relations that encourage humans to be individualistic and materialistic. This paper offers the importance of trans-cognitive (trans-subjective) relations that control recognition (subjective) relations and cognitive relations. Furthermore, in trans-cognitive relations, Al-Quran is positioned as a communicative act (speech act) of God to humans.

Keywords

fiqh paradigm social system trans-cognitive

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Abdoellah, Oekan S. Pembangunan Berkelanjutan di Indonesia: di Persimpangan
  2. Jalan. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2016.
  3. Anderson, Elizabeth. “Beyond Homo Economicus: New Developments in Theories of Social Norms.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 29, no. 2 (1 April 2000): 170–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00170.x.
  4. Asutay, Mehmet. “Conceptualisation of the second best solution in overcoming the social failure of Islamic finance: Examining the overpowering of homoislamicus by homoeconomicus,” 2007. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1693608.
  5. Masudul Alam Choudhury. Comparative Development Studies: In Search of the World
  6. View. 1 ed. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1993.
  7. Badan Pusat Statistik. Kajian Indikator Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
  8. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik, 2014.
  9. Boşca, Loredana Cornelia. “Criticism of Conventional Economy and of the Homo Oeconomicus Paradigm in the Philosophy of Islamic Economy.” Cogito- Multidisciplinary research Journal, no. 1 (2015): 77–89.
  10. Brundtland, Gro Harlem, M. Khalid, S. Agnelli, S. Al-Athel, dan B. Chidzero. “Our common future.” New York, 1987.
  11. Carant, Jane Briant. “Unheard voices: a critical discourse analysis of the Millennium Development Goals’ evolution into the Sustainable Development Goals.” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 1 (2 Januari 2017): 16–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1166944.
  12. Chapra, M. Umer. The Islamic Vision of Development in the Light of Maqāṣid Al- Sharīảh. Disunting oleh Shiraz Khan dan Anas Al Shaikh-Ali. London: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 2008.
  13. Cramer, C. “Homo Economicus Goes to War: Methodological Individualism, Rational Choice and the Political Economy of War.” World Development 30, no. 11 (November 2002): 1845–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00120-1.
  14. Fakih, Mansour. Runtuhnya teori pembangunan dan globalisasi. Insist Press bekerjasama dengan Pustaka Pelajar, 2002.
  15. Holden, Erling, Kristin Linnerud, dan David Banister. “Sustainable development: Our
  16. Common Future revisited.” Global Environmental Change 26 (1 Mei 2014):
  17. –39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.006.
  18. Houston, Stan. “Beyond Homo Economicus: Recognition, Self-Realization and Social Work.” The British Journal of Social Work 40, no. 3 (1 April 2010): 841–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn132.
  19. Keeble, Brian R. “The Brundtland Report: ‘Our Common Future.’” Medicine and War
  20. , no. 1 (Januari 1988): 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783.
  21. Klimley, April. “Sustainable Development Becoming Integral Part of Business
  22. Strategy.” Research Technology Management; Arlington 48, no. 5 (Oktober
  23. : 2–3.
  24. Konow, James, dan Joseph Earley. “The Hedonistic Paradox: Is homo economicus happier?” Journal of Public Economics 92, no. 1 (1 Februari 2008): 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.04.006.
  25. Lorenzo Fioramonti. Problem Domestik Bruto: Sejarah dan Realitas di Balik Angka
  26. Pertumbuhan Ekonomi. terj. Jakarta: Margin Kiri, 2017.
  27. M. Husni Muadz. “Tuhan sebagai Pembicara dalam Kalam Suci :Tinjauan
  28. Berdasarkan Pragma-Linguistika.” Yogyakarta, 2016.
  29. Muadz, M. Husni. Anatomi Sistem Sosial Rekonstruksi Normalitas Relasi Intersubyektivitas dengan Pendekatan Sistem. Mataram: Institute Pembelajaran Gelar Hidup (IPGH), 2013.
  30. Mun’iem, Aly Abdel. “Towards Quranic Maqasid-Based Philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, Axiology and Management.” Jambi: IAIN Sultan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi, 2016.
  31. Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Diterjemahkan oleh Arthur
  32. Goldhammer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014.
  33. Sachs, Jeffrey D. “From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals.” The Lancet 379, no. 9832 (2012): 2206–2211.
  34. Seghezzo, Lucas. “The five dimensions of sustainability.” Environmental Politics 18, no. 4 (1 Juli 2009): 539–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903063669.
  35. Sneddon, Chris, Richard B. Howarth, dan Richard B. Norgaard. “Sustainable
  36. development in a post-Brundtland world.” Ecological Economics 57, no. 2 (1
  37. Mei 2006): 253–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.013.
  38. Waleed, Addas. “Methodology of Economics: Secular Versus Islamic.” International
  39. Islamic University, Kuala Lumpur 2, no. 3 (2008): 4.
  40. Warburton, Eve. “A New Developmentalism in Indonesia?” Journal of Southeast Asian
  41. Economies 35, no. 3 (2018): 355–68.
  42. ———. “Jokowi and the New Developmentalism.” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 52, no. 3 (1 September 2016): 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2016.1249262.