Mediasi Di Peradilan Agama dan al-Ṣulḥ dalam Hukum Islam: Analisis Komparatif Prinsip, Prosedur, dan Kekuatan Hukum Perdamaian

Abstract

Court-annexed mediation is integrated into the settlement of most civil disputes in Indonesian courts, including Religious Courts, while Islamic law recognizes al-ṣulḥ as an amicable settlement mechanism grounded in party agreement. Previous studies often emphasize their functional similarities, yet treating the two as conceptually identical risks obscuring important distinctions among al-ṣulḥ, taḥkīm, and modern mediation. This study examines the normative structure of mediation in Religious Courts and compares it with al-ṣulḥ in terms of legal foundations, the role of third parties, voluntariness and good faith, the scope of settlement, and the legal force of settlement outcomes. It employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Primary legal materials include court mediation regulations, legislation governing Religious Courts, the Compilation of Islamic Law, Islamic normative sources, and verified scholarly literature. The study finds that mediation and al-ṣulḥ converge in their orientation toward peace, party participation, and consensual dispute resolution, but they are not identical. Court mediation is mandatory as a procedural stage for eligible cases, whereas the substance of any settlement remains dependent on party consent. Al-ṣulḥ has a broader normative scope, while taḥkīm is distinct because it entrusts dispute resolution authority to a third party. Integrating al-ṣulḥ values can strengthen Religious Court mediation by improving the quality of consent, party balance, protection of vulnerable parties, and enforceability of settlements. Mediation should therefore be understood not merely as procedural compliance but as an instrument of substantive justice consistent with the Islamic ethos of reconciliation.