ONE TRADITION, TWO VOICES: RELIGIOUS REASONING BEHIND INDONESIA’S MINING DEBATE

Abstract

Abstract: Recent debates on mining governance in Indonesia have intensified discussions among Muslim intellectuals regarding environmental ethics and natural resource management. While previous studies have examined religion as a source of moral legitimacy or resistance to extractive industries, little attention has been paid to the epistemological processes through which Islamic normative concepts are interpreted in constructing religious reasoning. This article investigates how Ulil Abshar Abdalla and Ahmad Suaedy develop religious reasoning in Indonesia's mining debate during 2024-2025. Employing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) informed by a maqāṣid al-sharīʿah perspective, the study analyzes eight purposively selected texts, including opinion articles, public statements, social media posts, and digital discussions. The findings demonstrate that both intellectuals draw upon a shared Islamic normative tradition but construct distinct forms of religious reasoning by prioritizing different objectives of maqāṣid al-sharīʿah. Ulil develops a maṣlaḥah-oriented justification that emphasizes public welfare, contextual ijtihād, and policy accommodation, whereas Suaedy advances a justice-oriented justification grounded in equality, accountability, and distributive justice. Based on these findings, the article proposes the concept of dual religious justification to explain how different epistemological priorities within the same Islamic interpretive tradition produce distinct yet internally coherent forms of religious reasoning. The study further argues that maqāṣid al-sharīʿah functions not only as a normative framework but also as an epistemological resource for contemporary Islamic ethical reasoning.