Vasectomy from the Perspective of Islamic Law and the Purpose of Marrige: An Analysis of Maqasid al-Syari'ah Regarding Family Planning Programs in Indonesia

Abstract

Vasectomy is a male contraceptive method that interrupts the passage of sperm through the vas deferens. In Indonesia, the legal debate over vasectomy cannot be separated from family planning, the purposes of marriage, protection of lineage, reproductive health, and the limits of intervention in reproductive capacity. This study aims to determine the legal position of vasectomy in Islamic law and to formulate the conditions under which it may be considered by integrating the 2012 MUI fatwa, contemporary medical considerations, the purposes of marriage, and maqasid al-shariah. This research employs qualitative library research with a normative-juridical approach. Primary sources are the Qur'an, hadith, the MUI fatwa on vasectomy, and relevant Indonesian regulations; secondary sources include contemporary fiqh, maqasid literature, reproductive-health studies, and recent research on male participation in family planning. The analysis applies content analysis through five stages: identification of legal norms, comparison of classical and contemporary positions, examination of medical reversibility and risk, mapping of benefits and harms, and synthesis of the legal position. The study finds that the basic legal position under the 2012 MUI fatwa is haram, while permissibility is exceptional and cumulative: the purpose must not violate Islamic law, permanent sterility must not result, reanastomosis must be medically guaranteed to restore reproductive function, no significant harm may be caused, and the procedure must not be treated as a permanent contraceptive method. The principal novelty is a four-layer assessment model that places MUI norms as the normative threshold, the purpose of the act as the orientation test, reversibility and medical risk as factual verification, and maqasid al-shariah as the instrument for weighing public and family welfare. The model clarifies that medical necessity or serious family welfare may strengthen a case for vasectomy, but cannot convert vasectomy into a generally permissible method of permanent sterilization.