Algorithmic Credit Scoring in Sharia Peer-to-Peer Lending: A Maqasid-Based Accountability Framework for Consumer and Data Protection in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70826/jsisnu.v3i2.1899Keywords:
algorithmic credit scoring, sharia peer-to-peer lending, maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, personal data protection, consumer protectionAbstract
Sharia information-technology-based co-funding services (sharia peer-to-peer lending) increasingly rely on algorithmic credit scoring that draws on alternative data and the digital footprints of prospective recipients. This reliance accelerates financing and widens inclusion, but it also creates risks of opaque decisions, indirect discrimination, exploitation of personal data, and debt-collection practices that degrade human dignity. This study examines the adequacy of the Indonesian legal framework in governing algorithmic credit scoring in sharia peer-to-peer lending and develops an accountability model grounded in maqāṣid al-sharīʿah. It applies normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, case, and functional comparative approaches to the Personal Data Protection Law, the Financial Sector Development and Strengthening Law, OJK Regulation No. 40 of 2024, OJK Regulation No. 22 of 2023, OJK Circular Letter No. 19/SEOJK.06/2023, DSN-MUI Fatwa No. 117/DSN-MUI/II/2018, KPPU Decision No. 05/KPPU-I/2025, and, comparatively, the GDPR, the SCHUFA judgment, and the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. The findings show that Indonesia already possesses relevant normative elements, notably the right to object to automated decisions and the duty to analyse recipient suitability, but these elements remain fragmented, insufficiently operational, and disconnected from sharia supervision. Sharia compliance is still understood primarily as contractual compliance rather than compliance of the decision-making process. The study proposes a Maqāṣid-Based Algorithmic Accountability Framework consisting of three stages: data and model governance before the decision, rights to explanation and human review at the time of decision, and dignified collection and redress after the decision.
Downloads
References
Aggarwal, N. (2021). The norms of algorithmic credit scoring. The Cambridge Law Journal, 80(1), 42–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197321000015
Ahmed, H. (2011). Maqasid al-Shari'ah and Islamic financial products: A framework for assessment. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, 3(1), 149–160.
Arner, D. W., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P. (2016). The evolution of Fintech: A new post-crisis paradigm? Georgetown Journal of International Law, 47(4), 1271–1319.
Auda, J. (2008). Maqasid al-Shariah as philosophy of Islamic law: A systems approach. International Institute of Islamic Thought.
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.
Bartlett, R., Morse, A., Stanton, R., & Wallace, N. (2022). Consumer-lending discrimination in the FinTech era. Journal of Financial Economics, 143(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.047
Berg, T., Burg, V., Gombović, A., & Puri, M. (2020). On the rise of FinTechs: Credit scoring using digital footprints. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(7), 2845–2897. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz099
Chapra, M. U. (2008). The Islamic vision of development in the light of Maqasid al-Shariah. Islamic Research and Training Institute, Islamic Development Bank.
Citron, D. K., & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1–33.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2023). Judgment of 7 December 2023, OQ v Land Hessen (SCHUFA Holding – Scoring), Case C-634/21. ECLI:EU:C:2023:957.
DSN-MUI (Dewan Syariah Nasional Majelis Ulama Indonesia). (2000). Fatwa No. 17/DSN-MUI/IX/2000 on sanctions against capable customers who delay payment. DSN-MUI.
DSN-MUI (Dewan Syariah Nasional Majelis Ulama Indonesia). (2004). Fatwa No. 43/DSN-MUI/VIII/2004 on compensation (taʿwīḍ). DSN-MUI.
DSN-MUI (Dewan Syariah Nasional Majelis Ulama Indonesia). (2018). Fatwa No. 117/DSN-MUI/II/2018 on information-technology-based financing services based on sharia principles. DSN-MUI.
Dusuki, A. W., & Abozaid, A. (2007). A critical appraisal on the challenges of realizing maqasid al-shariaah in Islamic banking and finance. IIUM Journal of Economics and Management, 15(2), 143–165.
Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017). Slave to the algorithm? Why a "right to an explanation" is probably not the remedy you are looking for. Duke Law & Technology Review, 16(1), 18–84.
European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L series.
Financial Services Authority (OJK). (2023a). OJK Regulation No. 22 of 2023 on consumer and public protection in the financial services sector. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.
Financial Services Authority (OJK). (2023b). OJK Circular Letter No. 19/SEOJK.06/2023 on the operation of information-technology-based co-funding services. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.
Financial Services Authority (OJK). (2024). OJK Regulation No. 40 of 2024 on information-technology-based co-funding services. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.
Fuster, A., Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., Ramadorai, T., & Walther, A. (2022). Predictably unequal? The effects of machine learning on credit markets. The Journal of Finance, 77(1), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13090
Gillis, T. B. (2022). The input fallacy. Minnesota Law Review, 106(3), 1175–1263.
Hudaefi, F. A. (2020). How does Islamic fintech promote the SDGs? Qualitative evidence from Indonesia. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 12(4), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-05-2019-0058
Hurley, M., & Adebayo, J. (2016). Credit scoring in the era of big data. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 18(1), 148–216.
Hutagalung, J. M., As Suminar, M. Z., Pebrianto, Z., Al-Kindi, M. I. S., & Masae, M. (2025). Digital lending platforms and Islamic financial technology in Indonesia: Reconciling regulatory paradigms through maqāṣid al-sharīʿah and consumer protection philosophies. Jurnal Indo-Islamika, 15(1), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.15408/jii.v15i1.47045
Ibn ʿĀshūr, M. al-Ṭ. (2006). Treatise on Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah (M. El-Tahir El-Mesawi, Trans.). International Institute of Islamic Thought.
Kamali, M. H. (2008). Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah made simple. International Institute of Islamic Thought.
Kaminski, M. E. (2019). The right to explanation, explained. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34(1), 189–218.
KPPU (Business Competition Supervisory Commission). (2026). Decision in Case No. 05/KPPU-I/2025 concerning alleged violation of Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1999 in information-technology-based co-funding services. Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha.
Laldin, M. A., & Furqani, H. (2013). Developing Islamic finance in the framework of maqasid al-Shari'ah: Understanding the ends (maqasid) and the means (wasa'il). International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 6(4), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMEFM-05-2013-0057
Langenbucher, K. (2020). Responsible A.I.-based credit scoring: A legal framework. European Business Law Review, 31(4), 527–572.
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
Oseni, U. A., & Ali, S. N. (Eds.). (2019). Fintech in Islamic finance: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Ozili, P. K. (2018). Impact of digital finance on financial inclusion and stability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 18(4), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2017.12.003
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Rabbani, M. R., Khan, S., & Thalassinos, E. I. (2020). FinTech, blockchain and Islamic finance: An extensive literature review. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 8(2), 65–86.
Republic of Indonesia. (1999). Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection. State Gazette of 1999 No. 42.
Republic of Indonesia. (2022). Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection. State Gazette of 2022 No. 196.
Republic of Indonesia. (2023). Law No. 4 of 2023 on the Development and Strengthening of the Financial Sector. State Gazette of 2023 No. 4.
Rosavina, M., Rahadi, R. A., Kitri, M. L., Nuraeni, S., & Mayangsari, L. (2019). P2P lending adoption by SMEs in Indonesia. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 11(2), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-09-2018-0103
Sari, L. T., & Khoiruddin, K. (2024). Legal protection for financial technology services from a maqashid syariah perspective. ASAS: Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi Syariah, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.24042/asas.v16i1.18780
Suryono, R. R., Budi, I., & Purwandari, B. (2020). Challenges and trends of financial technology (Fintech): A systematic literature review. Information, 11(12), 590. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11120590
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
Zetzsche, D. A., Buckley, R. P., Arner, D. W., & Barberis, J. N. (2017). Regulating a revolution: From regulatory sandboxes to smart regulation. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 23(1), 31–103.
Zikry, F., Intan, M. I. S., & Basri, A. H. (2024). The public interest implications (maslahah) of the OJK's regulatory amendments pertaining to Islamic peer-to-peer lending in Indonesia. Ijtihad, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.21111/ijtihad.v18i2.12737
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Sahabat ISNU SU
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
