Perbedaan Pandangan Ulama Fikih tentang Penggabungan Dua Niat Puasa: Sebuah Studi Literatur

Abstract

The issue of combining two fasting intentions in a single act of worship has become a topic of discussion among Islamic jurists due to differing interpretations regarding the function of intention (niyyah), the objectives of worship, and the application of the principle of tadākhul al-'ibādāt (the overlap of acts of worship). This study aims to examine the differences in juristic opinions concerning the combination of two fasting intentions in one act of fasting, analyze the legal arguments employed by each viewpoint, and explore their relevance to contemporary Muslim religious practices. This research employs a qualitative approach using a literature review method. Data were collected from classical Islamic legal texts, contemporary scholarly books, and relevant academic journal articles discussing fasting, intention, and the concept of overlapping acts of worship. The data were analyzed through content analysis and a descriptive-analytical approach. The findings reveal that scholars hold differing opinions regarding the permissibility of combining two fasting intentions. Some scholars permit it based on the principle of tadākhul al-'ibādāt, particularly when the objectives of the acts of worship do not conflict. Others prohibit it, arguing that each act of worship possesses its own specific purpose and therefore requires a separate intention. These differences are particularly evident in cases involving the combination of obligatory and voluntary fasts. The study concludes that the legal ruling on combining two fasting intentions depends on the type of fasting involved and the legal reasoning adopted by scholars. This diversity of opinions reflects the flexibility and richness of Islamic jurisprudence in addressing contemporary religious issues.