This paper executes an onto-genealogical diagnostic on the structural transformation of Islamic law within the modern nation-state. By synthesizing Michel Foucault’s archaeological method with Mohammed Arkoun’s critique of Islamic reason, this study argues that the codification of Shari'a constitutes not merely an administrative reorganization, but a fundamental ontological rupture in the nature of legal authority. Through the lens of Arkoun’s concept of the unthought (l'impensé), the research exposes how the transition from decentralized jurists’ law to centralized statutory law systematically silences the epistemological pluralism (ikhtilaf) inherent in the pre-modern tradition. The standardization process is revealed as a mechanism of bureaucratic reductionism, where the "interpretive validity" grounded in scholarly consensus is displaced by "institutional enforceability" grounded in state sovereignty. Consequently, the study demonstrates that legal modernization functions as a displacement of truth production: religious law is stripped of its ethical-discursive autonomy and reassembled as a positivist instrument of administrative control. This analysis challenges the neutrality of legal form, suggesting that the "statutory vessel" itself fundamentally alters the "theological content," reducing the transcendent horizon of the law into a finite tool of governance.
Rifqi Khairul Anam (Wed,) studied this question.