![](bg4.png)
one of the reasons why a wife is not interested in
attending a divorce hearing, which is why her rights
are lost, is because the judge who decided the case
based on the discriminative views of the judge, did
not have a gender perspective (Rosyadi, 2010).
The second reason why the wife is not willing to
attend the trial in court, the questions raised by the
judge in court often discredit women (wives), even
though in a joking tone. For example, what's the use
of beauty if you don't obey your husband. This
question has almost no relevance to the subject of
the divorce process, because the subject is why the
wife does not obey the husband. Relevant questions,
for example, are why they are not compliant with
their husbands, are there actions by their husbands
who are not pleasing, which results in anger towards
their husbands, and the like.
The third reason, in many cases, the decision of a
judge who is pro to the wife is often not followed by
the execution of the decision. The husband does not
obey the judge's decision. For example, the wife's
explanation of the behavior of a husband who is not
good to his wife, even rude is often even reversed to
the wife by saying, the husband's actions occurred
because the wife was not obedient. Though the fact
is that the husband's behavior is rude for the wife is
not obedient to the husband.
In addition, even though it is in a different
context, to get child custody (child care), the wives
(mothers) do not attend the trial in court, is also due
to the judge who decides cases based on the partial
views of the judge, does not have a thematic
perspective (Ghofur, 2018).
There is indeed research that says judges do not
play a maximum role is possible because of two
things, namely the level of awareness and level of
ability. That is, the judge does not yet have the
awareness that being an idealist judge is a mandate
from God that must be carried out to the maximum,
as best as possible. This means that the judge does
not have the ability to become an idealistic judge.
Because using interdisciplinary analysis in solving
cases, for example, the ability of knowledge that is
not light is needed even though it does not mean it is
impossible. So that ability is not light that the judge
does not yet have.
In relation to the role of judges, there are studies
that classify judges into three groups, namely
idealist judges, pragmatic judges, and materialist
judges. Other groupings are progressive judges and
passive judges.
The idealist judge's intention is that the judge
who in completing the case has committed to work
in total, sincere, uplifting and full of smile. People
who are committed, total, sincere, uplifting and full
of smile at work, that is what is called jihad, and this
type of jihad that Islam demands is done by
everyone in any field of work. Likewise, the fruit
that will be obtained later in the life of the world and
the hereafter, is dependent on commitment, totality,
sincerity, enthusiasm and full of smile. In turn, this
idealistic judge will become a progressive judge.
This means that judges use a variety of means,
methods and facilities in completing cases that are
handled in order to produce a maximum decision.
This idealist judge will use ex officionya rights,
using various methods of legal discovery;
interpretation methods, argumentation methods, and
construction methods. All are used optimally in
order to get the maximum decision.
While pragmatic judges and / or materialist
judges are simply judges who, in completing and / or
deciding cases, are dealt with just as little as
possible. For him the most important decision has a
formal legal basis, roughly the same as what is
called Yusuf Bukhori, the judge still uses the
positivistic paradigm. So be a passive judge, no need
to seek a breakthrough to find a substantial decision.
For judges this group is what impressed the material
of law as a goal, not a means to achieve the
objectives of the law, as is the thought and belief of
idealist judges and progressive judges (Yusuf
Buchori. 2015).
The second reason why majority or Muslim
thinkers reject the concept of thematic thinking is
that many thematic thoughts are not in line with their
views and beliefs.
Among the examples can be noted below. A man
for polygamy according to his views and beliefs
does not need specific conditions. Similarly, for
marriage, there is no need for approval from
prospective brides. The same case that there is no
need to have a minimum marriage allowance. They
also view and belief that divorce does not need to go
to court, just at home. In short, what is in the
marriage law is generally contrary to their opinions
and beliefs.
The third reason, the concept of thematic
thinking is written in Latin, not Arabic. Many
religious figures view that books written in Arabic
are more authoritative than those that are not. Even
books written outside Arabic, are not worthy of
reference. Not written in Arabic is also among the
reasons why the majority of Indonesian Muslims do
not accept the concept written in various Indonesian
Family Law Regulations; Law No.1 of 1974 on
Marriage, Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Islamic Court,
Law No. 3 of 2006 on the Amendment of Law No.
Social Guarantee for Women in the Quran: Theory and Reality
1529