The Digital Paradox: Doom Spending, Algorithmic Exploitation, and the Imperative for a Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah Framework in the Digital
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The accelerating digitalization of global economic activity has created a complex ethical landscape, presenting simultaneous challenges in consumer behavior and labor welfare. This article addresses two distinct yet interlinked crises emerging within this digital sphere: doom spending, defined as impulsive, stress-induced consumption resulting in financial and psychological distress, and gig worker precarity, characterized by job insecurity, income volatility, and potentially exploitative algorithmic control within platform economies. Existing scholarship often analyzes these issues separately, utilizing either psychological or secular economic frameworks. This research bridges this gap by employing the holistic ethical framework of Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah (the objectives of Islamic law) to provide a unified analysis. This framework mandates the protection of five core necessities (al-kulliyyāt al-khams): religion (dīn), life/self (nafs), intellect (‘aql), lineage/dignity (nasl/’ird), and property/wealth (māl). Findings synthesized from psychological, economic, and Islamic ethics literature demonstrate that doom spending inherently violates ḥifẓ al-māl through extravagance (isrāf/tabdhīr) and ḥifẓ al-nafs by exacerbating mental distress. Simultaneously, algorithmic management in the gig economy conflicts with Maqāṣid principles by undermining worker dignity (ḥifẓ al-‘ird), threatening safety (ḥifẓ al-nafs) through high-risk incentives, and denying fair, transparent compensation (ḥifẓ al-māl). The study proposes that a Maqāṣid-informed governance model is essential for regulating the digital economy. Recommended interventions include promoting faith-informed virtues like moderation (wasatiyyah) and contentment (qana’ah) to combat consumerism, and implementing Sharia-compliant social protection instruments (e.g., specialized takaful schemes) and algorithmic transparency mechanisms to safeguard gig worker financial stability and ethical dignity. Ultimately, the integration of Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah offers a rigorous ethical compass, ensuring that digital economic activity promotes genuine well-being (al-falāḥ) and comprehensive social justice.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
[1] T. Berger, C. B. Frey, G. Levin, and S. R. Danda, “Uber happy? Work and well-being in the ‘gig economy,’” Econ. Policy, vol. 34, no. 99, pp. 429–477, 2019.
[2] J. Duggan, U. Sherman, R. Carbery, and A. McDonnell, “Algorithmic management and app‐work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM,” Hum. Resour. Manag. J., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 114–132, 2020.
[3] R. Ahmed, “The COVID-19 pandemic and the antecedants for the impulse buying behavior of US citizens,” J. Compet., 2020.
[4] J. Duggan, R. Carbery, A. McDonnell, and U. Sherman, “Algorithmic HRM control in the gig economy: The app‐worker perspective,” Hum. Resour. Manage., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 883–899, 2023.
[5] D. R. Anggraheni, “Peran Literasi Keuangan Digital dalam Memitigasi Perilaku Doom Spending: A Narrative Literature Review,” Transgenera J. Ilmu Sos. Polit. Dan Hum., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 87–105, 2025.
[6] E. L. Bucher, P. K. Schou, and M. Waldkirch, “Pacifying the algorithm–Anticipatory compliance in the face of algorithmic management in the gig economy,” Organization, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 44–67, 2021.
[7] A. Ahmad and M. Asutay, “Maqasid al-Shari’ah as a guiding principle for Islamic economics and finance: A conceptual framework,” J. Islam. Account. Bus. Res., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 65–80, 2020.
[8] J. Auda, Maqasid al-Shariah as philosophy of Islamic law: A systems approach. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), 2008.
[9] A. Duderija and H. Rane, “Maqasid al-Shari’ah as a framework for Islamic finance and its application to social and economic justice,” Islam. Econ. Stud., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1–22, 2019.
[10] M. A. K. Afridi, “Maqasid Al-Shari’ah and Preservation of Basic Rights Under the Theme? Islam and Its Perspectives on Global & Local Contemporary Challenges,” J. Educ. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 274–285, 2016.
[11] A. Aminah and L. Nurhasanah, “Perilaku Impulsive Buying Gen-Z Dalam Perspektif Etika Bisnis Islam,” LABATILA J. Ilmu Ekon. Islam, vol. 7, no. 02, pp. 122–136, 2023.
[12] S. Barokah, B. Asriandhini, and M. M. Putera, “Emotional shopping sebagai variabel mediasi gaya hidup dan motivasi belanja hedonis pada keputusan pembelian impulsif produk 3second,” Mak. J. Manaj., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 156–167, 2021.
[13] E. Ardiva, S. Hudaya, F. D. Maharani, and R. W. A. Rozak, “Self Control Dari Dampak Impulsive buying Dalam E-commerce Di Kalangan Masyarakat,” Neraca J. Ekon. Manaj. Dan Akunt., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 269–278, 2024.
[14] I. Alfian, “PROFJES: Profetik Jurnal Ekonomi Syariah Fomo Dan Media Sosial: Dampak Perilaku Konsumtif Terhadap Kesehatan Mental Dan Keuangan Dari Perspektif Islam.” vol, 2024.
[15] M. A. Algifari and R. Andrini, “Maqasid Syariah dalam Pengembangan Ekonomi Islam (Analisis Komprehensif dan Implementasi),” J. Sharia Econ. Sch., vol. 2, no. 3, 2024.
[16] S. Angelucci, “Exploring Different Types Of Multiple Job Holding Through The Gig Economy: Their Push And Pull Factors.,” 2019.
[17] F. Bieber and J. Moggia, “Risk Shifts in the Gig Economy: The Normative Case for an Insurance Scheme against the Effects of Precarious Work*.,” J. Polit. Philos., vol. 29, no. 3, 2021.
[18] K. A. Al Jufri, M. S. Awang, and M. M. Sahid, “Maqasid syariah menurut Imam Al-Ghazali dan aplikasinya dalam penyusunan undang-undang Islam di Indonesia: Maqasid syariah according to Imam Al-Ghazali and its application in the compilation of Islamic law in Indonesia,” Malaysian J. Syariah Law, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 75–87, 2021.
[19] J. Dong, G. Zhang, and L. Wu, “Life against algorithmic management: a study on burnout and its influencing factors among food delivery riders,” Front. Public Heal., vol. 13, p. 1531541, 2025.