Abstract
Ideally, digital Islamic economic dispute resolution should combine procedural efficiency, forum certainty, and authoritative Shariah determination within an accessible judicial process. Indonesia and Malaysia, however, digitalize dispute resolution through different jurisdictional structures, making their Religious Courts and Syariah Courts institutionally non-equivalent. Using normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and functional comparative approaches, this article examines how these differences shape electronic justice. The study finds that Indonesia combines direct Religious Court jurisdiction over Islamic economic disputes with a nationally integrated e-Court system. In Malaysia, Islamic finance disputes are generally adjudicated by civil courts, with binding reference to the Shariah Advisory Council on Shariah matters, while Syariah Courts operate separate digital systems within their jurisdiction. The key comparative issue is therefore the alignment of jurisdiction, digital procedure, and authoritative Shariah determination. The article proposes a functional framework for strengthening access, interoperability, accountability, legal certainty, and procedural fairness.