SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 22 June 2012, but, for the duration of their short marriage, had never lived together as husband and wife. Work commitments meant that the defendant lived on a plantation in Riau, while the plaintiff lived at her parents' home in Padang. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious from the outset, the defendant showing a general lack of concern for the plaintiff as a husband should for his wife. For instance, three days after their marriage, the defendant left for Riau without taking the plaintiff because he supposedly did not yet have a house there. When the defendant returned to the plaintiff's parents' home for Eid al'Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2012, he refused to be physically intimate with the plaintiff, and, at the end of January 2013, when the plaintiff visited the defendant, they were only physically intimate twice in one month.

After refusing to be physically intimate with the plaintiff again, the plaintiff returned home to Padang in April 2013, and since May 2013, the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support. Despite the efforts of the plaintiff's parents to intervene and resolve the parties' problems, on 7 August 2013, the defendant effectively handed the plaintiff over to her parents without any legitimate reason. Since then communication between the parties had been severed and they had remained separated for approximately 10 months, leading up to the proceeding.

The court found that the parties' differences were irreconcilable, and, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, believed ongoing conflict between the parties constituted sufficient grounds to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The parties were married on 28 February 1986 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious up until a year ago, before she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, secretly married (nikah siri) this other woman, and had a child with her. When problems escalated between the parties, the defendant finally left the matrimonial home to live with his parents, where he had remained for the past year. During that time the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 26 January 2004, the plaintiff at the time being a new bride, the defendant a divorcee. They had one child. The plaintiff told the court that the parties' marriage had been harmonious up until a year ago, when they had started to quarrel regularly over financial matters. More specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant never provided her with shopping money to shop for daily necessities, and that the defendant no longer showed any care for the plaintiff. When problems escalated between the parties, the defendant finally left the matrimonial home to live with his parents, where he had remained for the past year. During that time the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had never provided her with any financial support since they were married. Furthermore, the defendant showed insufficient care for his family and often went out on his own. Problems escalated and, on 21 March 2015, the defendant left the plaintiff's parents' home. Since their separation the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The parties were married on 21 June 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, for the past year and a half, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had not provided her with any financial support, compelling the plaintiff to rely on her parents financially. The defendant then left the plaintiff and, since their separation a year ago, the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 9 December 2004 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant's unwillingness to gain employment meant they could not meet their domestic needs. The defendant then left the plaintiff to live with his own parents, and for the seven years they were separated, they were never physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 31 October 2012 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had always been quarrelsome because the defendant had never been willing to seek employment, meaning the parties could not meet their domestic needs. Two months prior to the proceeding, the defendant left the plaintiff without notice or a farewell to live with his own parents, and for the two months they were separated they had not shared any physical intimacy. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 12 May 2006 and had one child. The marriage had been harmonious until May 2015, when, the plaintiff submitted, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because of the defendant's jealousy when a male guest came to the parties' home. Problems escalated and the defendant left the matrimonial home on 28 June 2015. The parties had remained separated for the 15 days leading up to the date on which the plaintiff had filed an application for divorce, during which time they had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 2 July 2010 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage was initially harmonious. Since September 2012, however, it had deteriorated because:

1. the defendant would often come home in the middle of the night and become enraged if the plaintiff would advise him to conduct himself otherwise;
2. whenever the parties would argue, the defendant would use profane language, leaving the plaintiff feeling no longer appreciated as a wife.

Problems escalated in April 2013, when the defendant had an extra-marital affair with another woman, resulting in the parties quarrelling, and the defendant leaving the plaintiff. For the next two years, the defendant provided the plaintiff with no financial or emotional support, leaving the plaintiff to believe that divorce was the only available option.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 10 January 2013 and had one child, aged 2. They had lived with the defendant's parents for approximately three months before moving to their own home nearby. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious from the beginning because the defendant:

1. was drug-addicted;
2. gambled with his friends;
3. was temperamental and frequently drove the plaintiff away, even physically assaulting her when he became enraged; and
4. only worked when he so desired.

Problems escalated in November 2015 when the plaintiff was forced to work out of necessity while the defendant spent his time at home. When the plaintiff suggested that the defendant also seek employment he struck the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the parties' home.

The plaintiff submitted that it was in the interest of the parties' child that their child be in the plaintiff's care given the child's young age, as well as the fact that the defendant was rarely home and unemployed. The plaintiff also submitted that as the parties' marriage and home life was no longer peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah), and in order that they did not contravene legal and religious norms, an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the parties' final option.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, it did so on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 21 June 2006 and had two children aged 9 and 4 years, both of whom were in the plaintiff's care. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately seven years before relocating to the ghetto (kampung). The plaintiff submitted that, since the end of 2007, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. was in debt (the plaintiff learned of this from one of the defendant's debtors);
2. would physically assault the plaintiff when angry; and
3. was excessively jealous and would accuse the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair with another man.

Problems escalated in August 2015 when the defendant telephoned the plaintiff while she was bathing. When the plaintiff consequently failed to answer the telephone, the defendant became angry, beating her and pulling her hair. As a result, the plaintiff left the parties' home. Familial intervention had also failed to reconcile the parties' differences.

The plaintiff submitted that as the parties' marriage and home life was no longer peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah), and in order that they did not contravene legal and religious norms, an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the parties' final option.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, it did so on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The Full Bench of three judges, Shabir Ahmad, B. Z. Kaikaus and Masud Ahmad, held that a Muslim wife is entitled to dissolution of marriage on restoration of dower if the Judge apprehends that parties will not observe the limits of God i.e., harmonious married state as envisaged by Islam will not be possible. For this, a husband’s assent is not necessary.

The parties were married on 16 August 2013 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious until mid-2015, after which time it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. was unemployed, meaning he was unable to provide for the plaintiff and the parties' child, forcing the plaintiff to rely on her parents for financial support;
2. would frequently leave the parties' home after shalat magrib (sunset prayers), returning the next morning, then spending much of the day in bed; and
3. would frequently direct profane language at the plaintiff.

The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would argue, the defendant would resort to slapping, kicking, and strangling the plaintiff. Problems came to a head in May 2016, resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff to live with his parents. The parties had remained separated for the past five months. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 3 December 2012 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first year, but by January 2014 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently:

1. mention the money with which he had provided the plaintiff as though she did not deserve it; and
2. direct profane language at the plaintiff when the parties would argue, as well as threatening to divorce the plaintiff.

Whenever the parties would quarrel, the defendant would leave the parties' home, taking with him all his clothes. In August 2016, the plaintiff answered a call from another woman on the defendant's mobile phone at 2.00am. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to the identity of the woman, the defendant answered dishonestly and then returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past two months in the lead up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

A baby produced through medical intervention by the sperm and egg of duly wedded couples (without involving a third party) is permissible under Islamic law. However, surrogacy is not allowed because marriage is the only means through which children should be produced under Islamic law. Surrogacy is likely to give rise to innumerable legal problems regarding paternity and maternity of the surrogate children, the relationship between actual children and surrogate children, and inheritance rights.

Translated, this short fatwā reads as follows: 

Number: 42

Can either Muslim Refi’i or his wife give away their child to a Christian for adoption, regardless of whether the marriage is dissolved or not?

Answer: No, it is not allowed.

17 September 1987

Deputy Mufti of Komotini

 (Seal and signature)

On September 23, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court remanded a divorce case to the trial court in which it had originally been heard, deciding that the lower court had erred in its initial judgment. The case involved two agreements that had been signed in 2008 when the couple was first married; one was an Islamic “Marriage Contract,” and the other was an “Islamic Prenuptial Agreement.” The wife sued for divorce, claiming that she had not known at the time exactly what she was signing and had assumed that the prenuptial agreement was just a copy of the marriage contract. The prenuptial agreement stated that any conflicts arising from the marriage were to be “resolved according to the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Islamic Law in a Muslim court, or in [its] absence by a Fiqh Panel,” whose decision was to be “binding and final.” The Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court had erred in determining the enforceability and validity of the prenuptial agreement, and that the conflicts arising from the marriage should be determined by a court according to U.S. law, rather  than by a so-called fiqh panel of Islamic law experts. The Court’s per curiam opinion came in response to an appeal from the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals, whose ruling can be viewed here. 

The parties were married on 8 December 2010. The plaintiff submitted that, after one year and four months of marriage, in August 2010, the marriage had deteriorated because:

1. the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. the defendant would often drink excessively; and
3. the defendant was often physically violent towards the plaintiff.

The defendant had left the matrimonial home for his girlfriend's home, where he had remained since 10 August 2010 for the four months leading up to the proceeding. Throughout those four months the defendant had neglected his responsibilities to the plaintiff and never once provided her with any form of support.

Despite there still being some communication between the parties, the plaintiff felt it untenable to reunite with the defendant. Given the parties' evident ongoing conflict, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). It also ordered, pursuant to art 45 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 105(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 1 million in child maintenance per month until the child was self-sufficient.

The parties were married on 17 June 2007. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since January 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had not provided the plaintiff and their children with sufficient financial support since January 2013;
2. the defendant gambled;
3. the defendant's sibling had discovered that the defendant had been having an extra-marital affair with another woman in mid-April 2013; and
4. the parties, in July 2013, quarrelled until the defendant made the plaintiff leave the matrimonial home.

The defendant conceded most of these points. He informed the court that he had endeavoured to reconcile with the plaintiff, but that she had not been taking his calls or returning his text messages. Regardless, the court found that there were sufficient reasons to grant the plaintiff a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The defendant's adultery and gambling satisfied art 19(a) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, while ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied art 19(f) and art 116(f). Accordingly, the Court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The parties were married on 4 March 2013 and had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, at least since 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious. This was the result of:

1. a lack of compatibility and constant difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the defendant no longer providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support; and
3. the defendant's lack of financial transparency.

The parties separated in 2013 and had not been physically intimate for approximately six months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff maintained that she had attempted to reconcile her differences with the defendant by talking to him, but to no avail.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and arts 33 and 34 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, as well as on the grounds of the defendant's repudiation of arts 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows (sighat ta'lik thalak), pursuant to art 119 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.