SHARIAsource

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 17 May 1981 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had two children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 17 May 1981 by the village imam. The second applicant's brother had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had a child. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their child.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

An Arab-American police officer in New York City sued his employer under §1981 (providing “a cause of action for race-based employment discrimination based on a hostile work environment”), New York Executive Law Section 290, and New York Administrative Code Section 9-101 (both state laws imposing “liability on aiders and abettors of unlawful discriminatory practices”), as well as laws prohibiting the creation of a hostile work environment. The plaintiff worked for the NYPD’s Intelligence Division and claimed that the Department made him read anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric in the form of briefings from an anti-terrorism consultant. According to the plaintiff, these briefings entailed the consultant instructing the reader to not trust Muslims in law enforcement and making comments like “a good Muslim…can’t be a good American.” The Court held that a jury could find that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to allow a hostile work environment claim to proceed. It thus denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the case to go forward. The case was ultimately closed in 2010 after an order of dismissal without ever going to trial. The plaintiff did not lodge an explicit claim on the basis of Islamic law, but his allegations about religion may have included ritual practice or dress related to Islamic law.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 20 September 1981 by a marriage qadi (qadhi nikah) before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been eight mayam worth of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. The parties had never divorced nor had they left Islam (murtad). There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children. They had not yet registered their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs and required a court determination in order to obtain a marriage deed (akta nikah).

The court cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, and Kitab Ushu al-Fiqh by Abdul Wahhab Khallaf, as examples of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by the parties. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 4 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.

The prosecution submitted that, on 28 April 2010 at around 9.30pm, the male and female co-accused were found in close proximity together out of wedlock (khalwat). Specifically, the female co-accused had allegedly left her home to purchase noodles, unbeknownst to her husband and without his blessing. After leaving her home, the female co-accused had collected the first witness and met the male co-accused, who had been waiting for her at a roadside point. The female co-accused then told the first witness to leave her alone with the male co-accused. Both co-accused were allegedly found in close proximity with one another by the husband of the female co-accused (the second witness). When the second witness found the two co-accused, the male co-accused allegedly left the scene.

The prosecution submitted that the conduct of the co-accused contravened arts 5 and 22(2) of Aceh Qanun No. 14 of 2003. Accordingly, it requested that the court sentence the co-accused to two months' imprisonment, and that it order both co-accused to pay a fine of IDR 5 million each.

The court dismissed the application of the prosecution on the grounds that, on the evidence before it, the co-accused had not committed khalwat, as defined in art 2 of Aceh Qanun No. 14 of 2003. Specifically, the definition of khalwat specifies that the conduct of both parties must be heading towards adultery (zina). Based on the submissions made by all the relevant parties, the court concluded that the conduct of the co-accused resembled an ordinary conversation. Therefore, citing art 191(1) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure, the court released the co-accused on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to establish any misconduct on their part.

In preambular statement (b), this regional regulation states that Parepare Municipal Regulation No. 6 of 1999 on the Retribution of Licensing for Alcohol Points of Sale needs to be revoked and replaced with a regulation that prohibits alcoholic beverages. It states that the prohibition on alcoholic beverages in this regulation is, among other things, a way of implementing religious values and the morals of a religious umat (community) (art 4). Accordingly, this regulation prohibits all legal entities and persons from producing, storing, distributing, channelling, placing, promoting, and selling alcoholic beverages in the region (art 5(1)), while all persons are prohibited from consuming alcohol in the region (art 5(2)). Foreigners visiting Parepare are exempted and may bring and consume alcoholic beverages with an alcohol content of five per cent (art 6).

This regional regulation makes provision for the control and surveillance of alcoholic beverages in Central Lampung (Lampung Tengah), Lampung. It states, in its preambular statement, that misuse of alcohol is, among other things, contrary to religious and moral norms. The regulation prohibits the production, distribution, sale, stockpiling, carrying, making available, and serving of alcoholic beverages (art 3(1) and (2)). It also prohibits the consumption of alcohol, and being intoxicated, in a public place (art 3(3)). The regulation makes exceptions, however, for:

1. a person or legal entity with a permit;
2. herbal medicine traders;
3. 3-, 4-, and 5-star hotels, certified restaurants, bars, pubs, nightclubs and discotheques, and alcohol consumed at its point of sale; and
4. those using alcohol for the purposes of religious ceremonies (art 4).

Contravention of art 3 can result in a maximum prison sentence of six months, or a maximum monetary penalty of IDR 50 million. Contravention of art 4 can result in a maximum prison sentence of three months, or a maximum monetary penalty of IDR 50 million.

This regional regulation prohibits prostitution, stating that it is contrary to religious and moral norms, and has a negative impact on the moral pillars of society. It defines prostitution as all amoral behaviour conducted intentionally by a man or woman with a man or woman, which results in physical intimacy outside of wedlock, paid for with money or goods or neither. Soliciting prostitution, according to art 10, carries with it a maximum prison sentence of three months, and/or a fine of up to IDR 5 million.

This regional regulation makes provision for the prevention of behaviour that contradicts and contravenes moral and religious norms (art 2). Specifically, the regulation is concerned with alcohol (minuman keras), and prostitution (pelacuran) and sexual relations out of wedlock (perzinaan) (arts 4-6). Contravention of the provisions therein can result in a prison sentence of, at most, six months, or a fine of up to IDR 50 million (art 17).

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of Antigua and Barbuda, based on research produced by the Library of Congress. Under Antigua and Barbuda's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

This regional regulation is an example of a legislative instrument that, arguably, Islamises public life without specifically referring to Islam or religion (agama). It prohibits the distribution and/or sale of alcoholic beverages in public places in Muaro Jambi, Jambi (art 2(1)). Hotels, bars, and restaurants stipulated by the regent are exempted from the prohibition (art 2(2)). It also prohibits alcohol points of sale from being within a 500m radius of places of worship, schools, hospitals, residential areas, and office blocks (art 3).

This regional regulation prohibits all entities and individuals, except three-, four-, and five-star hotels (art 3(4)), from producing, distributing, selling, making available, and/or serving alcoholic beverages (art 3(1) and (2)). All persons are prohibited from consuming alcohol, except foreign visitors (art 3(3)). In its preambular statement and elucidation, the regulation states that alcohol is contrary to, and prohibited by, religious and moral norms.

This regional regulation makes provision for the management of zakat (alms), infaq (property donated by a person or entity, outside of zakat, for the purpose of public welfare), and sadaqah (property donated by a Muslim or entity owned by a Muslim, outside of zakat, for the purpose of public welfare), through the Badan Amil Zakat (Alms Administering Body), in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi (Sulawesi Selatan). The provision of zakat, infaq and sadaqah, according to the regulation, is to increase societal welfare.

This regional regulation, in its preambular statement, states that prostitution contravenes religious, legal, moral, and customary morals, while alcohol-related activities can damage society's morals and threaten the nation's future. This regulation prohibits prostitution (arts 4 and 5), as well as any other movements or behaviour that exhibit 'sensitive' parts of the body with the intent to stir up lust in public or places frequented by the public (art 6). It also prohibits any behaviour or conduct that may facilitate prostitution (arts 7-9), as well as the production, sale, distribution, and consumption of alcohol (arts 11-13).

This regional regulation identifies as, and prohibits, the following social ills:

1. intoxicants;
2. prostitution and indecency;
3. pornoaction;
4. live music; and
5. thuggery.

It states that such conduct contravenes religious norms, customs and traditions, politeness and morality, and can incur a fine of between IDR 15 million and IDR 50 million, or a three month prison sentence.

This regional regulation makes provision for public order in Sukoharjo, Central Java (Jawa Tengah). Article 21(2) permits the regional government to close (permanently or temporarily) places of entertainment or activities that disturb the implementation of religious worship (peribadatan).

This regional regulation makes provision for the prevention and eradication of immoral practices, which it defines in art 2(2) as:

1. adultery and conduct heading in the direction of adultery;
2. gambling;
3. selling and drinking alcohol, and using narcotics and prohibited drugs; and
4. all forms of broadcasting and display of pornoaction and pornography.

The regulation states that the prevention and eradication of immoral practices is intended to:

1. implement the principle and philosophy of 'Adat Basandi Syarak, Syarak Basandi Kitabullah' ('custom found upon Islamic law, Islamic law found upon the Qur'an');
2. protect society from various activities and/or immoral behaviour;
3. support optimal law enforcement of legislative instruments related to activities and/or immoral behaviour; and
4. increase the role of society in preventing and eradicating the occurrence and spread of immoral behaviour.

A Toledan man named Ibn Ḥātim was accused of being a heretic by sixty witnesses on the initiative of a fellow Toledan called Ibn Labīd al-Murābiṭ. The judge consulted with the local jurists, and following their legal opinions, he sentenced the accused to death. However, he granted the accused the right to challenge the witnesses (iʿdhār). Ibn Ḥātim escaped from Toledo and found refuge in the neighboring kingdom of Badajoz. Ibn Labīd went after him, carrying a copy of the judge’s sentence (tasjīl) along with the legal opinions of a number of non-Toledan jurists. In Badajoz, the ruler withdrew his support from Ibn Ḥātim, who fled again, this time to Cordoba. While in Cordoba, the “moral” police arrested Ibn Ḥātim, and the judge imprisoned him, giving him two months to prove his innocence. Unable to do so, Ibn Ḥātim was crucified alive. A number of legal issues arise in the course of this case: should the process of iʽdhār—the right to challenge witnesses—be granted to those accused of heresy (zandaqa)? Should refuge be granted to them? What happens with the estate or inheritance of an executed zindīq? Can a judge reverse a sentence given by another judge? The source is a collection of court cases by Andalusi scholar Ibn Sahl (d. 486/1093), and it is based on information directly available to the compiler, who was also a witness of most of the events described.