SHARIAsource

In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court of India declared the practice of triple ṭalāq (instant divorce) a violation of Muslim women’s constitutional rights. This legislative act is the result of that judgment and criminalizes the practice of triple ṭalāq.

On June 28, 2022, the Constitutional Court of South Africa confirmed the Supreme Court of Appeal order that the state must amend existing legislation or enact new legislation to recognize and regulate the consequences of Muslim marriages. The order declared certain provisions of the Marriage Act and the Divorce Act unconstitutional due to the persistent non-recognition of Muslim marriages, or marriages solemnized in accordance with the tenets of sharīʿa, that have resulted in the infringement of fundamental rights of parties to Muslim marriages, and Muslim women and children in particular. The Constitutional Court confirmed this order stating that “the common law definition of marriage is declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it excludes Muslim marriages.”

This government regulation regulates the marriage and divorce process, requirements, and financial implications thereof, for Indonesian civil servants.

This government regulation makes several amendments to Government Regulation No. 10 of 1983 on Permission to Marry and Divorce for Civil Servants. The amendments do not effect any significant change but, as the regulation states, are designed to provide greater legal certainty and sense of justice.

This enactment of August 3, 1948, "provide[s] for the solemnization and registration of church and civil marriages." It deals with all marriages except those "contracted according to the usages of the Mohammedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Dayaks and other persons governed by their own laws or customs." It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

In December 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) considered the question whether Muslim citizens who lived in the Greek province of Thrace could be required to submit to the jurisdiction of Islamic law, as detailed by local experts called muftīs. In Greek law, Islamic law usually governed matters of family law—such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance—in cases involving the Muslims in Thrace. This arrangement was a legacy of the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. When the ECHR considered whether this arrangement should persist, it considered a case in which a Muslim man had died, leaving everything to his wife in his will. His sisters contested the will, arguing that it improperly circumvented the authority of the muftīs. Greece’s highest court agreed with the sisters. With the will invalidated, the muftī distributed one-fourth of the estate to the widow, and the rest to the sisters, in accord with Islamic inheritance law. The widow appealed to the ECHR. This Court determined that the Greek government had misinterpreted the treaties, which did not require a separate legal framework for Muslims. It further noted that Greek case law was inconsistent about “whether the application of Sharia law [sic] is compatible with the principle of equal treatment and with international human rights standards.” In addition, the Court emphasized a right to "free self-identification”: people should be free to opt out of differential treatment from the government on the basis of belonging to a minority group, and the government should not force minorities into a special legal category in the name of protecting them. The Court held that Greece, by compelling the Muslim minority of Thrace to follow Islamic law, had violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

This regulation regulates the marriage registration administrative process, including necessary documentation required to be provided to Population Services and the Civil Registry.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 March 2009 before two witnesses. The second applicant's sibling had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 30,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a widower and the second applicant a divorcee. The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties also had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 14 February 1982 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 100,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 34 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 27 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties also had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 14 October 2014 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 360,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 18 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 19 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had no children but no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 4 December 1999 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 100,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 19 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 17 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had three children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 3 April 2001 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 10,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 29 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 28 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in arts 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a in 2004 before two witnesses. The second applicant's parents had acted as her marriage guardians (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 50,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 28 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 23 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in arts 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 7 March 1992 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been seven mayam worth of gold in cash. 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 never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

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 applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 20 April 2000 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as the second applicant's marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been 10 mayam of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had three children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had received a marriage certificate, issued by the Office of Religious Affairs, but it had been lost in the 26 December 2004 tsunami. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

In acceding to the parties' request, the court found that, pursuant to arts 2(1) and 6 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 7(2) and (3)(b) of the Compilation Islamic law, the parties' marriage constituted an Islamic marriage agreement (aqad nikah).

The parties were married on 26 November 2010, after which they had lived in Malang for five years and had one child. Upon receiving their marriage book (buku nikah) they had realised that it incorrectly stated the second applicant's place of birth was Yogyakarta, when in actual fact it was Sleman. As a result, the second applicant had encountered certain professional administrative obstacles. Accordingly, the applicants sought an amendment to their marriage book.

Pursuant to arts 1870 and 1865 the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), and arts 1(5) and 34(2) of the Regulation of the Minister of Religion No. 11 of 2007 on Marriage Registration, the court acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 August 1998 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 100,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a widower (aged 31 years) and the second applicant a divorcee (aged 27 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had four children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge requested that the parties withdraw their application on the grounds that they had failed to submit relevant evidence and produce witnesses.

A child born out of wedlock is typically not entitled to paternity recognition in Morocco. In an unprecedented move, the First Instance Family Court in Tangiers recognized the familial relationship connecting a father to his biological daughter. The Court also required the man to pay 100,000 MAD (10,500 USD) to the child through her mother for the material and moral harms caused to the child from denial of paternity or familial relations. The defendant appealed the judgment. On October 9, 2017, the Tangiers Court of Appeals overturned the First Instance Court decision, rejecting the DNA tests and any recognition of familial relation. The Court also invalidated the lower court’s use of international conventions, explaining that the child is so foreign to her father that the possibility of their future marriage would not be overruled.

In November 2021, the UAE government issued a new personal status law from Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan, president of the UAE federation of seven emirates, titled Law No. 14 of 2021 Concerning the Personal Status of Non-Foreigners Muslims in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The law covers civil marriage, divorce, alimony, joint child custody, proof of paternity, and inheritance. Most notably, this new law allows for civil marriage, not just marriage under Islamic law. It allows expats, tourists, and non-residents to marry in Abu Dhabi and allows foreigners to follow their home countries’ laws on matters of inheritance and divorce.

This indictment relates to a case involving a defendant with the initials AM who was accused of committing khalwat (being in a close proximity with a man unrelated to her by blood or marriage) and ikhtilath (physical intimacy between an unmarried man and woman). Her neighbors found her to be in close proximity in her home with a man, RS. AM insisted that RS was, in fact, her legitimate husband and that they were married by way of nikah dibawah tangan, a marriage officiated by a local imam and not registered in the civil registry. The prosecutor rejected the legitimacy of her marriage with RS by claiming that such unregistered marriage violated the Indonesian Marriage Law of 1974. Accordingly, AM’s act of being in close proximity with RS was considered unlawful.