SHARIAsource

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 government regulation defines the regulation of civil servant discipline as regulating obligations, prohibitions and sanctions relevant in the event a civil servant fails to abide by an obligation, or contravenes a prohibition. The regulation focuses particularly on the abuse of authority and position as a civil servant, and the negative impact it can have on the dignity of the state.

H.M. Saleh bin Amaq Melah passed away on 30 December 2006, and was survived by his wife (first defendant). The deceased had six relatives, all of whom had also passed away, five of whom were survived by their own children. Some of those children were plaintiffs in the proceeding, others co-defendants.

The plaintiffs claimed that, while married to the first defendant, the deceased acquired a 31-acre rice padi in Orong Lapan, as well as a 32-acre property in Lemokek on which was situated a house. The rice padi was now in the possession of the second defendant, after the first defendant had sold it to the second defendant in 2007 for IDR 40 million to discharge debts of the deceased. With regard to the 32-acre property, 29 acres and the house had remained in the possession of the first defendant, while the remaining three acres had been sold by the first defendant to the third defendant for IDR 18 million. The plaintiffs and co-defendants maintained that, as the deceased and first defendant did not have any children, they were entitled to a share of the property, after the first defendant had been provided with her share of what was deemed a joint asset of the first defendant and deceased. The plaintiffs also asserted that the court should place a caveat on the property to prevent it changing hands while the case was on foot.

The first defendant submitted the following objections with the court:

1. That the plaintiffs' claim failed to include Ilah (the wife of one of the deceased relatives of the deceased);
2. Prior to embarking on the hajj, that the deceased and first defendant had arranged for one of the co-defendants to divide the property as necessary to ensure the daily needs of the deceased and first defendant were met; and
3. That the proceeds of the sale of the rice padi were not used to discharge any debts of the deceased as he had none.

The court acceded to the first defendant's first objection, concurring that the plaintiffs' claim was incomplete in that it failed to include one beneficiary. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim on those grounds and ordered the plaintiffs to pay court costs (IDR 1,276,000).

This presidential instruction ordered the Minister of Religion to ensure the dissemination of the Compilation of Islamic Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Islam) and the application thereof by government agencies.

This Supreme Court circular is designed to accelerate the process of voluntary marriage ratification by providing prospective applicants with a set of guidelines and instructions to which they must adhere in order to ensure their marriage is formally ratified.

The deceased passed away on 20 August 2014 from illness. His wife had passed away on 14 October 2010, and his parents were both deceased. The applicants (the deceased's five children) sought from the court a stipulation that they were the lawful beneficiaries under the deceased's will, in order that they could withdraw his pension from Bank BRI.

The court acceded to the applicants' request based on the grounds that they met the requirements to be considered beneficiaries, per art 171(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and ordered them to pay costs (IDR 466,000).

The deceased passed away on 31 May 2015. He was survived by his wife and three children (the applicants), who sought from the court a declaration stipulating that the deceased had passed away on 31 May 2015 at Harapan Bunda Kota Banda Aceh hospital, that the applicants were the lawful beneficiaries of the deceased's will, and that they needed to access the deceased's bank savings and pension.

The court acceded to the applicants' request based on the grounds that they met the requirements to be considered beneficiaries, per arts 171(c) and 174 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and ordered them to pay costs (IDR 391,000).

The deceased passed away on 2 February 2015. He was survived by his wife and three children (the applicants), who sought from the court a declaration stipulating that he had passed away, that the applicants were the lawful beneficiaries of the deceased's will, and that they needed to access the deceased's bank savings, and to transfer his pension.

The court acceded to the applicants' request based on the grounds that they met the requirements to be considered beneficiaries, per arts 171(c) and 174 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and ordered them to pay costs (IDR 466,000).

This ministerial regulation regulates the procedural requirements related to the marriage, divorce and reconciliation of Ministry of Defence officials, in terms of requesting and obtaining the permission of their superior officer to marry, divorce or reconcile with their spouse.

This ministerial regulation makes provision for marriage guardians for prospective brides who do not have a marriage guardian who meets the requirements set out in Islamic law, that is, a blood relative Muslim man from their father's side. The regulation mandates that that marriage guardian is to be a ministerial-appointed Head of the Office of Religious Affairs Registrar.

This legislative instrument regulates the marriage registration process, specifying the government bodies and agents authorised to ratify and register marriages.

The applicant was the husband of the deceased, who had died on 13 May 2014 due to illness. The applicant had married the deceased in 1987. The parents of the deceased had also passed away in 2001 and 2011, and the sibling of the deceased had passed away in 1991. As no one else had come forward as a potential beneficiary, the applicant, pursuant to art 49(b) of Law No. 3 of 2006 on Amendments to law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, requested that he be stipulated by the court as the sole beneficiary of two apartments.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court, citing arts 171(c) and 174(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the applicant, as the husband of the deceased, was a legitimate beneficiary.

The deceased (IB) died on 27 November 2016, and was survived by his two beneficiaries, his wife (the first applicant) and daughter (the second applicant). The deceased left savings in a bank account with Bank BRI, Lamno. The applicants requested that the court stipulate them as beneficiaries of in order that they may administer the bank account of the deceased.

In acceding to the applicants' request, the court, pursuant to art 174(1)(a) of the Compilation of Laws, acknowledged that the evidence provided by the two witnesses corroborated with that provided by the applicants.

A district court in Lahore, Pakistan, ruled against a man who had remarried without obtaining his wife’s permission. Judicial magistrate Ali Jawad Naqwi ruled that the accused, Shehzada Saqib Suhail, had illegally pursued a third marriage without first obtaining the consent of the complainant, Ayesha Khalil, who at the time was his second wife. The magistrate ruled that the accused had “solemnized third marriage during the existence of marriage with the complainant and therefore accused namely Shahzada Saqib Suhail is convicted u/s 6(5) of Muslim Family Ordinance.” In its opinion the court cited section 6 of Muslim Family Ordinance 1961 which stipulates the manner and practice of polygamy in Pakistan. 6(5) of the Ordinance disallows any man from contracting an additional marriage without the permission and consent of the Arbitration Council. Under the ordinance, an application for permission must be submitted to the Chairman of the Arbitration Council along with the necessary fees, reasons for marriage, and importantly, proof of consent of existing wife or wives. The court found that no such permission had been obtained from the second wife the complainant, Ayesha Khalil, nor from the Arbitration Council when the third marriage was established, and sentenced accused with six months of simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,00,000/.

The document discussed in this essay is an English translation of an Israeli Supreme Court (the “Court”) decision from 2013 in which the Supreme Sharia Court of Appeals (“Sharia Court of Appeals”) is a respondent. The decision resolved a petition made against the Sharia Court of Appeals ruling that it is impermissible to appoint a female arbitrator in a divorce proceeding before a Sharia Court. The Court overturned the Sharia Court of Appeal’s decision on the basis of Israeli equal rights legislation (and Ḥanafī-style legal reasoning) and remanded it back to the Sharia Courts for further arbitration with the option of choosing a female arbitrator.

ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ed. Wathāʼiq al-maḥākim al-sharʿiyya al-Miṣriyya ʿan al-jālīya al-Maghāribīya ibbān al-ʿaṣr al-ʿUthmānī, vol 1 of 4 (Zaghwan: Markaz al-Dirāsāt wa-al-Buḥūth al-ʻUthmānīyya wal-Mūrīskīyya wal-Tawthīq wal-Maʿlūmāt, 1992-2004), pp. 89-90.

Volume 2

Volume 1

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.