SHARIAsource

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 prohibition on prostitution in Lampung Utara (North Lampung), Lampung. Its preambular statement declares that prostitution constitutes behaviour that contravenes religious norms, morality, customs and traditions, and the values of the Pancasila ('five principles' - Indonesian state ideology), which act as the foundation for national development. Possible penalties for contravention of this regulation include:

1. a maximum prison sentence of six months;
2. a maximum fine of IDR 5 million;
3. enforced closure of business premises; and
4. distruction of certain items (art 9(1)).

In its preambular section, this regional regulation states that prostitution is contrary to religious norms, moral norms, and noble norms, adhered to by society. Accordingly, it prohibits prostitution activities in Lampung Timur (East Lampung), Lampung (arts 2-4). It also places obligations on the broader community to report, to the regent or an authorised official, any suspicion or knowledge of prostitution activities being conducted in Lampung Timur (art 5). Contravention of arts 3-5 can result in a maximum prison sentence of three months or a maximum fine of IDR 50 million (art 16).

This regional regulation places a prohibition on the production, distribution, sale, stockpiling, storage, making available, serving, using, sending, transporting, and inclusion of alcoholic beverages in Tegal, Central Java (Jawa Tengah) (art 3(1)). The regulation also prohibits being intoxicated in a public place (art 3(2)). The regulation states, in its preambular section, that alcohol is contrary to religious norms and national morals, which can disturb order and peace. Contravention of art 3 can result in a maximum prison sentence of six months or a monetary penalty of IDR 50 million (art 6(1)).

This regional regulation prohibits places of entertainment, restaurants, kiosks (warung, rombong), and the like, from opening during the month of Ramadan. It similarly prohibits eating, drinking and/or smoking in restaurants, kiosks, and the like, from sunrise to sundown. Exceptions to the rule are:

1. Restaurants opening from 5 pm preparing to serve patrons breaking the fast;
2. Markets opening from 3 pm preparing to serve patrons breaking the fast;
3. Hotels and restaurants that serve international guests, after obtaining special dispensation from the Mayor, based on the consideration of the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD) (this does not apply to places of entertainment that serve international guests).

The Regulation permits its implementation to be monitored by police and law enforcement agencies. Contravention of these provisions can warrant a prison sentence of, at most, 6 months and/or a fine of as much as 5 million rupiah. Contravention of the exceptions can result in a prison sentence of, at most, 10 days and/or a fine of as much as 100,000 rupiah. These sanctions were subsequently amended in Banjarmasin Municipal Regulation No. 4 of 2005.

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 vagrancy and begging of all types, as well as prostitution. In its preamble it states that it aims to prevent persons from preying on the sympathy and mercy of others, labelling such conduct akin to a mental illness or idle behaviour not in accordance with religious teachings. It also states that promiscuity contradicts social and religious norms, and easily endangers the younger generations, as well as facilitating the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus, and other viruses. 

Contravention of the regulation can result in a prison sentence of, at most, six months and/or a fine of as much as IDR 5 million. Coordination and monitoring of the implementation of this regulation rests with the mayor, who may assemble an integrated monitoring team for certain related matters.

The preamble of this regional regulation states that the ability to read the Qur'an for every school student constitutes a part of an Islamic education with strategic meaning to improve the intelligence of the life of the nation, especially in terms of instilling faithful and God-mindful values in the younger generations, and in society in general.

The regulation states that proficiency in reading the Qur'an will make students and prospective brides and bridegrooms good, noble, wise, disciplined and God-mindful people, well-versed in worship (ibadah) and with knowledge of Islamic principles. Accordingly, it requires schools to set aside additional time to teach Qur'anic recitation.

If any person contravenes the provisions of this regulation they face a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or a maximum fine of IDR 5 million.

The court sentenced Tajul Muluk, a member of the Shi'a Muslim community in Madura, to two years' prison for conducting himself in a manner that defamed Islam. Tajul was found guilty of teaching his students 'unorthodox' religious teachings, including questioning the authenticity of the Qur'an in its current form. Tajul and multiple witnesses disputed and denied the allegations, but the court found him in contravention of the Defamation of Religion Law, regardless.

The prosecution would appeal the leniency of the sentence before the higher court of East Java, which subsequently increased Tajul's sentence from two years to four. This four year sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court in Decision 1787 of 2012.

This regional regulation prohibits the production, distribution, trade, offering, stockpiling, storage, carrying and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages (art 4(1)). This prohibition applies to all persons in the territory of Pasaman regency, including foreigners (art 4(2)). Production of alcohol can result in a maximum prison sentence of three months or a fine of up to IDR 10 million (art 12), while any form of distribution can result in a maximum sentence of two months and 15 days, or a fine of up to IDR 8.5 million (art 13).

This regulation is an example of a legislative instrument that, arugably, seeks to Islamise public life, but makes no reference to religion (agama) or Islam. Rather, it is couched in terms of social order and the damaging effects alcohol can have on society.

This regional regulation makes provision for the eradication of immoral practices, which, it states, damage the pillars of society and are contrary to religious norms, morality, customs and tradition, and current legal norms in Musi Banyuasin regency (arts 1(7) and 2(1)). The regulation includes the following in the definition of immoral practices (perbuatan maksiat):

1. prostitution;
2. sexual relations out of wedlock (zina);
3. homosexual reations;
4. lebianism;
5. sodomy;
6. rape;
7. sexual abuse;
8. pornoaction;
9. pornography;
10. gambling;
11. alcohol; and
12. illicit substance abuse (art 2(2)).

A person found to be in contravention of the regulation can face a maximum fine of IDR 50 million or a maximum prison sentence of six months (art 9(2)).

This regional regulation makes provision for the eradication of immoral practices, which, it states, damage the pillars of society and are contrary to religious norms, morality, customs and tradition, and current legal norms (art 2(1)). The regulation includes the following in the definition of immoral practices (perbuatan maksiat):

1. prostitution;
2. sexual relations out of wedlock (zina);
3. homosexual relations;
4. lebianism;
5. sodomy;
6. rape;
7. sexual abuse;
8. pornoaction;
9. pornography;
10. gambling;
11. alcohol; and
12. illicit substance abuse (art 2(2)).

A person found to be in contravention of the regulation can face a maximum fine of IDR 5 million or a maximum prison sentence of 180 days (art 10(2)).

This is an example of a regional regulation that, arguably, Islamises public life without making specific reference to Islam or religion (agama). It intends to prohibit various forms of prostitution, acknowledging the effect they have on public order and people's mental state. Eradicating prostitution thereby facilitates an orderly, regulated, moral, ethical, and noble society (art 2). The regulation defines prostitution as knowingly seeking sexual satisfaction outwide of wedlock for a fee (art 8(1)). It also includes in its definition of prostitution:

1. homosexual relations;
2. lesbian relations;
3. sodomy;
4. sexual abuse; and
5. other pornographic behaviour (art 8(2)).

Contravention of this regulation can result in a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or a maximum monetary fine of IDR 5 million (art 9(1)).

Plaintiff Daniel O’Neil Ruffin, the only practicing Muslim in the Downeast Correctional Facility in Machiasport, Maine, brought this suit against the Respondents, facility program manager Carol Geel, facility director Scott Jones, and former commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections Martin Magnusson for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights by denying his request to be allowed to conduct religious services in the common area. The Respondents claimed that they denied the request because it would have been impracticable to assign an officer to supervise a single prisoner, and that they tried to accommodate the Plaintiff’s religious beliefs by allowing him to conduct services in his room. The Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court referred to a Magistrate judge for a recommended decision. The Magistrate judge recommended that the Respondents be entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer would not have known that the challenged conduct violated the Plaintiff’s rights.

The Siyāsat al-Mulūk is a mirror for princes written by an anonymous author sometime in the mid-fourth-tenth century. The author was likely a late Abbasid official in the financial administration who became a high official during the early Buyid era and wrote this treatise for the new rulers. In a chapter on the shurṭa, the text offers the most detailed administration of Islamic criminal justice in the Abbasid and Buyid periods. The author gives recommendations and instructions for the ṣāḥib al-shurṭa (chief criminal magistrate and police chief) based on how he should manage his various subordinates, inspect prisons, and patrol the city along with procedures not mentioned in other texts, such as the use of informants. Scans of the chapter on the shurṭa in this manuscript from Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul have been made available.

The parties were married on 24 October 2007, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately four months, before moving to a rental property in Padang for approximately one year. They then moved to the defendant's parents' home before separating.

By 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was largely due to the defendant's temperamental nature, whereby he would project his anger about something else onto the plaintiff, as well as the defendant having had an extra-marital affair. The plaintiff also submitted that whenever the parties argued, the defendant would resort to physical violence, leaving the plaintiff with physical injuries. The defendant would even threaten the plaintiff with sharp objects. The plaintiff's statement of claim also referenced the defendant's alcohol and drug addiction, for which she had unsuccessfully counselled him.

Problems escalated in January 2012 when the plaintiff was arrested after police found narcotics in the matrimonial home. At that point the defendant had already left the plaintiff, but because the plaintiff had not reported the defendant to the police earlier, she was imprisoned for one year. During this time the defendant very rarely went to visit the plaintiff. Upon her release from prison the plaintiff heard that the defendant had remarried but was also serving five years in prison himself for drug-related offences.

The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties meant that there was no hope for them to create a joyful and enduring domestic life, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1947 on Marriage.

The prosecution submitted that, on 12 December 2015 at around 4.30pm, the accused was found providing gambling facilities to the public. This, the prosecution maintained, contravened art 18 Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014 on Criminal Law. Specifically, the accused had been facilitating bingo-style (toto gelap) bets via a mobile phone for another larger gambling agent, while taking a 20 per cent commission on all transactions.

The court referred to the definition of 'gambling' (maisir), as contained in art 1(22) of Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014, which defines gambling as conduct containing the placing of bets and/or taking a chance between two or more parties, accompanied by an agreement that the party who wins will obtain a certain payment/profit from the losing party either directly or indirectly. The court, citing Surah Al-Baqarah verse 219, and Surah Al-Maidah verses 90 and 91, also noted that gambling is forbidden according to Islamic law.

In finding the accused guilty on the facts, the court reasoned that the aim of the punishment handed down should not simply be to punish, but should also be to provide society with protection from such behaviours. In sentencing the accused to 12 strokes of the cane, the court took into consideration the time the five co-accused had already spent in prison, as required by art 23(2) of Aceh Qanun No. 7 of 2013, which considers 30 days in prison akin to one stroke of the cane. The court also ruled that, pursuant to art 214(1) of Aceh Qanun No. 7 of 2013, as accused was at fault he would bear court costs.

The prosecution submitted that the accused had raped the 13-year old victim, his own biological daughter, contrary to arts 49, and 1(30) and (25) of Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014 on Criminal Law, on a day in October 2015 at around 4.00pm, and then again on 5 November 2015 at around 4.30pm. The prosecution submitted that upon learning that his daughter had been physically intimate with her own step-father, the accused visited her at his sibling's home, where she was living, and raped her on at least two occasions. On the first occasion, the accused allegedly told the victim that he was raping her because she was no longer virginal ('udah hancur'), that she therefore had ruined her future, and that he would take her to Medan where she could become a prostitute ('lonte'). On the second occasion, on 5 November 2015, the accused again allegedly raped the victim while threatening her that he would either kill her or send her to Medan to become a prostitute.

A medical report submited by the prosecution revealed that the victim had been raped on several occasions. The prosecution submitted that, pursuant to arts 49, and 1(30) and (25) of Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014 on Criminal Law, the prescribed punishment for incestuous rape is either between 150 and 200 strokes of the cane, a fine of between 1500 and 2000 grams of pure gold, or a prison sentence of between 150 and 200 months. The prosecution requested, therefore, that the accused be imprisoned for 16 years.

The court acknolwedged that the charge was one of rape, rather than zina (sexual relations out of wedlock), meaning that the evidentiary burden contained in Aceh Qanun No. 7 of 2013 on Criminal Procedure applied, rather than that of four witnesses, as in cases of zina. Moreover, as Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014 prescribed a ta'zir punishment for rape, the court was of the opinion that a prison sentence would reduce the chances of the accused reoffending. In sentencing the accused to 15 years' jail, less time already served on remand, the court also acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect children from such abuse, citing Law No. 35 of 2014 on Amendments to Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection.

The prosecution submitted that, on 14 December 2015 at around 10.00pm, the five co-accused were found playing joker card games with each other for money. This, the prosecution maintained, contravened art 18 Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014 on Criminal Law.

The court referred to the definition of 'gambling' (maisir), as contained in art 1(22) of Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014, which defines gambling as conduct containing the placing of bets and/or taking a chance between two or more parties, accompanied by an agreement that the party who wins will obtain a certain payment/profit from the losing party either directly or indirectly. The court, citing Surah Al-Baqarah verse 219, and Surah Al-Maidah verses 90 and 91, also noted that gambling is forbidden according to Islamic law.

The court discussed the application of Islamic law with regards to the first of the five co-accused, who was Christian, not Muslim. The court acknowledged that as the first co-accused had already expressed in her written statement to the court that she had voluntarily submitted to Islamic law, the requirements contained in art 94 of Aceh Qanun No. 7 of 2013 on Criminal Procedure, and art 5(b) of Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014 on Criminal Law, that non-Muslims must first voluntarily submit to Islamic law, had been met.

The court also noted that the qanun offered alternative punishments, those being imprisonment, a fine, or caning, and that the prosecution sought caning. The court reasoned that the five co-accused's punishment should be punitive in nature, rather than retributive, and that it should not affect their dignity (martabat). Rather, that it should be pedagogical in nature, encourage the co-accused not to re-offend, and be a lesson for the broader community (tadabbur).

In sentencing each of the five co-accused to nine strokes of the cane, the court took into consideration the time the five co-accused had already spent in prison, as required by art 23(2) of Aceh Qanun No. 7 of 2013, which considers 30 days in prison akin to one stroke of the cane. The court also ruled that, pursuant to art 214(1) of Aceh Qanun No. 7 of 2013, as the five co-accused were at fault they would bear court costs.

The two co-accused sought to appeal the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, which had found them guilty of being together in close proximity out of wedlock (khalwat). In their submissions they stated that they had already informed the village head (kepala dusun) that they would be living together as husband and wife, and that they would be joined by the three-year old son of the second co-accused. When both co-accused told the village head that they were unable to provide photocopies of their family card, both their identity cards, their wedding certificate (buku nikah), and relocation notice, because they were still being processed, however, the village head requested that the village official attend the home of the co-accused. It then came to light that the second co-accused was actually in the process of divorcing her ex-husband, which made the fact that the two co-accused were in close proximity with one another illegal, as contained in art 23(1) of Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014 on Criminal Law.

The court overturned the decision of the lower court on several grounds:

1. The lower court had not granted what was sought by the prosecution;
2. According to art 23(1) of Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014 on Criminal Law, the appropriate punishment for repudiation of the prohibition contained therein is either ten strokes of the cane, a fine of 100 grams of pure gold, or a maximum ten month prison sentence;
3. The punishment contained in art 23(1) provides alternative punishments, one of which may be requested by the prosecution, to be determined by the court;
4. The lower court was not authorised to sentence the co-accused to be caned when the prosecution had requested that they be imprisoned; and
5. The lower court was only authorised to either accede to, or deny, the prosecution's demands.

Accordingly, the court sentenced both co-accused to five months and 20 days in prison, taking into account time already served on remand.