SHARIAsource

This fatwa states that the majority of Indonesian Muslims adhere to Sunni Islam, which rejects Shi'a Islam in general, and the teachings on temporary marriage (nikah mut'ah) more specifically. The fatwa forbids temporary marriage and states that such behaviour must be prosecuted before a court, pursuant to current regulations.

This fatwa states that marriage, according to Islam, is something noble and sacred, intended as a sign of devotion to Allah. A lawful marriage according to Islamic teachings requires there be a bride and bridegroom, two witnesses, a guardian, consent, and a dowry. The fatwa appeals to all Indonesian Muslims, but especially to the younger generation, in order that they marry pursuant to the conditions contained therein.

This fatwa prohibits a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man. It also states that a Muslim man is forbidden from marrying a non-Muslim woman. While the fatwa acknowledges that there is a difference of opinion as to whether or not a Muslim man may marry a woman of the Book (Ahlu Kitab), it determines that such an arrangement is forbidden (haram).

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic tradition on 18 October 2010 before two witnesses at the second applicant's home in Simpang Mamplam, Bireuen. The second applicant's older brother served as the marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) was seven mayam of gold. Moreover, there were no reasons according to Islam to prohibit the applicants from marrying. The applicants, who already had a child, requested that the court ratify their marriage.

The court acceded to their request on the grounds that the applicants' marriage met the requirements stipulated in arts 2(1) and 64 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also directed the applicants to register their marriage with the Marriage Registry.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 27 March 2016. The respondent's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry had been a prayer instrument and a five-gram gold ring. The parties had first met in November 2015, before the applicant proposed to the respondent in December 2015, and then requested the respondent's parents' permission to marry their daughter on 10 January 2016.

After the parties consummated their marriage, the applicant suspected that the respondent was not a virgin, despite the fact that the parties had not yet been physically intimate. On 1 April 2016, the applicant took the respondent to Dr Sazili, an obstetrician/gynaecologist, who ascertained that the respondent was already five months pregnant. The respondent then conceded that she had been physically intimate with another man before the parties were married, and that the unborn child's father was the other man.

The respondent, however, submitted that the Curup Religious Court was precluded from adjudicating the case because she was registered as a Bengkulu resident. After the applicant conceded as much, the Court acceded to the respondent's objection and abstained from passing judgment.

In this case the applicant withdrew his request, noting that the first and second respondents, who were absent from court, had remarried at their place of residence.

In this case the plaintiff withdrew her application, while, for no apparent reason, the defendants failed to attend court.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that if a court is convinced that a marriage is irreparable, it is to deem both parties' hearts as being broken, as it were, and that the ongoing conflict requirement in art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 is, therefore, deemed as having been fulfilled.

The parties were married on 7 March 2002 in Wasponda, Soroako, Central Sulawesi (Sulawesi Tengah), by the local imam. The second applicant's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali), two witnesses were present, and the dowry (mahar) was a one-gram gold ring. The first applicant was a widower and the second applicant a virgin, and there were no other bars to their marriage, such as being blood relatives or having shared the same wet nurse. After the parties were married, they had lived together and had one child, born on 4 February 2003. Their marriage, however, had not been registered with the local Office of Religious Affairs. In order to obtain a marriage book (buku nikah), the parties requested that their marriage be registered.

The court, pursuant to art 12(4) of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2015, ruled that the case could be adjudicated by a sole judge. Furthermore, the judge, pursuant to art 7(2) and (3)(d) and (e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was of the opinion that the applicants' request could be considered by the court. The judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, stated that a marriage is lawful if conducted according to the respective religion and beliefs of the parties, which in this case was Islam. Applying art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge stated that the pillars of marriage require that there be:

1. a prospective husband;
2. a prospective wife;
3. a marriage guardian;
4. two witnesses; and
5. an oral declaration.

Finding that these criteria had been met, and that there were no other bars to their marriage, the judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, declared the marriage lawful (sah).

The parties were married on 25 December 1986 in Patue, Ajangale, Bone, by the local imam. The second applicant's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali), two witnesses were present, and the dowry (mahar) was a one-gram gold ring. Both applicants were virginal, and there were no other bars to their marriage, such as being blood relatives or having shared the same wet nurse. After the parties were married, they had lived together and had four children aged 29, 25, 24 and 21. Their marriage, however, had not been registered with the local Office of Religious Affairs. In order to obtain a marriage book (buku nikah), the parties requested that their marriage be registered.

The court, pursuant to art 12(4) of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2015, ruled that the case could be adjudicated by a sole judge. Furthermore, the judge, pursuant to art 7(2) and (3)(d) and (e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was of the opinion that the applicants' request could be considered by the court. The judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, stated that a marriage is lawful if conducted according the respective religion and beliefs of the parties, which in this case was Islam. Applying art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge set out the pillars of marriage, which require that there be:

1. a prospective husband;
2. a prospective wife;
3. a marriage guardian;
4. two witnesses; and
5. an oral declaration.

Finding that these criteria had been met, and that there were no other bars to their marriage, the judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, declared the marriage lawful (sah).

The applicants submitted that they had been married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 15 January 2000 and had four children. There were no bars to their marriage according to Islam but their marriage had never been registered by a state marriage registrar in accordance with current legislation. Accordingly, they requested that the court ratify their marriage.

In acceding to the applicants' request, the court noted that, pursuant to figure 22 of art 49(2) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, and art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, no bar to the applicants' marriage existed for the purposes of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the information provided by the applicants' two witnesses corroborated with the evidence submitted by the applicants.

The applicants submitted that they had been married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 14 December 1993 and had six children. There were no bars to their marriage according to Islam but their marriage had never been registered by a state marriage registrar in accordance with current legislation. Accordingly, they requested that the court ratify their marriage. Their application was dismissed, however, when both applicants failed to attend court.

The applicants submitted that they had been married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 8 March 2008 and had three children. There were no bars to their marriage according to Islam but their marriage had never been registered by a state marriage registrar in accordance with current legislation. Accordingly, they requested that the court ratify their marriage.

In acceding to the applicants' request, the court noted that, pursuant to figure 22 of art 49(2) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, and art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, no bar to the applicants' marriage existed for the purposes of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the information provided by the applicants' two witnesses corroborated with the evidence submitted by the applicants.

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 parties were married on 8 August 1998 in accordance with Islamic shari'a. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nasab), the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 10,000, and two witnesses were present at the time of the parties' nuptials. At the time of the wedding, the first applicant was a bachelor (duda) and the second applicant a virgin (perawan). The parties also had two children. They did not, however, have a marriage book (buku nikah) because, despite having already paid the necessary administrative costs, their marriage had never been registered with the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court grant them a determination ratifying their marriage.

In acceding to the parties' request, the court, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 10 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and arts 7(2) and 7(3)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the parties' marriage had been conducted in accordance with Islamic norms.