SHARIAsource

The applicant sought dispensation to enable his 15 year old son (Nasri bin Sampara) to marry his 21 year old girlfriend (Sasmita binti Idris). The applicant's son was 15 years and four months, had completed primary school, and was unemployed. The applicant claimed that all relevant requirements to conduct an Islamic marriage had been met, other than that his son was not yet 19 years of age (the required age at law). The applicant emphasised the urgency of the matter given that his son and his girlfriend had already displayed signs that they intended to become physically intimate, something prohibited under Islam if out of wedlock. While the Office of Religious Affairs had dismissed his application to register their proposed marriage, the applicant submitted that there were no legitimate reasons that they should not be married.

The court acceded to the application, stating that the two had an inseparable bond, and that they would otherwise be unable to abstain from contravening morality and Islamic norms if they remained unmarried. Moreover, they were not being coerced into marriage, they were not siblings, nor had they ever shared a wet-nurse, and their engagement had been assented to by both their parents. The court saw no other reason to prevent the marriage, as envisaged in art of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 39 and 40 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and therefore, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, granted dispensation to marry.

The applicant sought dispensation to enable her 15 year old daughter (DOB: 9 July 1999) to marry her boyfriend. The applicant claimed that all relevant requirements to conduct an Islamic marriage had been met, other than that her daughter was four months shy of being 16 years of age (the required age at law). The applicant emphasised the urgency of the matter given that her daughter and her boyfriend had already displayed signs that they intended to become physically intimate, something prohibited under Islam if out of wedlock. While the Office of Religious Affairs had dismissed her application to register their proposed marriage, the applicant submitted that there were no legitimate reasons that they should not be married.

The court acceded to the application, stating that the two had already agreed they wished to marry one another, that they loved each other, that their engagement had been assented to by both their parents, that the Office of Religious Affairs had dismissed their application to register their marriage, and that they would conduct themselves contrary to the law if they were permitted to marry. Accordingly, the court granted dispensation to marry, pursuant to art 7(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 15(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The court granted dispensation for the child applicant to marry, while ordering marriage registration officials to initiate, register and supervise the marriage.

In 1972, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a bicycle purchased with cash. The applicants were first cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. They subsequently had three children. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1972, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that as the marriage had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it qualified as the type of marriage that could be ratified.

In 1959, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a 10 acre property. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. They subsequently had three children. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1959, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that as the marriage had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it qualified as the type of marriage that could be ratified.

On 25 July 1959, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a palm tree purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1959, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that their be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful.

In 1960, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's grandfather served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a six-acre ricefield purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, who had had five children, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1960, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that there be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful.

The applicant had married her husband on 26 July 1963, in accordance with Islam, before having eight children. While they were second cousins, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 3 June 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, found that the marriage could be ratified.

In 1955, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a water buffalo purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, who had had three children, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1960, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that there be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful.

The applicant and his wife were married on 18 November 1995, in accordance with Islamic tradition before a local Office of Religious Affairs Marriage Registrar. They would have three children. When the applicant applied for a birth certificate for one of his children, however, he discovered that his name had been incorrectly recorded on his marriage certificate, which precluded his child's birth certificate from being issued. Accordingly, he sought a stipulation from the court to rectify this problem.

The court acceded to the applicant's request to correct his name on his marriage certificate.

The applicant and his wife were married on 4 November 1991, in accordance with Islamic tradition before a local Office of Religious Affairs Marriage Registrar. They would have three children. When the applicant applied for a birth certificate for one of his children, however, he discovered that his name had been incorrectly recorded on his marriage certificate, which precluded his child's birth certificate from being issued. Accordingly, he sought a stipulation from the court to rectify this problem.

The court granted the applicant's request to correct her name on her marriage certificate.

This fatwa defines underhanded marriage (nikah di bawan tangan) as 'a marriage that meets all the pillars and requirements stipulated at fiqh (Islamic law), but without being officially registered with the authorised agency as regulated in legislation.' The fatwa states that underhanded marriage is lawful because it meets the requirements and pillars of marriage, but haram (forbidden) insofar as it creates a problem or loss. Therefore, marriage must be officially registered to prevent such a problem or loss.

The applicant submitted that she intended to marry her fiance in the regency of Pidie. She requested that the court grant her father, aged 48, dispensation to marry the two. The court, pursuant to art 23(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and art 2(1) and (3) of Minister of Religion Regulation No. 2 of 1987, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that she had convinced the court of her love for her fiance, which had been corroborated by evidence provided by two witnesses.

The plaintiff submitted that, in January 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff for one year and three months, without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff acknowledged that the parties had quarrelled regularly because the defendant did not want to work at the plaintiff's family's mechanic's garage.

The court acknowledged the defendant had failed to meet points 2 (failure to provide the plaintiff with financial support for a duration of three months) and 4 (no longer care for the plaintiff for a duration of six months) of the couple's marriage vows (shigat taklik thalak). Pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce granted in exchange for monetary compensation (thalak satu khul'i) for a IDR 10,000 dispensation fee (iwadh).

The applicant was the father of a child (18 years and eight months; DOB: 18 May 1996) who wanted to marry his fiancee. The applicant's child and the child's fiancee had already received the blessing of both his and her families to marry. The applicant had made all the necessary administrative arrangements with the relevant village office (Kantor Desa) and Office of Religious Affairs, but his application had been dismissed on the grounds that his child was under the legislated age of 19. Accordingly, the applicant sought dispensation from the court so that his child's marriage could be expedited.

The court granted the necessary dispensation, pursuant to art 7(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 15(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, convinced that the relationship was legitimate and that if they were not permitted to marry, they would most likely conduct themselves in an illegal manner (become physically intimate).

The applicant sought dispensation to have his daughter (15 years, 4 months) marry her fiance. The applicant submitted that their relationship had been close-knit for the past eight months and that he was concerned they may contravene Islamic law provisions if not married immediately. The applicant also submitted that his daughter was virginal, pubescent (akil baliq) and ready to become a wife.

The court noted that it had unsuccessfully advised the applicant to wait until his daughter was of age. Moreover, that as the applicant's daughter was under the age of 16 years, his request accorded with art 7 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The court acknowledged that despite the applicant's daughter's age, physically and mentally she appeared suitable for marriage, and her relationship with her fiance appeared close-knit and gave cause for concern that they might become physically intimate soon. Therefore, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the court granted the applicant dispensation for his daughter to marry. This also accorded with the Qur'an, Surat An-Nur, verse 32.

The applicant requested that the court grant his son (aged 17) dispensation to marry his girlfriend (aged 18), with whom he had been been romantically involved for approximately eight months, and with whom he had been physically intimate on at least three occasions resulting in her falling pregnant. The applicant submitted that his application to the Office of Religious Affairs for his son to marry had been dismissed because his son was under the age of 19 and, therefore, did not meet the minimum age requirements contained in art 7(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 15(1) and (2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Minister of Religion Regulation No. 11 of 2007 on Marriage Registration.

The court, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, acceded to the application. It did so on the grounds that the applicant's son and his girlfriend had already been romantically involved for a significant period of time and loved each other, evidenced by the fact that they had already agreed to marry in the future. Moreover, granting them dispensation to marry would preclude them from continuing to conduct themselves in a detrimental (mafsadat) way.

The applicant submitted that, on 2 July 1984, he had married Khairum Sofia binti Nurdin in accordance with Islam at the local office of religious affairs in Seruway, Aceh Tamiang. They had three children, all of whom were married, the youngest of whom was the respondent. Khairum Sofia binti Nurdin had died on 8 January 2014 due to illness. An official record of their marriage had been lost during a flood in 2006 and the applicant had submitted an application that his nuptials be ratified in order that he might access his retirement pension.

The respondent's submission corroborated with all of the applicant's submissions except the submission that he was the applicant's biological child from his marriage to Khairum Sofia binti Nurdin. In actual fact, the respondent submitted, he was the biological child of the applicant's first marriage to a woman named Aminah. Acknowledging this fact, the applicant withdrew his application as it stood. The court acceded to the applicant's withdrawal.

The applicant submitted that he had married a woman by the name of L binti M on 11 June 2013, with whom he had two children. One of his children was already married, while the other was aged 15 years and 4 months (born on 2 February 1998). The applicant's second child had requested the applicant's permission to marry her fiance, and the applicant had granted his permission because he considered his child already an adult and in love with her fiance, who was 25 years and 10 months of age (born on 26 August 1988). Moreover, the applicant's child and her fiance had known each other for three months, and the applicant was concerned his daughter and her fiance would soon consummate their relationship regardless. The applicant had already requested the permission of the head of his local Office of Religious Affairs, but the application had been dismissed on 11 June 2013.

The applicant, therefore, filed an application with the court for a judicial determination granting his daughter permission to marry as a minor. In acceding to the application, the court, pursuant to art 7(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, acknowledged that the applicant's daughter was not the required 16 years of age a female must be before she can marry. On the facts, however, the court acknowledged that the applicant's daughter and her fiance were already emotionally dependent on one another, were engaged, and that there were no other bars to their marriage. The requirements for marriage dispensation contained in arts 7(2), 8 and 9 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 15(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the elucidation of art 49(2) and (3) of Law No. 7 of 1989 as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006 and Law No. 50 of 2009, had, therefore, been met.

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.

On September 23, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court remanded a divorce case to the trial court in which it had originally been heard, deciding that the lower court had erred in its initial judgment. The case involved two agreements that had been signed in 2008 when the couple was first married; one was an Islamic “Marriage Contract,” and the other was an “Islamic Prenuptial Agreement.” The wife sued for divorce, claiming that she had not known at the time exactly what she was signing and had assumed that the prenuptial agreement was just a copy of the marriage contract. The prenuptial agreement stated that any conflicts arising from the marriage were to be “resolved according to the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Islamic Law in a Muslim court, or in [its] absence by a Fiqh Panel,” whose decision was to be “binding and final.” The Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court had erred in determining the enforceability and validity of the prenuptial agreement, and that the conflicts arising from the marriage should be determined by a court according to U.S. law, rather  than by a so-called fiqh panel of Islamic law experts. The Court’s per curiam opinion came in response to an appeal from the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals, whose ruling can be viewed here.