SHARIAsource

An Arab Muslim professor sued his former employer, Saint Francis College, under Title VII, §1981, §1983, §1985(3), §1986, and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act, alleging that the College denied him tenure because he was an Arab Muslim. At the trial level, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the College’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded that decision, holding that discrimination against Arabs constitutes racial discrimination, and that the statute of limitations restrictions imposed by the lower court were incorrectly applied, as the acts in question occurred before the statute of limitations was passed into law.

French text of the 1985 Constitutional Charter of Mauritania.

English translation of the 1985 Constitution of Côte d'Ivoire (1960 Constitution of the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, as amended to Law No. 85-1072 of 12 October 1985).

English translation of the 1985 Transitional Constitution of the Sudan.

Arabic text of the 1985 Transitional Constitution of the Sudan.

English text of the first 169 pages of the 1985 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to 1985). The remaining pages can be found in a second document denoted "1985 Constitution of Pakistan (p. 170 on)".

English text of the remaining pages (from p. 170 on) of the 1985 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to 1985).

English translation of The Sudan Transitional Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1987, amending the 1985 Transitional Constitution of the Sudan.

This statute regulates stamp duty (bea meterai), replacing the old Dutch Stamp Duty Ordinance (Zegelveordening 1921). It specifies the documents that require a stamp duty seal, and those that do not.

This statute regulates the Indonesian Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung), its standing, personnel and structure, and matters of which it has jurisdiction. With regards to religious court decisions, arts 44 and 77 respectively permit the Supreme Court to hear cassation applications and reconsiderations (peninjauan kembali).

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that a woman aged 24 years and widowed does not require the permission of her parents or guardian before she remarries.

English text of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Act of 1985, amending the 1978 Constitution of Sierra Leone.

Text of the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Act of 1985, amending the 1978 Constitution of Sierra Leone.

Text of the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 3) Act of 1985, amending the 1978 Constitution of Sierra Leone.

This statute amends the wording of certain articles of Law No. 14 of 1985.

This statute provides the criteria a successful Supreme Court Justice appointee needs to meet. It provides further amendments to Law No. 14 of 1985, and its initial amending Law, Law No. 5 of 2004.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 8 May 1985, and ordered them, pursuant to art 2(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 5 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs.

The cassation applicant sought to challenge Jambi High Religious Court Decision No. 5 of 2015. The court dismissed the appeal, however, on the grounds that, pursuant to arts 46(1) and 45A(3) of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, the cassation applicant had failed to submit his application within the prescribed period of time.

The applicant submitted that he had married his wife on 2 February 1985 in accordance with Islamic law. He and his wife had had four children. The applicant submitted that he planned to have his youngest daughter (15 years old) marry her 22 year old prospective husband (calon suaminya). The applicant submitted that his application was urgent because his daughter and her prospective husband were already close and he was concerned that they may conduct themselves in a manner contrary to Islamic law if they were not married immediately.

The court, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage and art 49(1) of Law No. 59 of 2009, acceded to the applicant's request for marriage dispensation.

The parties were married on 12 September 1984 and had two children (born 15 June 1985 and 9 April 1992). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, however, by June 2006 it had become quarrelsome. The cassation respondent had submitted that the cassation applicant:

1. in July 2006, had begun hitting her and demanding a divorce;
2. married another woman without the cassation respondent's permission; and
3. would often leave the home without any reason or warning.

Problems escalated and, on 26 October 2009, the cassation applicant left the cassation respondent. The cassation respondent, in the first instance, requested that the local religious court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra), as well as IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance.

The defendant submitted a counterclaim against the plaintiff for:

1. divorce compensation (iwad) (IDR 2 billion); and
2. permission to divorce the plaintiff before the Court (ikrar talak).

In the first instance, the Sidoarjo Religious Court (2881/Pdt.G/2012/PA.Sda) found in favour of the cassation respondent, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra), and ordering the cassation applicant to pay to the cassation respondent IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance, plus IDR 650,000 in court costs. The court dismissed the cassation applicant's counterclaim.

The cassation applicant then lodged an appeal with the Surabaya High Religious Court. The Surabaya High Religious Court upheld the judgment of the lower court, and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs.

On 11 December 2013, the cassation applicant submitted a request for cassation to the Indonesian Supreme Court based on the following grounds:

1. the two lower courts had not considered his counterclaim for divorce compensation (khuluk) in the amount of IDR 2 billion; and
2. the cassation applicant’s counterclaim was for land that he had previously purchased for the cassation respondent.

Pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, the court upheld the decision of the Surabaya High Religious Court, dismissing the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and ordering him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).