SHARIAsource

Constitution for Monaco in English, published with the permission of Constitute.

Constitution for Moldova in English, published with the permission of Constitute.

A UK family court considered whether and how UK law recognizes a marriage conducted according to Islamic law that had not been accompanied by a civil law marriage. The husband contended that the couple was never married, and the wife—petitioning for divorce—insisted that they were. The two had signed an Islamic marriage contract (nikāḥ) accompanied by a ceremony abroad, lived together and had children together, and held themselves out as married for years both abroad and in the UK. The court concluded that, on those facts and considering the UK laws on marriage—as interpreted, for the first time, through the Human Rights Act 1998 and the best interests of the child—that the marriage was “void” or “voidable.” This determination meant that the couple was not validly married under UK law but that their union was also not considered a non-marriage. Instead, as a void marriage, their union was something akin to what Islamic law would label a “defective marriage.” The court had essentially concluded that, although a marriage was not properly concluded or registered according to the law, the steps taken toward one would in some measure be recognized by the law and entitle the wife to certain legal protections upon dissolution of the union. In this case, this meant that the wife was entitled to a decree of nullity from the court, and that the wife could take advantage of certain UK civil law remedies for maintenance and child custody upon dissolution.

The wife argued that the couple had a marriage ceremony in Damascus, and, should that Islamic ceremony not be legally recognized, that a valid marriage should be presumed because of the couple’s long cohabitation and public reputation as husband and wife. The husband argued that the couple was not present in Damascus at the time of the alleged marriage, and that they instead had an Islamic marriage ceremony at a flat in London. Accordingly, while the ceremony was religiously recognized as a marriage, it was not valid under English law. In its judgment, the Court ruled that where, as here, the only known or proven ceremony was one which might not have constituted a marriage under English law, then a marriage could not be presumed.

Fatwa concerning the legality, from an Islamic law point, of a certain inheritance distribution, with heirs and beneficiaries and their shares named.  The answer provided by the Mufti of Gumulcine, dated 11 April 1946, is that the specified distribution is lawful under Islamic law.

This is a notice of donation to the Islamic Waqf in the area: 3700 liras, 14 Ottoman golden coins for the Waqf to purchase land from Ali and Aisha.  The donation also covers all expenses incurred in relation to making the contract of sale with Ali and Aisha.

Translated, this short fatwā reads as follows: 

Number: 42

Can either Muslim Refi’i or his wife give away their child to a Christian for adoption, regardless of whether the marriage is dissolved or not?

Answer: No, it is not allowed.

17 September 1987

Deputy Mufti of Komotini

 (Seal and signature)

A letter dated 23 December 1961, granting someone from the community, after his abilities to read the Qur'ān were tested at an examination, the responsibility of the mu'adhdhin (the one who recites the call to prayer). 

A letter, dated 31 December 1951, bestowing on someone, upon examination, the duty of khatīb, ie, one who reads the narration during Friday sermons and Eid prayers.

Translated, this fatwā reads as follows:

Number: 35

According to Islamic law, which of the spouses, who are separated because of incompatibility and by divorce, has the right to protect, educate and restrain their child?

Answer: According to Islam, the right to protect, educate and restrain these children belongs to the mother until the boy reaches the age of 7, and the girl 9.

See also in Kitab-ı Fıkhiyye.

23 November 1992 

Mufti of Komotini

(Seal and signature)

Translated, this fatwā reads:

Number: 11

Muhammed’s wife Hediye is deceased and would it be vaild to give 2 shares of the estate of the deceased to her son Sadık and one share to her daughter Ferişte in accordance with the science of farā'id?

Answer: It would be valid.

Would it be valid under the law to give one share of the land of the deceased Hediye to her daughter Ferişte and one share to her son Sadık?

Answer: It would be valid.

4 February 1980

(Seal and signature)

This fatwā concerns whether a Muslim can transfer movable and immovable property to one or some of his heirs through a will. The answer provided by the muftī is that the permission and acquiescence of all other heirs is required.

In November 2009, Switzerland passed a popular referendum prohibiting the construction of minarets. In response, Mr. Ouardiri, a Muslim living in Switzerland, challenged the legality of the ban in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Mr. Ouardiri alleged that the ban violated his rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees religious freedom, as well as Article 14, providing that no one can be discriminated on the grounds of religion. The Court declined to rule on the merits of the case, holding that Mr. Ouardiri neither qualified as a direct, indirect nor potential victim of the minaret ban.

After fleeing worn-torn Syria, a married Syrian Sunni couple, a fourteen-year old woman, A, and twenty-one-year old man, H, arrived in Germany. Because A was a minor, Child Protective Services assumed legal guardianship over A, which H subsequently contested. As a result, A and H were allowed to spend weekends together. Child protective services, however, sought to assume full custody over A, thereby prohibiting any further interaction between A and H. The Higher State Court of Bamberg determined that according to Germany’s civil code (BGB) § 1633, stating that a married minor may decide herself where she would like to live and with whom she wants to interact, Child Protective Services may remain the legal guardian of A but cannot control where she lives.

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.

English translation of the 1876 Ottoman Constitution.

English translation of the 1909 Constitution of the Ottoman Empire (1876 Ottoman Constitution, as amended to 1909).

English translation of 1923 amendments to the 1921 Constitution of the Republic of Turkey.

English translation of the 1921 Constitution of the Republic of Turkey.

English translation of the 1924 Constitutional Law of the Turkish Republic.