SHARIAsource

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 English-language summary issued by the Acehnese government explains the all-encompassing role of sharīʿa in Aceh. It clarifies that sharīʿa does not apply to non-Muslims, and that its implementation in no way repudiates human rights standards, including freedom of religion.

The defendants, A. Gani bin Syik, Hanafiah bin Usman, Syarbaini bin Kaoy, and Saifa bin A. Gani, were found guilty of gambling (maisir), pursuant to art 18 of Aceh Qanun No. 6 of 2014 on Criminal Law (Hukum Jinayat). Seeking a mitigated sentence, the defendants (who appeared in court without legal representation) submitted that they regretted their conduct, promised not to re-offend, and that they had families to support.

In its judgment, the court cited the following Qur'anic passages:

1. Al-Baqarah: 219, which states that there is great sin in intoxicants and gambling, as well as some benefit. The sin (dosa) associated with both, however, outweights the benefit.
2. Al-Maidah: 90-91, which states that intoxicants and gambling are repugnant acts and Satan's doing, and that Satan only seeks to incite enmity and hatred among those who indulge in both.

The court ordered that:

1. the defendants receive four strokes of the cane each (the initial six-stroke sentence was mitigated for time already served on remand);
2. the cash float the defendants had been gambling with be seized and deposited with the North Aceh Baitul Mal (Islamic treasury);
3. the two domino sets with which the defendants had been gambling be seized and destroyed; and
4. the defendants pay their own court costs (IDR 2,000 each).

This regional regulation makes provision for Qur'anic education in Natuna, Riau Islands, its administration, staffing, funding, and monitoring. The regulation states that the purpose of Qur'anic education is to develop the potential of its students to become pious, devout human beings, who are noble, and understand and practise the contents of the Qur'an (art 3).

This regional regulation makes provision for public order in Sukoharjo, Central Java (Jawa Tengah). Article 21(2) permits the regional government to close (permanently or temporarily) places of entertainment or activities that disturb the implementation of religious worship (peribadatan).

This regional regulation, which makes provision for public order in Pekalongan, Centra Java (Jawa Tengah), states that advertisements may not be offensive towards any ethnicity, race, and religion, may not contain pornography, may not be provocative, and may not contravene morality and ethics (art 40(1)). It also states that every religion is prohibited from:

1. offending other religions;
2. preventing religious activities from taking place;
3. cause damage to religious facilities and infrastructure;
4. conducting religious activities prohibited by the government;
5. conducting religious activities that result in disturbing public order and the peace;
6. teaching deviant sects to members of society;
7. using places of residence as places of worship; and
8. establishing places of worship without the regent's permission (art 43(1)).

This regional regulation makes provision for public order in Tegal, Central Java (Jawa Tengah). It prohibits the production, distribution, sale, making available, and serving of alcohol (art 49(1)). It makes an exception for the use of alcohol in religious ceremonies and for health purposes (art 49(2)). It also states that all persons and entities, whether indoors or outdoors, are prohibited from exceeding curfews in the evening, during Ramadhan, and other religious days (art 64). Similarly, places of entertainment, pubs, discotheques, cafes, karaoke establishments, massage parlours, spa houses, saunas, and the like are prohibited from operating during the month of Ramadhan (art 65(1)), while restaurants may not disturb the solemnity of Ramadhan (art 65(2)).

This regional regulation makes provision for public order and social peace in Ponorogo, East Java (Jawa Timur). Article 12(2) provides all persons the protection to implement their own religious worship rituals and religious activities, by authorising the regency government to close (temporarily or permanently) places of entertainment or activities that disturb the implementation thereof.

In preambular statement (c), this regional regulation states that begging constitutes a mental illness or laziness not in accordance with religious teachings, while sexual promiscuity constitutes conduct that is contrary to social and religious norms, that endangers young lives, and increases the spread of HIV/AIDS. The regulation states that the handling of vagrancy and begging, as well as sexual promiscuity, is based on the values of the Pancasila ('five principles' - Indonesian state ideology), and principles of human rights (art 2). The regulation prohibits vagrancy and begging (art 4(1), and prohibits such behaviour en masse or alone, with the intent to engender pity in others (art 4(2)). Moreover, it prohibits the equipping of other persons, including babies and infants, to beg (art 4(3)). It also prohibits prostitution and sexual promiscuity (arts 7 and 8).

Violation of art 4(1) and (2) carries a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment or IDR 1 million (art 20(1)), while contravention of art 4(3) and (4) carries a maximum penalty of 15 days' imprisonment and/or a fine of between IDR 5-50 million (art 20(2)), and contravention of arts 7 and 8 carries maximum penalties of three months' imprisonment and/or IDR 50 million (art 20(5)-(7)).

This stipulation seeks to implement the 'Indonesian Political Manifesto as Guidelines rather than State Policy' (Manifesto Politik Republik Indonesia sebagai Garis-garis Besar daripada Haluan Negara) in the fields of mentality/religion/spirituality and culture. Among other things, it stipulates that religious education become part of the curriculum taught in state schools and state universities, with the understanding that students are entitled not to take part in such studies, and to express their objections. It also promotes the construction of houses of worship and religious organisations.

In preambular statement (b), this regional regulation states that Qur'anic literacy education constitutes a Muslim societal life activity in North Penajam Paser regency (Penajam Paser Utara), making it necessary to standardise the licensing of Qur'anic literacy teachers. The aim of this regulation is to improve Qur'anic comprehension and competency in all Muslims, starting from the age of pre-school (arts 3 and 4). Accordingly, it makes it compulsory for all primary, middle, and high school students to possess Qur'anic literacy skills (art 8(1)). Every middle school and high school is obliged to make intra-curricular efforts to improve the Qur'anic literacy of those of its students who are not yet literate in the Qur'an (art 8(2)).

This regional regulation makes provision for Qur'anic education in South Sulawesi (Sulawesi Selatan), in terms of its administration (art 5), staffing (art 8), infrastructure and facilities (art 10), evaluation and certification (arts 11 and 12), funding (art 13), and monitoring (art 14). It states that the aim of Qur'anic education is to develop students into God-mindful, pious Muslims, who understand, comprehend, and put the contents of the Qur'an into practice (art 3).

This gubernatorial regulation prohibits adherents, members and/or coordinating members of the Ahmadiyya community (Jemaat Ahmadiyah) from conducting activities in any form that relate to the dissemination of their own interpretation of Islam, as well as activities that deviate from the tenets of Islam (art 3(1)). The regulation also prohibits members of society from carrying out anarchic or illegal conduct in connection with the activities of adherents, members and/or coordinating members of the Ahmadiyya community that deviate from the tenets of Islam (art 4(1)).

The plaintiff (KH. Moch. Yusman Roy) was the caretaker of Jamaah Pengajian Lelaku at Pondok Iktikaf, an i'tikaf (seclusion in a mosque) study group venue in Malang, East Java, where Qur'anic study and recitation activities were held, and the production of prayer carpets (sajadah), pillows, and bolsters was conducted. The defendant, the Regent (Bupati) of Malang, had issued a decree declaring the cessation of the activities of Jamaah Pengajian Lelaku at Pondok Iktikaf. The plaintiff submitted that he had received the decree, dated 7 May 2005, through a family member. On 6 May 2005 at 8.00pm, however, the plaintiff submitted that he had been arrested and interrogated by the Malang Regional Police. Therefore, the legal process had been implemented prematurely and without authority. Moreover, that in issuing the decree, the defendant had acted unilaterally, without considering all the relevant concerns. Therefore, pursuant to art 53(1) and (2)(a) and (b) of Law No. 9 of 2004 on Amendments to Law No. 5 of 1989 on the State Administration of the Judiciary, as the plaintiff had suffered loss as the result of a state administrative decree, he was entitled to submit a written application to the authorised court seeking that the decree be declared null and void, and seeking damages as an additional remedy. The plaintiff also requested that the court suspend the implementation of the defendant's decree, pursuant to art 67(2) of Law No. 5 of 1986, and that the investigation of the case be conducted as quickly as possible, pursuant to art 98 of Law No. 5 of 1986.

In its exceptions, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff's submissions were incorrect and inaccurate because the plaintiff had already submitted a request for protection, dated 6 May 2005, to the Malang Regional Police, expressing concern and fear for the consequences of his having taught sholat and do'a (prayers) in both Arabic and Indonesian. The plaintiff's conduct had allegedly generated a negative reaction from the community towards the plaintiff. It was in accordance with the plaintiff's request that the Malang Police conducted its investigation and arrest on 7 May 2005. The legal consequences that followed had, therefore, resulted from the plaintiff's request, rather than the issuance of the regental decree. The regental decree had been issued in consideration of Presidential Determination No. 1 of 1965 on the Prevention of Abuse and/or Defamation of Religion, meaning that both an administrative action and criminal conduct had occurred, for the purposes of art 10 of Law No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Administration. Moreover, purusant to art 27(1)(c) of Law No. 32 of 2014, the regental decree had been issued in accordance with the obligations of a regional head to maintain peace and order. More specifically, it was issued in anticipation of anarchic reactions from other parties who did not share the religious opinions of the plaintiff that it was acceptable to conduct sholat in Indonesian, as well as the original Arabic.

The defendant also submitted that the state administrative court was precluded from adjudicating the case pursuant to art 49 of Law No. 5 of 1986, because it had issued the regental decree during a time when the public interest dictated it do so. In addition to adhering to Presidential Determination No. 1 of 1965, the regental decree also accorded with art 156(a) of the Criminal Code because it acknowledged that the plaintiff's conduct was defamatory towards a religion.

The court dismissed the defendant's exceptions in their entirety. It reiterated the constitutioanlly-guaranteed freedom to practise one's religion and beliefs in accordance with their own conscience, as found in art 28E(1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution, as well as Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights. The court noted that these guarantees derive from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, which identifies basic human rights and freedoms which are naturally connected to, and inseparable from, humans from the moment they are born. The court also noted, however, that as the defendant had deemed the activities of Pondok Iktikaf Jamaah Njagi Lelaku to have the potential to disturb the peace and order of the community, it was of the opinion that the cessation of these activities constituted a preventative measure to protect the human rights of others, and that maintaining the peace was in the public interest, per art 73 of Law No. 39 of 1999, which states that rights and freedoms can only be limited by, and pursuant to, statute. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request that the regental decree issued by the defendant be revoked on the grounds that it was not contrary to any statute. Moreover, it dismissed the plaintiff's request that the defendant reinstate the good name of the plaintiff on the same grounds.

This fatwa declares that homosexual intercourse is forbidden (haram) and constitutes a crime (jarimah). It recalls that Allah SWT created human beings and living creatures to procreate and to regulate their sexual inclination based thereon. The fatwa defines 'homosex' (homoseks) as sexual activity between persons of the same sex, 'lesbianism' (lesbi) as sexual activity between two women, and 'gay' as sexual activity between two men. It declares that homosexuality is an abnormality that must be cured and a deviation that must be corrected. The fatwa recommends that the Indonesian People's Representative Assembly (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat) and government together enact legislation to proscribe the existence of a homosexual community and prescribe heavy penalties for homosexual intercourse.

This ministerial regulation is intended to assist in the implementation of Government Regulation No. 55 of 2007 on Religious Education. It regulates certain facets of religious education in Indonesia, including the requirement on all schools to provide religious education for their students, the mandated curriculum, the study process, required levels of competency, teaching staff, and supervision.

Decided by the Supreme Court of India, Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India decreed that fatwās issued by sharīʿa courts hold no legal leverage. 

Muslim inmate John McGlothlin brought a case under §1983, alleging that the prison chaplain and other prison officials violated his right to free exercise under the First Amendment. The plaintiff claimed that Muslim inmates were treated differently from fellow inmates of other religious beliefs, exemplified by comparing the announcements on the bulletin board for Muslims with one run by the Christian Fellowship. A report by the U.S. Magistrate recommended that this case should be dismissed, and the District Court agreed. Specifically, the Court found that the plaintiff’s claims against the prison’s non-denominational chaplain should be dismissed as the chaplain was not a state actor; it further dismissed the claims against the other officials because the plaintiff’s claims failed to demonstrate a disparity of treatment based on religion.

Faris Matiyn, an inmate at the Attica prison, mounted a § 1983 claim against the commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and prison superintendent Walter Kelly. The plaintiff alleged that the prison violated his First Amendment free exercise right by not allowing Sunnī and Shīʿī Muslims—the two major Muslim denominations—to have separate worship services. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the plaintiff did not speak for the majority of the Sunnī Muslim community and that keeping the two groups together satisfied legitimate penological objectives, such as maintaining a safe prison environment. 

A Somali Muslim bus driver for American University sued his former employer and supervisor under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on religion and national origin as well as retaliation for asking for reasonable religious accommodation. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he was frequently denied the chance to attend Muslim Friday prayer services and that his supervisors made several derogatory comments regarding Muslims. He further argued that he was ultimately terminated because of his religion and in retaliation for filing a complaint regarding a lack of reasonable religious accommodation (in the form of a schedule that accommodated his weekly prayer services). The Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that there was enough evidence for a jury to conclude that the University’s reason for firing the plaintiff was a pretext for actual discrimination. However, the Court dismissed the retaliation claim, as the plaintiff did not present any evidence to support it.