SHARIAsource

This enactment of May 1, 1952, establishes a code of criminal law, "based on" the Indian Penal Code. It defines certain offenses and prescribes punishments. It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

This enactment of May 1, 1952, "establish[es] a code of criminal procedure." It appears to have borrowed certain material from a "corresponding Code in the Colony of Sarawak." It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

This enactment of May 1, 1952, establishes a code of criminal law, "based on" the Indian Penal Code. It defines certain offenses and prescribes punishments. It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

This enactment of May 1, 1952, establishes a code of criminal law, "based on" the Indian Penal Code. It defines certain offenses and prescribes punishments. It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

The Sultan of Brunei enacted this document on March 31, 1908, with the approval of M.S.H. MacArthur, British Resident of Brunei. It establishes the structure and jurisdiction of Brunei's courts, the maximum penalties they can impose, and the codes that they are to follow. Most of these were codes already in force in the Straits Settlements or Federated Malay States.

This enactment of May 1, 1952, establishes a code of criminal law, "based on" the Indian Penal Code. It defines certain offenses and prescribes punishments. It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

This enactment of May 1, 1952, establishes a code of criminal law, "based on" the Indian Penal Code. It defines certain offenses and prescribes punishments. It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

This enactment of August 3, 1948, "provide[s] for the solemnization and registration of church and civil marriages." It deals with all marriages except those "contracted according to the usages of the Mohammedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Dayaks and other persons governed by their own laws or customs." It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

The Sultan of Brunei enacted this document on December 10, 1911, with the approval of Harvey Chevallier, British Resident of Brunei. It defines and prescribes punishments for certain offenses committed by "persons professing the Muhammadan religion." Most of these pertain to marriage law.

This document was enacted on August 1, 1913. It prescribes certain measures for the registration of marriages and divorces between Muslims in Brunei, and shows the basic format of marriage and divorce certificates. It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

A.V.M. Horton edited this 1987 edition of the 1904 report written by M.S.H. McArthur on conditions in the Sultanate (and then-British protectorate) of Brunei. It is a detailed survey of government, administration, and social and economic conditions in the Sultanate, written to the end of informing British administration in Brunei. It predates the establishment of the Residency by two years. This edition includes Horton's preface and annotations, along with supplementary materials.

The constitution of the State of Brunei was composed at the end of the British Residency (1906-1959) and recorded in Brunei Constitutional Documents, a collection of all of the constitutional documents that came into force between September 29, 1959, and July 1, 1960. It was enacted by proclamation of the Sultan of Brunei, Omar Ali Saifuddin Sa'adul Khairi Waddin Ibni Almarhum Mohamed Jamal-ul Alam. It has twelve parts: Part I, Preliminary; Part II, Religion; Part III, Executive Authority; Part IV, Privy Council; Part V, The Executive Council; Part VI, The Legislative Council; Part VII, Legislation and Procedure in the Legislative Council; Part VIII, Finance; Part IX, The Public Services; Part X, The State Seal; Part XI, Miscellaneous; Part XII, Amendment and Interpretation of the Constitution.

This enactment "consolidate[s] the law relating to the Religious Council and State Custom, the Kathis Courts, the constitution and organization of religious authorities and the regulation of religious affairs." It was enacted by the Sultan in Council and during the Residency of J.O. Gilbert, to take effect on February 1, 1956. It establishes a Religious Council (Majlis) and defines its composition, powers and responsibilities. It also establishes the jurisdiction and procedure of the Religious Courts in Brunei, and has sections on family law, criminal law, and laws of religious observance. Its provisions are divided into ten parts and 204 sections.

This document is an authenticated copy of a court decision from Rabi I 1358 (June/July 1939). The original decision was issued on 13 Rabiah II, 1332 (March 10, 1914) by Yahya b. Muhammad b. Abbas. The decision describes a controversy in the Jewish community of Sanaa and the enforcement of the Pact of Umar on the community. The controversy revolved around a group of Jews that had rejected the teaching of a Jewish mystical text, the Zohar. The document describes that the Imam (Yahya Muhammad Hamid al-Din) brought the controversy to court. The judge rules to allow the Zohar to be taught and institutes a number of orders to maintain the peace and the status quo in the community. The judge also issues several other orders related to the Jewish community, including orders regulating the appearance of Jewish men and women, and a process for resolving potentially new (and therefore illegal) synagogues.

One of the core functions of the courts in the Ottoman Empire was to allow the government to keep its officials in check, and to allow subjects to challenge abuses of power. In this court case from Cairo in 1672, the commander of Muwaylīḥ fortress on the Hijaz coast, in what is now northern Saudi Arabia, is accused of aiding a pirate attack on a boat belonging to an Upper Egyptian merchant.

The merchant brought the lawsuit in al-Dīwān al-ʿĀlī, the council of the Ottoman governor of Egypt, which functioned as a sharīʿa court as well as an administrative council. When operating as a court, a qāḍī presided over the proceedings, as in any other sharīʿa court, but in many cases, such as this one, the governor attended as well.[1] The reason that the lawsuit was brought in Cairo is not only that the plaintiff was Egyptian. While the Ottoman Hijaz was governed by a semi-autonomous dynasty, its military administration was the responsibility of the governor of Egypt. Muḥammad Āghā, the fortress commander, was therefore subject to the jurisdiction of governor Ibrāhīm Pasha.

The military status of the defendant also helps explain the frustrating lack of a clear conclusion to this case. After the plaintiff provides evidence, the qāḍī finds Muḥammad Āghā guilty of aiding the pirate attack, but specifies no punishment or compensation. Instead, according to the document, he simply imposes “what the sharīʿa deems necessary.” As the defendant was a military officer, the qāḍī’s role in this case was simply to determine the facts and assign liability. Any penalties were likely decided by the military authorities, possibly by Ibrāhīm Pasha himself.

No registers of the Dīwān al-ʿĀlī survive from this period; the earliest extant register is from 1741. This case has survived in the form of a ḥujja, the certificate issued by the court to litigants at the conclusion of a case, a copy of which was made in the register. To be precise, the document is a certified copy of the ḥujja. It is now held at the Başbakanlık, the central Ottoman archives in Istanbul, which suggests that the case was sufficiently important to have been reported to the central government.

[1] On the function of the Dīwān al-ʿĀlī, see James E. Baldwin, Islamic Law and Empire in Ottoman Cairo (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 37-9, 63-71.

A translation of the Arabic Majallat al-Ahkam al-A'dlīyyah. This is a book on the principles of rules and regulations according to Muslim jurists under the Ottoman Empire. 

Following the loss of the last Muslim-controlled territory in Spain in 1491, remaining Muslims came under significant pressure to accept baptism and adopt Christian customs. In response to this situation, a North African mufti, believed to be Abu al-Abbas Ahmad ibn Abi Jum'ah al-Maghrawi al-Wahrani, wrote the Oran Fatwa in 1504. The fatwa lauds Muslims in Spain for continuing to practice their religion in the face of oppression. It also specifies ways in which Muslims may alter the ways they carry out the commands of Islam in order to ensure their survival.