SHARIAsource

English text of the 1999 Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, Act No. VII of 1999, amending the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

English text of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, Act No. III of 2003, amending the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

English text of the 2004 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to 2004).

English text of the first 170 pages of the 2010 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to 2010). The remaining pages can be found in a second document denoted "2010 Constitution of Pakistan (p. 170 on)".

English text of the remaining pages (170 on) of the 2010 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to 2010).

English text of the first 170 pages of the 2011 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of Pakistan, as amended to Act No. 1 of 2011). The remaining pages can be found in a second document denoted "2011 Constitution of Pakistan (p. 170 on).

English text of the remaining pages (170 on) of the 2011 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to Act No. 1 of 2011).

English text of the first 170 pages of the 2012 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to Act No. V of 2012). The remaining pages can be found in a separate document denoted "2012 Constitution of Pakistan (p. 170 on)".

English text of the 2015 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to 2015).

English text of the first 170 pages of the 2016 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to the Twenty-second Amendment Act of 2016). The remaining pages can be found in a second document denoted "2016 Constitution of Pakistan (p. 170 on)".

English text of the remaining pages (170 on) 2016 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to the Twenty-second Amendment Act of 2016).

English text of the 2017 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to 2017).

English text of the first 170 pages of the 2018 Constitution fo Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to the Twenty-fifth Amendment Act of 2018). The remaining pages can be found in a second document denoted "2018 Constitution of Pakistan (p. 170 on)".

English text of the remaining pages (170 on) of the 2018 Constitution of Pakistan (1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as amended to the Twenty-fifth Amendment Act of 2018).

A foreign Pakistani custody decree was entitled to comity because the Pakistani custody decree was based on the best interests of the children.

Amendments to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961

In December 2021, the National Assembly in Pakistan introduced two amendments in sections 4 and 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. Both these amendments relate to Shia school (Fiqh-e-Jafaria). Under the first amendment a childless widow of a Shia husband is given inheritance right in immovable property. The second amendment clarifies the Shia law on talaq (divorce) by providing that the husband must pronounce Arabic words (seegha) in presence of two witnesses to make divorce effective. It further provides that the pronouncement of talaq (divorce) shall not be effective if it is done “jokingly or under anger, intoxication, insanity, duress or coercion of any kind”.

Both amendments provide that in case of dispute, the parties may have a recourse to “a court of competent jurisdiction or by approaching the Mujtahid-e-Alam from the panel maintained by the Council of Islamic Ideology.” Mujtahid-e-Alam is defined as “a juris-consult, religious scholar or doctor of Shia school of thought well versed with Shariah having international repute and of such recognition.” The decision of Mujtahid-e-Alam shall have a status of an award under the Arbitration Act 1940.

Contributed by Zubair Abbasi.

In Ayub Masih v. State (23 Aug 2022), Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah granted bail on an interim petition, pending trial, to the plaintiff Salamat Mansha Masih, who was arrested for “preaching and making blasphemous remarks” in April 2021. Masih was denied bail by the Sessions Judge and the Judge of the High Court, who relied on the First Information Report (FIR), which alleges that the petitioner was a preacher, and the statements of the four witnesses. Upon review, the Supreme Court declared that an “examination of the charge reveals material deficiencies ... [and] does not contain a number of prescribed requirements with regard to the framing of the charge,” casting doubt on the reliablity of the FIR and testimony from the four witnesses. Namely, the Court pointed to the misidentification of the petitioner as a preacher, and the lack of corroborating evidence for the witness testimony. Remanding the case without deciding on the merits, the Court charged the lower courts with observing the constitutional requirements for fair trials in blasphemy and other criminal law cases. Constitutional requirements of applying shari'a, alongside its fundamental rights and fair trial provisions, include consideration of the Islamic law doubt canon instructing judges to ”avoid criminal punishments in cases of doubt”), and thereby requiring heightened procedures, a beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal convictions. For further studies of the doubt canon, together with the heightened procedures, standards of proof, and interpretive norms requiring lenity in Islamic criminal law, see Intisar Rabb, Doubt in Islamic Law (Cambridge University Press 2015).

In Civil Petition No.1289 of 2020, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a wife has a right to be maintained by her husband and that this right is absolute under Islamic law “so long as she remains faithful to him and discharges, or is willing to discharge, her own matrimonial obligations” and that a Muslim husband is bound to maintaining his wife even if she can maintain herself out of her own resources. They ordered that the petitioner, Haseen Ullah, has been “evading his legal as well as moral obligation“ to pay the agreed upon dower and maintenance to his wife, Naheed Begum, and their five minor children. For these reasons, the Supreme Court found the petition to be baseless and dismissed it with costs throughout. 

In this paper, Muftī Muhammad Abu Bakar determines that cryptocurrency is permissible under Islamic law in principle as it is treated as a good with value, as evidenced by its high market price on global exchanges and its acceptance as a form of payment at a wide variety of global merchants. He further notes that the permissibility of cryptocurrency is determined by its classification as currency in a governing legal and regulatory environment. Where jurisdictions prohibit dealing with cryptocurrency, its usage is prohibited in Islamic law as well. Muftī Abu Bakar adds that, before trading with cryptocurrency, users must consider its volatility and associated risks, given that preservation of wealth is one of the fundamental objectives (maqāṣid al-sharīʿa) of Islamic law. He concludes that, overall, it is not advisable to buy cryptocurrency for investment purposes, but to utilize it as a system of payment instead. 

When asked about the permissibility of cryptocurrency, Muftī Muḥammad Taqi Usmani responded that, although he is not satisfied with it due to its speculative purposes which seem impermissible in principle,  he will have to defer his decision until a later date in the case that its use may expand into real trade. He mentions that its mass use is not likely due to the possibility of weakening economies at the hands of an elite few, so he does not encourage its usage.