SHARIAsource

The survivor and the family of two men who were kidnapped and held for three weeks by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) sued the PKK under the Antiterrorism Act of 1991, as well as Syria, its Ministry of Defense, and several high-ranking Syrian officials under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) (which allows individuals to sue nations that sponsor terrorism). Syria moved to have the case dismissed, citing a lack of jurisdiction, insufficient process, and failure to make a claim. The Court allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to address the points brought up by the defendants in an amended complaint, denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The defendant’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied. In July 2009, a status report was filed by the defendant, and the case was still open as of August 2011.

On March 6, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued a revised Executive Order which barred, with certain exceptions, entry to the United States of nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries, suspended the entry of refugees for 120 days, and reduced the number of refugees who can be admitted to the United States by more than half. The Plaintiffs (political activist Linda Sarsour, as well as 26 additional Muslim individuals) filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. While other litigation opposing the revised Executive Order were filed to enjoin only Sections 2 and 6 of the revised Executive Order, in this case the Plaintiffs asked the Court to enjoin the enforcement of the revised Executive Order in its entirety. In order for the Plaintiffs to succeed, they had to prove that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the balance of the equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction would be in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).

Arabic text of the 1920 Constitution of the Kingdom of Syria. France occupied Syria very shortly after the adoption of this constitution.

English translation of the 1930 Constitution of Syria (Decree of the High Commissioner of the French Republic promulgating the Constitution of the State of Syria) under French Mandatory rule of Syria.

English translation of the 1948 Constitution of Syria (1930 Constitution of Syria, as amended to 1948). Syria is by this point independent.

English translation of the 1950 Constitution of Syria.

Arabic text of the 1958 Provisional Constitution of the United Arab Republic.

English translation of the 1958 Provisional Constitution of the United Arab Republic.

English translation of the 1964 Provisional Constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic.

English translation of the 1973 Constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Arabic text of the 2000 Constitution of Syria (1973 Constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic, as amended to Law No. 9 of 11 June 2000).

English translation of the 2000 Constitution of Syria (1973 Constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic, as amended to Law No. 9 of 11 June 2000).

English translation of the 2012 Constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Arabic text of the 2012 Constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic.

English translation of the 2017 Draft Constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Twenty-one scholars on the Syrian Islamic Council issued a fatwā on cryptocurrency that declared dealing with cryptocurrency to be religiously forbidden (ḥarām) because of the many risks associated with it, which they identify as ignorance about it, uncertainty [as to its fluctuating value], and its resemblance to gambling. They came to their decision after outlining their understanding of cryptocurrencies as goods that are intangible given that they are produced programmatically and exist on the internet. For them, this nature of digital currency bolsters the risk of loss in the event of a technical malfunction or computer hacking. Secondly, they understand cryptocurrencies to be decentralized, which creates ambiguity around its origin, authority structure, and reference points necessary for evaluating those currencies in trading and for setting pricing. That ambiguity in turn prevents any authority from controlling the flowing liquidity in the markets. Furthermore, they conclude that governments currently lack legal considerations that might aid in the oversight and control of cryptocurrency circulation. Because of these risks, they determine that trading cryptocurrency is forbidden unless so long as there are no changes in its structure or governance that can help eliminate the large degree of risk that comes with their usage currently, through proper oversight and issuance from central banks or trusted institutions.