SHARIAsource

This open letter/fatwā to ISIS was signed by many Muslim religious scholars from around the world and circulated widely. This is the English version.

A qanun on khalwat (close proximity) was introduced in Aceh in 2003 after the province was granted the right to apply the precepts of 'syariat' in its regional regulations in 1999 by the Indonesian government. This qanun prohibits unmarried couples from being in close proximity in private to one another. The qanun prescribes caning as punishment for offenders with a maximum of nine strokes, or payment of a monetary penalty as an alternative.

The new Islamic Penal Code of Iran was adopted in May 2013 and entered into force the same year in the Islamic Consultative Assembly. It consists of four books: General Provisions, Ḥudūd, Qiṣāṣ, and Diyāt.

The latest Constitution of Iran which entered into force in 1979 and contains 177 articles].

The Islamic Penal Code of Iran, originally supposed to be a provisional code, was in effect from 1991 till 2013 after being extended several times

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was passed by India's Parliament in 1986, allegedly to protect the economic rights of Muslim women upon divorce. The Act, however, has been controversial as it essentially overrode the Shah Bano judgment and limited the maintenance Muslim women could receive after divorce to the iddat period (a three month period).

The Constitution of India does not refer to Islamic law, and is largely secular. However, Art. 44 does refer to a uniform civil code. 

The Indian Supreme Court here held that polygamy was not an ‘integral’ part of the Muslim religion and could therefore be regulated by the state.

In Narasu Appa Mali in 1952, the Bombay High Court limited its own ability to address the constitutionality of Muslim personal law in India, holding that personal laws are not “laws in force” within the purview of Article 13 of the Constitution, and thus need not satisfy the fundamental rights test.

This ordinance gives effect to certain recommendations of the Commission on Marriage and Family Laws.

In State v. Abdul Khaliq et al., the Pakistani Supreme Court acquitted all but one of the men who had participated in the gang rape of Mukhtar Mai, holding that insufficient evidence existed to sustain their convictions.

This qanun regulates social welfare in Aceh, the services offered therein, and those entitled to such services. The implementation of social welfare, according to this qanun, is based on the principles of Islam, humanity, family, justice, non-discrimination and legal certainty, among other things.

This qanun was devised to foster and maintain the Islamic beliefs and religiosity of the individual and society in Aceh, providing legislative protection from misguided teachings. Crucially, at art 1(7), the qanun defines as Islamic creed (Aqidah Islamiah) a conservative interpretation of al-sunna wa'l-jama'a (Sunni Islam). It also seeks to increase understanding and the practice of worship, as well as the availability of appropriate places of worship. The qanun authorises the shari'a police (Wilayatul Hisbah) to conduct surveillance to ensure adherence thereto, and grants prosecutorial powers to general prosecutors to investigate and refer cases to the shari'a courts (Mahkamah Syar'iyah) in the event of a breach. Conduct punishable pursuant to this qanun includes disseminating un-Islamic teachings, apostasing, failing to attend Friday prayers (shalat jum'at) three times consecutively, and failing to provide prayer facilities. Punishment can include caning or imprisonment.

This qanun establishes a Commission for Truth and Reconciliation for Aceh to reveal the truth behind the various human rights violations committed by the Indonesian military and Free Aceh Movement fighers, prior to the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Indonesia and Free Aceh Movement. The qanun states that the commission is to be based on Islam, 'Aceh-ness', independence and impartiality, among other tenets. It stipulates the composition of the committee (seven members, including one chairperson and one vice-chairperson), as well as their functions, powers and responsibilities. It also stipulates the timeframes of the commission's investigations, phase one being from 4 December 1976-15 August 2005, and phase two being anything pre-4 December 1976. The eanun provides for reparations and reconciliation for the victims, as well as for the allocation and storage of data obtained throughout the commission's investigations.

The preamble of this regional regulation acknowledges the constitutional guarantee to freedom of religion, states that the realisation and implementation of Islamic teachings are reflected in the clothes people wear in everyday life, that covering one's aurat (genitals and other parts of the body Islam requires to be covered) is obligatory in Islam, and that communal life that reflects Islam, and efforts to realise a faithful and God-fearing society, requires the implementation of this Regulation.

The regulation mandates that people must wear Muslim dress in government and private-sector offices, state and private schools, universities, educational and non-educational institutions, and at official events. The general public is also encouraged to wear Muslim dress in everyday life, including at general entertainment events.

Men are required to wear long trousers, with either a long- or short-sleeve shirt, while women are required to wear a long-sleeve shirt covering their hips, a skirt or long trousers that reaches the top of their feet, as well as a headscarf that covers their hair, ears, neck, and chest. None of these clothes are to be tight-fitting.

For Muslim students, boys are to wear long trousers, with either a long- or short-sleeve shirt. Girls are to wear a long-sleeve shirt that covers their hips and chest and reaches their knees, a skirt or long trousers that reaches the top of their feet, as well as a headscarf that covers their hair, ears, neck, and chest. Again, none of these clothes are to be tight-fitting.

This regional regulation states that Muslim dress is one measure to implement Islamic teachings in everyday life, as a way of realising a society that is faithful to, and God-fearing of, Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala.

The Regulation mandates that people must wear Muslim dress in government and private-sector offices, state and private schools, universities, educational and non-educational institutions, and at official events. The general public is also encouraged to wear Muslim dress in everyday life, including at general entertainment events.

Men are required to wear long trousers, with either a long- or short-sleeve shirt, and it is recommended to wear the traditional peci (headdress). Women are required to wear a long-sleeve shirt covering their hips, a skirt or long trousers that reaches the top of their feet, as well as a headscarf that covers their hair, ears, neck, and chest. None of these clothes are to be tight-fitting.

For Muslim students, boys are to wear long trousers, with either a long- or short-sleeve shirt. Girls are to wear a long-sleeve shirt that covers their hips and chest and reaches their knees, a skirt or long trousers that reaches the top of their feet, as well as a headscarf that covers their hair, ears, neck, and chest. Again, none of these clothes are to be tight-fitting.

The preamble of this regional regulation states that Islam obliges Muslims to cover their aurat (genitals and other parts of the body Islam requires to be covered) in everyday life, and that in order to create a faithful and God-fearing society, the implementation of this regulation is necessary. The regulation also aims to condition Muslims to wear Muslim dress in their daily lives, both in family life and communal life, and to create a society that values Islamic and Minangkabau culture.

The regulation mandates that persons must wear Muslim dress in government and private-sector offices, state and private schools, universities, other educational institutions, and at official events. It does allow concessions for those participating in sporting activities, but is non-specific.

The implementation of the regulation is to be monitored by the regent and/or other appointed officials.

The parties were married on 19 May 2003, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents in Banda Aceh for two years, until the end of 2005. In 2006 they moved, and had lived in Banda Aceh until 2015, during which time they had had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had lived harmoniously until 2008, after which time they had begun to quarrel regularly, because the defendant:

1. frequently left the matrimonial home, only to return the next morning, if at all, without showing any regard for the plaintiff and their children, and if the defendant did return home, he would often be angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff, and would even, oven minor matters, resort to physical violence, hitting and kicking the plaintiff;
3. showed no care for the plaintiff and their children whatsoever, rather, prioritising himself over domestic needs such as costs associated with the parties' children.

The plaintiff informed the court that she had previously filed an application for a judicial divorce with the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court on 3 October 2011, however, had withdrawn that application after reconciling with the defendant. Moreover, that between the parties they had reached a reconciliation agreement (perjanjian damai) on 11 July 2002 before Chief Justice Drs. H. Idris Budiman. As the defendant had failed to maintain his end of the bargain, the plaintiff submitted that she had legal grounds to file an application for judicial divorce. The plaintiff also sought IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In regards to their children, the court found that while they remained the joint responsibility of the parties, the plaintiff would be better placed to rear and educate them given their still being pre-pubescent (belum mumayyiz). This also accorded with the requirement contained in art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court emphasised its belief that a mother would be more patient and meticulous in raising the children, and that to separate them from the plaintiff would be incredibly problematic given their age. The court also cited art 59(2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which acknowledges the rights and needs of children to maintain a personal relationship with their father. Accordingly, it granted the defendant visitation rights, as well as the right to be consulted regarding his children's education and development, as contained in art 26(1) of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection. The court did not accede to the plaintiff's request for IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, but instead ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 20 March 1993 at the Office of Religious Affairs in Plupuh, Sragen. After marrying they lived in Sukaramai, Banda Aceh, and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until 18 December 2010, after which the defendant had left the plaintiff and their children for no apparent reason. Despite searching for, as well as inquiring as to the whereabouts of, the defendant, the plaintiff had not been able to locate him. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce from the defendant, as well as custody of the parties' one remaining child still under the age of consent. Owing to her own impecuniosity, the plaintiff also sought dispensation from any court costs.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. Moreover, that the defendant having left the plaintiff for more than two consecutive years was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In regards to their child, the court found that while the child remained the joint responsibility of the parties, the plaintiff would be better placed to rear and educate him given his being underage (belum mumayyiz). This also accorded with the requirement contained in art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court emphasised its belief that a mother would be more patient and meticulous in raising the children, and that to separate them from the plaintiff would be incredibly problematic given their age. The court also cited art 59(2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which acknowledges the rights and needs of children to maintain a personal relationship with their father. Accordingly, it granted the defendant visitation rights, as well as the right to be consulted regarding his children's education and development, as contained in art 26(1) of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection. The court also acceded to the plaintiff's request that the State bear the costs associated with the proceeding.