SHARIAsource

In Indonesia, the Islamic practice of polygamy is circumscribed by specific provisions in Law No.1 of 1974 on Marriage. Mohammad Insa was a Muslim man who wished to take a second wife without any state interference, and without due consideration for the rights and feelings of his established wife. He argued that polygamy is a religious duty, and one that he was entitled to undertake in accordance with the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. He petitioned the court for a judicial review of those legal restrictions on polygamous marriages. This decision to dismiss his petition was handed down by the court on 3 October 2007, after several months of lengthy deliberations and media attention. The court reasoned that art 28J(2) of the Constitution not only authorises the state to regulate religion, but obliges it do so.

The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, in one whole manuscript, after the amendments of 2002.

The Constitution of Pakistan was drafted in 1973 and remains the country's current constitution. 

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

In Danial Latifi, the Indian Supreme Court found that the 1986 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act requires a Muslim husband to provide maintenance of a reasonable and fair amount needed to maintain his ex-wife for the rest of her life, but that he must pay this amount in total during the iddat period (three month post-divorce 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.

The Constitution of Bangladesh was promulgated in 1972. 

The four applicants wished to nominate themselves for the then-upcoming elections of regent and deputy-regent of Pidie, Bireun, Aceh Timur, and Simeulue respectively in 2011. Article 256 of Law No. 11 of 2006 on the Governance of Aceh, however, required that individual/independent candidates in regional head elections be nominated by a political party or coalition. In other words, art 256 precluded the nomination of independent candidacy. Therefore, pursuant to art 50 of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, the applicants sought to challenge the constitutional validity of art 256 of Law No. 11 of 2006 on the grounds that it contravened arts 18(4), 27(1), 28D(1) and (3), and 28I(2) of the Indonesian Constitution. The applicants also claimed that art 256 contravened art 43 of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which reiterated and elaborated upon art 28D(3) of the Constitution, in regards to every Indonesian citizen being entitled to be elected to a position of political office.

The court acceded to the application, finding art 256 of Law No. 11 of 2006 in contravention of the aforementioned constitutional guarantees and, therefore, rendered it null and void.

This statute regulates the Indonesian Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi). Specifically, it regulates the Court's position in the court hierarchy, as well as its judicial composition, and the types of cases it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate. The statute also regulates the appointment and resignation/dismissal of Constitutional Court judges.

The elucidation (Penjelasan) to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court.

The applicant (Lalu Ranggalawe), a Central Lombok Regency Legislature (DPRD) member, submitted an application to the Constitutional Court on 5 February 2007, which he subsequently amended twice on 5 March 2007 and 13 March 2007. His application sought to impugn the validity of certain sections of Law No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Administration vis-à-vis the 1945 Constitution, which precluded him from self-nominating for the then-upcoming 2008 Nusa Tenggara Barat gubernatorial and vice-gubernatorial elections. While the applicant was a member of the Reformation Star Party (Partai Bintang Reformasi), he did not expect to be nominated by the party, and, therefore, wished to nominate as an independent candidate. Pursuant to arts 56, 59, and 60 of Law No. 32 of 2004, however, a gubernatorial candidate could only be nominated by a political party or coalition. In other words, independent candidates were not afforded the same opportunity as those nominated by a political party. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that his constitutional rights, as guaranteed by arts 18(4), 27(1), 28D(3), and 28I(2), had been contravened, and that arts 56(2), 59(1)-(5)(a), (5)(c) and (6), 60(2)-(5) should, therefore, be declared null and void.

The majority of the court acceded to the applicant’s submission insofar as it amended art 59 of Law No. 32 of 2004 to allow for the democratic and transparent nomination and election of independent regional head and vice-regional head candidates.

This Supreme Court decision upheld Decision: 69/PID.B/2012/PN.Spg of the Sampang State Court to imprison Tajul Muluk, a member of the Shi'a Muslim community in Madura. Tajul's four year prison sentence was upheld for allegedly teaching his students 'unorthodox' religious teachings, including questioning the authenticity of the Qur'an in its current form. Tajul and multiple witnesses disputed and denied the allegations.

The court sentenced Tajul Muluk, a member of the Shi'a Muslim community in Madura, to two years' prison for conducting himself in a manner that defamed Islam. Tajul was found guilty of teaching his students 'unorthodox' religious teachings, including questioning the authenticity of the Qur'an in its current form. Tajul and multiple witnesses disputed and denied the allegations, but the court found him in contravention of the Defamation of Religion Law, regardless.

The prosecution would appeal the leniency of the sentence before the higher court of East Java, which subsequently increased Tajul's sentence from two years to four. This four year sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court in Decision 1787 of 2012.

This joint decree, based on Law No. 1 of 1965 on Prevention of Abuse and/or Defamation of Religion, warns and orders adherents, members, and/or organisational members of Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia, to cease the dissemination of their religious interpretations and activities that 'deviate' from the fundamental tenets of Islam. Failure to abide by the decree may result in disturbing the peace and social order and can, therefore, result in sanctions.

This circular outlines the implementational requirements of different levels of government vis-a-vis the Joint Decree of the Minister of Religion, Attorney-General and Internal Affairs Minister No. 3 of 2008, which dramatically curbed the public practice and dissemination of so-called 'deviant' beliefs and teachings of the Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia.

The primary purpose of this presidential determination is captured in art 1, which prohibits all persons from intentionally and publicly conveying, endorsing, or soliciting public support for an interpretation of a religion followed in Indonesia, or conducting religious activities that resemble the religious activities of that religion, where such interpretation and activities deviate from the fundamental tenets of that religion. Article 4 also amends the Indonesian Criminal Code to include art 156a, thereby criminalising such behaviour.

The elucidation lists the six religions to which the vast majority of Indonesians adhere: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. The elucidation clarifies, however, that this list is not exhaustive, and that other religions such as Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, and Taoism are not prohibited. That said, the list of religions to which the vast majority of Indonesians adhere would subsequently become the base definition for the term 'religion' in Indonesia.

This presidential determination was later exalted to the status of a statute (undang-undang) after the enactment of Law No. 5 of 1969 on the Declaration of Various Presidential Determinations and Presidential Regulations as Laws.

This Constitutional Court review of Law No. 1 of 1965 on the Prevention of Abuse and/or Defamation of Religion concluded that while a person’s religious beliefs are part of their inner freedom of religion (forum internum), for the sake of peace and social order, when stated publicly, those interpretations must accord with the basic tenets of that religion, and the scriptures of that religion. It is in these cases that restrictions on religious interpretation may be enforced.