SHARIAsource

The first draft articles on the Islamic Penal Code adopted in Parliament after receiving and debating the Judiciary’s draft.

The second set of draft articles on the new Islamic Penal Code adopted in Parliament, after modifying the first draft in response to the Guardian Council’s objections.

The first round of objections raised by the Guardian Council with regard to Parliament’s 2009 adoption of the first draft of the Islamic Penal Code.

The third set of Islamic Penal Code draft articles adopted in the Iran's Parliament. This draft code at some point became law after Guardian Council’s initial approval. But later the Council revoked its approval and the code lost its authority.

The fourth time Iran's Parliament modified the Islamic Penal Code following the Guardian Council’s objections.

The fifth time Iran's Parliament modified the Islamic Penal Code following the Guardian Council’s objections.

Guardian Council approves of the Iran's Parliament’s Islamic Penal Code of 01.02.2012.

The Guardian Council revokes its prior approval of the Islamic Penal Code adopted by Iran's Parliament and raises another set of objections.

Guardian Council raises objections as to Parliament’s Islamic Penal Code draft articles of 01.07.2013.

Summary for a case in which the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town declared the 1953 Wills Act inconsistent with the South Africa Constitution, because the statute’s provisions were previously interpreted to recognize only legal marriage and not Muslim marriages.

In this opinion, addressed to the Official Gazette, the Secretary of the Guardian Council invalidated Article 26 –Note 1 of the Law on the Formation, Duties, and Election of National Islamic Councils 1996. He argued that because Guardian Council does not have any supervisory authority over the decisions of the City Councils (unlike legislative acts), religious minorities could not represent Muslims where majority of residents are Muslims.

This brief, submitted by fifteen religious and civil rights organizations, addresses the notion that numerous conflicts often arise between job duties and religious convictions in areas of ritual law, including Sabbaths and other holy days, dietary restrictions, and dress for many Jews, Muslims, Christians and members of other faiths. These organizations point out that the headscarf (ḥijāb) is a particularly visible manifestation of a religious practice (more so than taking off holy days), and under the laws of the United States, it is entitled to no less a standard of reasonable accommodations, particularly in an era where online applications set the qualifications and in-person interviews may offer cause for discrimination if not for application of Title VII broadly. They further argue that “the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning gives the employer a perverse incentive to deny to religiously observant applicants any opportunity to discuss religion-based limitations on their appearance or scheduling. Under that reasoning, the employer’s ignorance automatically defeats a prima facie case, and thus effectively eliminates Title VII’s accommodation protections for those applicants. Under the Tenth Circuit’s position, then, observers of Sabbaths and other holy days will find themselves effectively excluded from a large and growing sector of the workforce that is hired through online applications (p. 10).” For reviews and commentary on the U.S. law implications of this case, see the SCOTUSblog Case Page.