SHARIAsource

This qanun regulates the prohibition on the consumption of alcoholic beverages. It outlines that any beverages containing alcohol are haram (forbidden) and the consumption thereof is prohibited (arts 4 and 5). All persons and entities are prohibited from producing, preparing, selling, distributing, transporting, storing, stockpiling, trading in, gifting, and promoting, alcoholic beverages (art 6). The qanun also prohibits assisting with, or being complicit in, any of the above activities. The qanun's objective is to protect the Acehnese from being involved in any activity that can lead to the destruction of mind. The qanun also regulates the investigation and prosecution of those suspected of, or found to be guilty of, any of the above alcohol-related activities. It outlines that anyone, regardless of their nationality, will be made subject to this qanun if they are found selling or distributing alcoholic beverages. The qanun prescribes 40 strokes of the cane (art 26(1)), imprisonment or payment of a fine (art 26(2)), as an alternative to offenders.

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 cassation applicant and cassation respondent had been married for 14 years and had four children. The parties, however, had begun to quarrel because, as the cassation respondent had submitted, the cassation applicant was disrespectful to the cassation respondent as the husband and head of the household. The cassation applicant was stubborn and difficult to deal with, and not afraid of rebutting or opposing the cassation respondent's words and wishes.

The cassation applicant submitted that the cassation respondent had failed to meet certain legislative requirements associated with filing for divorce, namely, that as a public servant, the cassation respondent had not yet first obtained the permission of his work superior before filing for divorce.

The Supreme Court held that the Samarinda High Religious Court's decision could not be overturned because it had not applied the law incorrectly, nor had there been a contravention of applicable law, or a failure to meet any other legislative requirements that would render a decision null and void.

The parties were married on 8 October 2000 and had two children. Before the Pontianak Religious Court (lower court), the cassation respondent had submitted that, since 2008, her marriage to the cassation applicant had become strained because the cassation applicant would often belittle the cassation respondent's parents, leaving the cassation respondent feeling offended. There were also issues pertaining to the ways in which the parties' families managed a relevant business, as well as allegations from the cassation respondent that the cassation applicant had been physically violent towards her, which necessitated a police report. The lower court had, accordingly, granted the cassation respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The cassation applicant appealed to the Supreme Court at cassation level on the grounds that the Pontianak High Religious Court, which had affirmed the decision of the lower court, had failed to summons him in an appropriate manner. The Supreme Court found that the cassation applicant had failed to establish this and, therefore, pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, dismissed the appeal.

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

The general prosecutor submitted that the two accused, on Sunday 11 September 2005, at approximately 3:40pm (Western Indonesian Time), were found in close proximity with one another out of wedlock (khalwat), in the offices of the Star Moon Party (Partai Bulan Bintang). The shari'a police (Wilayatul Hisbah) attended the offices after receiving a tip-off via telephone from a witness named Fuadi, who had called around 4:30pm (Western Indonesian Time) regarding a member of the Regional People's Consultative Assembly (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah), whom he suspected to be in the act of khalwat with a woman. Fuadi also reported his suspicions to Said Zulkarnaini, a shari'a police team commandant, after which Said Zulkarnaini and 10 shari'a police officials attended the Party offices.

Upon their arrival, another witness (Iskandar) attempted to peak through a window on both sides of the office, only to find that all the curtains had been drawn. Seeing that an air-conditiong compressor on the right-hand side of the building was still active, Iskandar believed that there were people inside the room. Meanwhile, Said Zulkarnaini and Fuadi approached the front-door, knocking approximately six times, while making verbal greetings to the people inside the room. Fuadi unsuccessfuly tried to force the door open twice, but on the third occasion, the door was opened from the inside by one of the accused. Fuadi introduced himself and requested his permission to inspect the office, but after entering the room, another witness (Irwan) saw the other accused looking nervous, somewhat frightened, reading a newspaper upside down, with her lipstick smeared. Irwan also saw a motorcycle parked at the office's waiting room, as well as a white bag belonging to the female accused on the work desk of the male accused. After inspecting the room, it appeared that there were no other people present. When one of the witnesses requested to see the identity card of the female accused, the male accused instructed her to keep it concealed. When the female accused was prevented from exiting the room by another wintess (Fauzan), the male accused summoned Said Zulkarnaini over to inquire as to why they would not let the female accused leave. The male accused said: "You are all being arrogant. Don't be like those former shari'a police officers I recommended for dismissal" ("Inilah kalian arogan jangan seperti anggota WH lama yang saya usul pecat"), then threatened to call the mayor (walikota), Head of the Banda Sakti Police, and the Head of Islamic Shari'a Services, as well as journalists, to report these supposedly brash shari'a police officials.

The prosecutor sought to have the two accused found guilty of conduct proscribed under art 5, in conjunction with art 22(1) of Aceh Qanun No. 14 of 2003 on Close Proximity (Khalwat).

The court acceded to the prosecutor's application, finding the conduct of the two accused to have met all the elemental requirements of art 5. The court, pursuant to art 22(1), sentenced both the accused to five strokes of the cane, as well as a fine of IDR 1,000.

The court found the defendant (a Buddhist) guilty of being in possession of a merchantable quantity of alcohol, and sentenced him to one year imprisonment. The sentence was commuted given the defendant's good conduct in court, as well as the fact that he was his family's primary financial contributor.

The parties were married on 14 July 1995 and had four children. Before the Padang Religious Court (lower court), the cassation respondent had filed for divorce from the cassation applicant, having alleged that the cassation applicant, since October 2011, had been an irresponsible husband, never providing the cassation respondent with any spending money. Moreover, since 2008, the cassation applicant had not provided the cassation respondent with any emotional support, leaving her in a distressed state.

The cassation applicant had incorrectly accused the cassation respondent of having had an extra-marital affair, while often becoming angry for no apparent reason, as well as denigrating her character to members of her family, causing the cassation respondent's family to often blame her if something went wrong. According to the cassation respondent's older sibling, the cassation applicant would also often threaten their children saying he would not allow them to see the cassation respondent. When the cassation applicant left the matrimonial home, he took the parties' children with him.

The lower court had granted the cassation respondent an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain sughra), but granted the cassation applicant custody of the parties' children. On appeal, the Padang High Religious Court had affirmed the cassation respondent's irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain sughra), but granted her custody of the parties' four children.

The cassation applicant appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Padang High Religious Court had not given sufficient consideration to the facts of the case, but had simply based its decision on art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Finding the decision of the Padang Religious High Court not to contain any incorrect applications of the law, the Supreme Court, pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, dismissed the appeal.

The parties were married on 18 September 2005. The plaintiff submitted, however, that only a few months after she and the defendant had married, she received a telephone call from a woman calling herself Ciah, claiming to have secretly married (nikah siri) the defendant and being five-months pregnant with the defendant's child. From thereon, this became a point of contention between the parties, despite the defendant never validating the claims made by this other woman.

The plaintiff alleged that other causes of tension between the parties included:

1. the defendant often being angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. the defendant never contributing financially to the parties' domestic needs, thereby making the plaintiff assume he was spending his salary on his other wife;
3. the plaintiff and defendant having been separated since the end of 2013;
4. since the beginning of 2011, the defendant having not executed his spousal responsibilities vis-a-vis the plaintiff; and
5. notably, frequent quarrelling between the parties causing the plaintiff to want to move to Bireuen for work, but not being granted permission to do so by the defendant, the dispute escalating to the point that the defendant hit the plaintiff, causing her to seek medical treatment for facial bruising.

The plaintiff also claimed that, from January 2011-present, the defendant had failed to provide her with financial and emotional support. The plaintiff quantified the financial support she believed the defendant owed her at IDR 2 million per month for 41 months (IDR 82 million). The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had failed to provide her with a true dowry (mahar) at the time of their marriage. Rather, the defendant had borrowed five grams of pure gold from the plaintiff's parents, which he had returned after they were married, vowing to the plaintiff that he would one day give to her five grams of pure gold, or the cash equivalent thereof. The defendant, the plaintiff submitted, never upheld that promise.

The court acknowledged that the plaintiff had appropriately sought and obtained a letter of permission from her superior officer to divorce the defendant, and that the defendant's objection to that letter was irrelevant insofar as the court was unauthorised to intervene in the affairs of a government agency. The court also noted that the parties had sought to reconcile their differences via mediation, but to no avail.

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. The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's claim for back-payment maintenance costs (IDR 82 million), noting that the plaintiff, like the defendant, worked as a civil servant, who would had to have first obtained the defendant's permission to work. The court noted that if one of the plaintiff's reasons for wanting to divorce the defendant was due to a lack of financial support, to then demand money from the defendant would contradict her claim.

The court accepted the plaintiff's claim in part, distributed the estate (four properties, five vehicles) of the deceased as it saw fit, and ordered the parties to share costs.

The couple had already divorced on 27 April 2010 before the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (Decision No. 01/Pdt.G/2010/MS-BNA). That decision had, however, only finalised the parties' divorce, as well as custody of their children. It had not determined the division of their joint assets.

In this instance, the court approved the plaintiff's application in regards to the 50/50 settlement of the parties' joint assets, which included a shop, and proceeds (IDR 90 million) from renting the shop from 1 June 2009-1 June 2012.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 2,461,000).

The applicants were married on 23 August 2013 but had no children of their own. They applied to the court to be granted legal custody of Muhammad Daud bin Bukhari (DOB: 2 February 2002), whom they had cared for and raised since the age of 2.

In its decision, the court acknowledged that the applicants had already cared for and raised the child from an early age, and that they had given him his name. Using its vested power, pursuant to art 49 of Law No. 3 of 2006, as well as figure (20) of the elucidation therein, the court acknowledged that it was authorised to adjudicate applications for child adoption. Moreover, it cited surat Al-Ahzab, verses 4 and 5, in support of the adoption of children in need, but not at the expense of forgetting their own biological lineage. Pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, in conjunction with art 12(1)(a)-(d) and (2)(a), as well as art 13(a)-(i) and (l) of Government Regulation No. 54 of 2007 on the Implementation of Child Adoption, the court acceded to the applicants' request to be granted lawful custody of the child. Their application was also assented to by the child's biological mother (his biological father had already passed away).

The applicants were married on 18 October 2013 by Tgk. H. Hanafiah, the then village imam. The second applicant's younger brother had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) was five grams of pure gold. Due to a family dispute at the time, the marriage could not be convened at the local Office of Religious Affairs (Kantor Urusan Agama). Accordingly, the applicants requested that the court ratify their marriage retrospectively. Both applicants were eligible for marriage, the second applicant having divorced her previous husband in Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court Decision No. 232 of 2012. The applicants submitted that, while they had already attended the Banda Sakti Office of Religious Affairs to request the issuance of a marriage certificate, the office was precluded from doing so as it could not locate any information relating to their marriage.

The court acceded to the applicants' request, acknowledging that while the parties did not have proof of their marriage in the form of a marriage certificate, they had already married. Moreover, the evidence provided by the witnesses in court did not conflict with the applicants' submissions. Therefore, the applicants' submissions, pursuant to art 7(3)(e) of Indonesian Presidential Instruction No. 1 of 1991 on the Compilation of Islamic Laws, had been established and were grounded in legal reasoning.

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.

Standard Operating Procedures for receipt of criminal cases at the first stage of the Shari'a Court process.

The general prosecutor alleged that, on 11 May 2008, the two accused, at approximately 4:00pm (Western Indonesian Time), were discovered on a university campus within close proximity (khalwat) of one another, engaging in intimate and sexual relations. At their time of arrest, the two accused were unmarried.

The court dismissed the case, however, as the two accused were absent from court and their location was unknown.

The parties were married on 29 January 2006 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since February 2010, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant having had an extra-marital affair, and subsequently having a child with the other woman.

Problems escalated in July 2014 with the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home at the request of the defendant. Despite the plaintiff's efforts to reconcile with the defendant, even requesting the help of family, the plaintiff became convinced their differences were irreconcilable.

The defendant had been summonsed formally but failed to attend court. Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39 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, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra).

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), only amending the wording of the lower court's verdict slightly.

The defendant, Idris bin Maneh, was found guilty of gambling (maisir), contravening arts 5 and 23(1) of Aceh Qanun 13 of 2003 on Gambling, in conjunction with art 55(1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana). He was sentenced to 12 strokes of the cane. The court declared as evidence of his crime his mobile phone, which he was ordered to surrender to be destroyed, and IDR 326,000, which he was ordered to surrender to the state. Bin Maneh was also ordered to pay court costs of IDR 5,000.

This provincial regulation regulates zakat (alms) management. The regulation states that alms is based on the Qur'an and Hadith, and that management of alms involves the provision of protection, fostering and service to providers of alms (muzakki), recipients of alms (mustahiq), and parties involved in the collection, storage, protection, registration, and dissemination of alms (amil zakat).