SHARIAsource

The plaintiffs were survivors, family members, and representatives of the estates of the American victims of the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. The plaintiffs sued Iran, utilizing an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) that allows the prosecution of foreign states that sponsor terrorism for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death. The plaintiffs pointed to the financial ties between Hezbollah (who allegedly orchestrated the attack) and Iran when arguing that Iran should be held liable. Iran did not file an answer to this claim. The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $1 billion in punitive damages.

Plaintiffs, a group of individuals harmed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, brought tort claims for damages incurred during that attack against thirty-two distinct defendants. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the charges against seven of the thirty-two defendants, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a Saudi government charity, and several Saudi princes, concluding that none of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) exceptions (which would allow suit to proceed against sovereigns or diplomats) were applicable in those cases. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision and further dismissed the case against a Saudi banker for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The plaintiff sued his former attorneys for malpractice, on the basis that they did not seek punitive damages in the plaintiff’s successful claim against Iran for being held hostage in Beirut in 1983. The plaintiff argued that by failing to name the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security as a defendant in that case, his attorneys prevented him from collecting substantial punitive damages under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. He also alleged that the attorneys charged him an excessive contingency fee. The Court dismissed the first claim, as the ability to collect punitive damages at the time was limited by President Clinton’s executive waiver of the punitive damages provision. The Court further ordered the parties to settlement discussions regarding the excessive fee complaint. The plaintiff later appealed this decision, but the case was ultimately dismissed.

Family members of an American citizen killed in a suicide bombing attack in Israel sued Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security for her wrongful death, alleging that Iran financially supported Hamas, which took responsibility for the bombing at the time of the attack. Iran did not file an answer to the charges. Invoking the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act exception for state-sponsored terrorism (allowing sovereign states that financially sponsor terrorism to be sued), the Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $9,879,023 to the victim’s husband for both economic and emotional loss of his wife. The Court awarded an additional $5,000,000 to each of the victim’s parents for emotional loss.

The estate and family members of an American serviceman killed during the 1983 bombing in Beirut, allegedly by Hezbollah, brought suit against Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security for his wrongful death. Invoking the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (a law that allows foreign nations to be immune from lawsuits from American citizens in most cases), they alleged that Iran should be held liable for providing financial support to Hezbollah. Iran did not file an answer to the charge. The Court entered judgment in favor of the family, granting compensatory damages in the amount of $13,241,486 to the serviceman’s widow, parents, and children.

The widow of an American serviceman killed during the 1983 bombing in Beirut, allegedly by Hezbollah, brought suit against Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security for compensatory damages for wrongful death, solatium (referring to “the mental anguish, bereavement, and grief that those with a close relationship to the decedent experience as a result of the decedent’s death”), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages. She sued under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (allowing sovereign states that financially sponsor terrorism to be sued), alleging that Iran provided financial support to Hezbollah. Iran did not file an answer to the charge. The Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $18,297,000 in compensatory damages for economic and emotional loss. The Court noted, however, that it could not award punitive damages against a foreign state.

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.

Injured survivors of a suicide bombing attack in Israel, allegedly by Hamas, and the family members of the deceased, sued Iran, its Ministry of Information and Security, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for compensatory damages for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of prospective income, and solatium (appropriate “when extreme and outrageous conduct has caused grief and anguish to plaintiffs closely related to a victim of terrorism”), as well as punitive damages. They brought suit under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (allowing sovereign states that financially sponsor terrorism to be sued), alleging that Iran should be liable for providing financial support to Hamas. Iran did not file an answer to the charge. The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them  compensatory damages in the amount of $111,963,607.87 for physical damages and economic and emotional loss, as well as punitive damages in the amount of $300,000,000 against the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

The U.S. accused a group of defendants of financial dealings with terrorists, on the basis that they had entered into Islamic financial agreements—specifically a profit-sharing arrangement known as a mudaraba contract—with a known leader of Hamas, a relative of one of the members of the defendant group. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found them guilty. On appeal, this Court held that there was enough evidence to suggest that the defendants knew that their relative was a designated terrorist but continued to do business with him. The Court thus upheld the District Court’s guilty verdict.

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).

This document is a beyānnāme, or declaration, sent by the Ottoman reʾīsül-kuttāb (chief scribe) to Britain's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, justifying the Ottoman declaration of war on Russia by explaining Russia's violation of treaty obligations. The document gives insight into eighteenth-century Ottoman attitudes to international law and its relationship with Islamic law. Its use of the phrase naḳż-ı ʿahd (breaking the treaty), which has its origins in a specifically Qurʾānic context illustrates one way in which war was legitimized within the Ottoman Empire. Other phrases used in the beyānnāme demonstrate how Ottoman legal plurality functioned within a martial context. 

This document is a beyānnāme, or declaration, sent by Recāī Efendi, the Ottoman reʾīsül-kuttāb (chief scribe), to Britain's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. It justifies the Ottoman declaration of war on Russia by explaining Russia's violation of treaty obligations, and gives insight into eighteenth-century Ottoman attitudes to international law and its relationship with Islamic law.

Al-Jāmiʿ is an addendum to ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī’s Muṣannaf—a collection of Hadith that bring attention to the theme of enmity between Muslims. He relates an account in which Caliph ʿUmar I (d. 23/644) reacts negatively when the spoils of a conquered territory are brought before him because of his fear that “when such opulence besets a people, God casts enmity and hatred in their midst!” This quote reveals the Caliph’s concern about how wealth would exacerbate social tensions among the people. In Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts Ahmed El Shamsy cites this account to provide historical background to the subsequent institution of progressive limitations on the eligibility criterion for serving as a witness, which aimed to address biases that might be introduced into the judiciary from internal rivalries.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts (ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.  

In this historical text, Wakīʿ documents the historical feud between Qaysī and Yamanī Arabs which precluded members of each group from testifying against the other in Muslim courts due to concerns of bias. The factional tension also affected political and judicial spheres. For example, Wakīʿ relates that the governor of Basra ʿUqba b. Salm (in office 149–50/766–67) was pressured into releasing an unjustly imprisoned man by the judge Sawār b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Qudāma (in office 138–56/ 755–73). The judge complied with this order because of pressure and instability due to factional political alliances. Given the degree to which Qaysī and Yamanī rivalries influenced the political sphere, it seems understandable that their testimony against each other was not accepted in the courtroom. Ahmed El Shamsy references this source in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts as the first of many historical cases in which progressive restrictions were placed on who might be permitted to give testimony resulting from increased political rivalry.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts (ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.  

Volume 3

In this excerpt from his manual on judicial practice, Abū Bakr Ahmad b. ʿAlī al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370/980) discusses "different types of duties to fight based on residence: an enhanced duty existed for people in frontier lands bordering enemy territory as compared to those living in the interior." Like many medieval jurists, Jaṣṣāṣ "privileges the ruler’s authority to utilize the jihād duty" for a variety of reasons, including additional strategic objectives beyond territorial defense. He also states that if a ruler desires to offensively engage the enemy in their territory, then the obligation is on individuals. For more on jihād, read Adnan A. Zulfiqar's essay “Territory and Jurisdiction” in the Roundtable on the History of Islamic International Law on the Islamic Law Blog.