SHARIAsource

Appellant Ila Alkamawa was the next door neighbor of appellee Hassan Bello’s father. When his father died, Bello offered to sell Alkamawa the late man’s house for 30,000 naira. Alkamawa told Bello that the price was too high, prompting the latter to search for an alternate buyer. A third man, Malami Yaro, agreed to purchase the home from Bello for 26,000 naira. Alkamawa brought suit in an Area Court under Islamic Law. He argued that the sale should be set aside so that he might be able to exercise his right of Shuf’ah (first refusal), which, he argued, would allow him to purchase his neighbor's home at the price Yaro had paid. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bello, finding that Alkamawa did not enjoy the right of Shuf’ah as applied to his neighbor's home. Such a right is not recognized by the Maliki School, the madhhab "which is applicable generally to [the] Northern States of Nigeria," the Court concluded.  

Following the loss of the last Muslim-controlled territory in Spain in 1491, remaining Muslims came under significant pressure to accept baptism and adopt Christian customs. In response to this situation, a North African mufti, believed to be Abu al-Abbas Ahmad ibn Abi Jum'ah al-Maghrawi al-Wahrani, wrote the Oran Fatwa in 1504. The fatwa lauds Muslims in Spain for continuing to practice their religion in the face of oppression. It also specifies ways in which Muslims may alter the ways they carry out the commands of Islam in order to ensure their survival.

The Malaysian Supreme Court case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor arose as an appeal of the mandatory death sentences issued to three men sentenced for either drug or firearms crimes under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 or the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, respectively. In their appeal, the men argued that their mandatory death sentences were unislamic and therefore unconstitutional under Article 3 of the Malaysian constitution which established Islam as the official religion of Malaysia. Following an analysis of the constitution’s text and the historical context in which the constitution was written, the Supreme Court found that its framers could not have intended Article 3 to mean that all laws contrary to Islam would be void. Thus, the Court rejected the appellants' argument.