SHARIAsource

This fatwa defines 'shari'a share-purchase rights' (waran) as stock issued by a company that provides rights to holders of stock listed on the Shari'a Stock Listing (Daftar Efek Syariah) to order shares from a public company at a certain price for six months or more from their date of issuance. The fatwa permits a public company to issue shari'a share-purchase rights, and for holders of those rights to sell their rights to another party.  Share-purchase right-holders may only exercise that right if the resulting share can be categorised as shari'a stock.

This fatwa, among other things, states that healthcare may be administered pursuant to the following conditions:

1. agreements between individuals and collectives represented by the Social Security Administering Body (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial - BPJS) are to be in the form of mutually-beneficial gifts (akad hibah);
2. agreements between the government and individuals as recipients of fee-assistance are to be in the form of gifts, transferred to the Health BPJS as the representative of the collective;
3. agreements between collectives and the Health BPJS are wakalah or wakalah bil ujrah agreements;
4. wakalah or wakalah bil ujrah agreements are to cover the provision of authority for administrative activities, risk-management, social security funds investment/development, payments of claims by the Health BPJS to health facilities, and promotions;
5. agreements between the Health BPJS with other parties for the purposes of funding healthcare development are to take the form of a mu'awadhat agreement, for sale-purchase, ijarah, and profit-based agreements;
6. agreements between the government and the Health BPJS as a representative for collectives, are to be bequests to address healthcare funds in the red, or qardh agreements if the government does not yet have a special budget in place;
7. agreements between the Health BPJS and collectives are to be kafalah agreements or qardh agreements, to address healthcare funds in the red;
8. agreements between the Health BPJS and collectives are to be kafalah agreements or qardh agreements, to handle health social security funding asset liquidity problems;
9. agreements between the government and the Health BJPS as a representative of collectives are to be kafalah or qardh agreements, in the event the Health BPJS cannot provide bail-out funds, or cannot provide sufficient bail-out funds, to address health social security funding asset liquidity problems; and
10. agreements between the Health BPJS with health facilities are to be ijarah agreements.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court acknowledged that the appellant had endeavoured to reconcile with the respondent. Citing the opinion of ulama in Kitab Iqna' Juz II, however, it noted that it was compelled to grant the respondent a divorce because the respondent was adamant that she and the appellant could not reconcile their differences. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

This fatwa acknowledges that shari'a financial institutions declare their murabahah financing profits either as a proportion or an annuity. As one of these approaches has proven to be problematic for the financial industry and society, however, the fatwa acknowledges the need for an explanation from a shari'a perspective of the two approaches. The fatwa defines the proportional method (Thariqah Mubasyirah) as multiplying a percentage of the profit by those accounts payable that have been successfully billed, while it defines the annuity method (Thariqah al-Hisab al-Tanazuliyyah/Thariqah al Tanaqushiyyah) as multiplying a percentage of the profit by the remainder of the cost price not yet charged. The fatwa permits shari'a financial institutions to adopt either approach, provided they adhere to the following prescribed conditions:

1. The proportional approach, as used by traders, is permissible provided it is conducted pursuant to standard trading practice;
2. Shari'a financial institutions may adopt either approach, provided they do so in accordance with the standard shari'a financial institution practice;
3. The selection of a profit declaring approach in a shari'a financial institution must take heed of what is best for the development of that shari'a financial institution;
4. The preferred approach for a shari'a financial institution in a period of growth is the annuity-based approach; and
5. In the event a shari'a financial institution adopts the annuity-based approach, a portion of the profits must be from the repayment term, and may not be declared in full before all accounts payable have been paid.

This fatwa acknowledges that society requires a more detailed explanation on the shari'a multi-level direct sale of Umrah services. It addresses this by providing a raft of regulating guidelines regarding the provision and retention of services provided for those undertaking the Umrah.

This fatwa seeks to provide clarity and certainty in regards to the adoption of two different accounting systems: cash basis (declaration of costs and revenue at the time) and accrual basis (declaration of costs and revenue distributed periodically). The fatwa also acknowledges that both systems are applicable for the purpose of distribution of profits in shari'a financial institutes.

The fatwa acknowledges that both systems are permissible under Islam. It notes, however, that an accrual basis system is preferable for recording purposes, while a cash basis system is preferable for distributing profits based on actual receipts. Either way, parties must agree in writing as to which system they wish to adopt.

This fatwa acknowledges that the distribution of profits from an undertaking between parties in a joint-venture may be based on the principle of profit sharing, as well as the principle of net revenue sharing. The fatwa permits both approaches, but favours net revenue sharing for profit distribution.

This fatwa permits the provision of reserve funds, provided those funds derive from profits of the relevant shari'a financial institute. Such an approach, therefore, eliminates the possibility of having an adverse effect on the customer. The fatwa also states that, for tax purposes, a shari'a financial institute may source such reserve funds from its overall profits.

This fatwa permits a Wakalah bil Ujrah agreement to be executed between an insurance company and a policy-holder as the basis of the insurance policy agreement between the parties. It defines a Wakalah bil Ujrah as the provision of authority from a policy-holder to an insurance company to manage the funds of the policy-holder for a fee.

This fatwa defines a kafalah as a guarantee provided by an insurer (kafil) to a third party (makful lahu) to meet the obligations of the second party/insured (makful 'anhu, ashil). It also defines a Kafalah Bil Ujrah letter of credit as a guarantee provided by a shari'a financial institute pursuant to an export/import transaction made by a customer based on a kafalah agreement. Pursuant to the guarantee the shari'a financial institute also obtains a fee (ujrah).

These materials document, state by state, what each of the sharīʿa states is doing in respect of the collection and distribution of zakāt and the management of pious endowments (waqf, pl. awqāf). The materials include early proposals by Sharia Implementation Committees or Councils of Ulama for official zakāt organizations, including the doctrinal background; all statutory materials related to Zakat and Endowment Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Funds; organizational and regulatory materials issued by such bodies; a number of official reports on their activities, including types and amounts of zakāt collected and distributed and endowments established; and other information collected in the course of fieldwork.

These materials are a part of The Nigeria Papers – a SHARIAsource Special Collection, compiled and edited by Independent Scholar Philip Ostien and others. 

This fatwa states that capital market, as well as all mechanisms and activities associated therein, accord with shari'a if they meet shari'a principles. Moreover, a security is deemed to meet shari'a principles if it obtains a Shari'a Compatibility Declaration. It specifies that transactions must not be speculative or manipulative, nor may they contain components that are excessively risky, interest-bearing, immoral or the like.

The applicants submitted an application for child adoption to the court stating that:

1. they were married on 3 January 2001;
2. they wished to adopt their neighbour's child, Muhammad Hashif Hasbullah;
3. they had already cared for the child since 10 January 2016;
4. their primary motivation for wanting to adopt the child was that the child was still their neighbour, and that they also wanted the child to maintain a connection with his mother;
5. the child's biological parents had already transferred temporary custody of the child to the applicants; and
6. their other motivation being that the child was their nephew.

The court cited art 39 of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, stating that:

1. child adoption can only be carried out if it serves the child's best interests, and meets local customs and norms and current legislative regulations;
2. child adoption does not sever the child's blood connection with its biological parents; and
3. the prospective adoptive parents must be of the same religion as the child.

The court also acknowledged that these legislative requirements accorded with the Qur'an, Surat An-Nisa', verse 144, and a fatwa issued by the Indonesian Council of Ulama (U-335/MUI/VI/1982).

The court acceded to the applicants' request, finding that the applicants had met the legislative requirements to adopt the child in question.

This regional regulation makes amendments to Payakumbuh Municipal Regulation No. 1 of 2003 on the Prevention, Action, and Eradication of Social Ills/Immoral Practices.

This regional regulation makes provision for the management of zakat (alms), infaq (property donated by a person or entity, outside of zakat, for the purpose of public welfare), and sadaqah (property donated by a Muslim or entity owned by a Muslim, outside of zakat, for the purpose of public welfare), through the Badan Amil Zakat (Alms Administering Body), in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi (Sulawesi Selatan). The provision of zakat, infaq and sadaqah, according to the regulation, is to increase societal welfare.

This qanun provides slight amendments to Aceh Qanun No. 8 of 2012 on the Wali Nanggroe Institution. For all intents and purposes, the resulting amendments, which only change the wording of some articles slightly, do not make any fundamental functional changes to the original qanun.

The plaintiff submitted that, since November 2012, it had worked with the first defendant in a gold investment joint-venture, the plaintiff as the investor and the first defendant as the funds manager. As the investor, the plaintiff maintained it was entitled to claim interest and capital returns. Moreover, that had the first defendant been punctual in providing the plaintiff its investment returns, the plaintiff could have invested those monies in the property market since 2013, thereby yielding a 20 per cent return (IDR 226,008,700) per annum. The plaintiff based other similar claims on other invoices to which it believed it was entitled to the resulting interest.

The third defendant was the Shari’a Supervisory Council (Dewan Pengawas Syariah) and acted as the halal certification body. It was also a share-holder in the first defendant, and worked with the first defendant. It had provided the first defendant with MUI (Majelis Ulama Indonesia) halal logos, which were placed on invoices between the plaintiff and first defendant. In an email to the fourth defendant, the third defendant had conceded that it had provided halal and shari’a labels to the first defendant, whereas the first defendant had already sold intangible investment products that were not halal and shari’a-compliant. While it knew about this, the third defendant continued to provide the first defendant with halal and shari’a labels. The fourth defendant, other than being the Economic and Halal Product Chair, and Chair of Yayasan Dana Dakwah Pembangunan (Proselytisation Funds Foundation), was the primary financial stake holder of the first defendant, as well as its accountant, and had already been negligent in managing its finances, resulting in a financial irregularity. The fifth defendant, as a 10 per cent shareholder, the plaintiff alleged, should also be held responsible for financial mismanagement because it received a 10 per cent profit from the first defendant annually.

The second defendant had transferred IDR 1 billion to the fifth defendant as a 'donation', establishing its involvement in the first defendant’s default, the plaintiff claimed. The plaintiff also asserted that the second defendant had spent approximately IDR 56 billion on the former management, not on customers or any new developments. As a result, the plaintiff lodged three warning notices with the first respondent to pay its financial obligations resulting from the invoices. The plaintiff alleged that the first and second respondents did not heed its warnings and, in bad faith, attempted to avoid their financial obligations vis-à-vis the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought IDR 1,130,043,500 in actual damages, and a 4.5 per cent late fee per month, totalling IDR 50,851,957, calculated from March 2013. In compensatory damages, it sought IDR 10 billion. The court found, however, that as the plaintiff had failed to properly identify the first defendant, its claim had to fail.

The 12 plaintiffs claimed that they were prospective cooperative members that had deposited money into a futures fund with Koperasi Serba Usaha Syari'ah Baitul Maal Wat Tamwil Islam Sejahtera (BMT ISRA) for family reasons that may emerge in the future. The plaintiffs alleged that the first and second defendants, the Director and Chairperson of BMT ISRA respectively, did not implement a cooperative system, viz. cooperative funds or capital sourced from a principal pool of funds and obligatory funds from cooperative members. Rather, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had sourced funds from customers who were members of the cooperative, prospective members of the cooperative, as well as those who were neither. The defendants did, though, obtain a share of profits (nisbah), and in their management of the funds, used a shari'a-style system that did not involve interest (riba).

Initially, the plaintiffs received their share of the profits promptly, but when their profit share for November 2010 did not materialise, the plaintiffs sought to bill the defendants for it, and to retrieve their futures investment. BMT ISRA, however, had closed. The plaintiffs had learned from news circulations that it was not only the Brebes branch that had closed, but almost all BMT ISRA branches. They had also learned that the first and second defendants, as director and chairperson, were legally implicated. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had shown a lack of good faith with respect to them, and collectively sought from the defendants IDR 282 million in initial funds not yet returned, as well as IDR 62,286,3000 in unpaid profit share (total: IDR 344,286,300).

In addition to dismissing the plaintiffs' claim in its entirety, the second defendant argued that the court was precluded from adjudicating the matter as the plaintiffs had deposited monies in Brebes, not Bantul. Moreover, both the first and second defendants objected on the grounds that they were not director and chairperson respectively, according to the deed of establishment of BMT ISRA, and that Koperasi Serba Usaha Syariah Baitul Maal Wat Tamwil Islam Sejahtera was not included in the deed. The defendants also maintained that they themselves had not entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the second defendant's objection, finding it was authorised to adjudicate the case. It also found that the parties had indeed entered into an agreement together, pursuant to which the plaintiffs were entitled to the return of investment funds already paid (IDR 193 million), but not the resulting profit share (IDR 38,693,700). Neither were they entitled to the IDR 79 million not yet paid and resulting IDR 23,592,600 in profit share.

The court cited Fatwa No. 7 of the National Shari'a Board - Indonesian Council of Ulama, noting that a Mudhorobah financing agreement entails the shari'a financial institution financing 100 per cent of the project, while the customer(s) acts as the enterprise manager. Moreover, that the parties to the agreement are to agree on when funds are to be returned, and when profit shares are to be distributed, and that the shari'a financial institution is to bear all financial losses resulting from the agreement, except for that resulting from the customer's fault (intentionally or negligently) or contravention of the agreement. With regards to profit sharing, the Fatwa dictates that it must be divided between the two parties, and the percentages of the proportions to be divided must be included in the agreement. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, as their agreement did not adhere to the latter point, the court could not order the defendants to pay to them the IDR 38,693,700 in resulting profit share.

On 1 August 1988, the applicants were married. While they had no children of their own, they had raised and cared for a child named Muh. Ilham, now aged 21 years. Muh. Ilham's parents had given him to the applicants to care for because they had two other children for whom providing financially was already a struggle (at the time Muh. Ilham's father was unemployed, only working as a farmer). The applicants had been prepared to raise Muh. Ilham as their own and were able to bear the costs associated with caring for and educating Muh. Ilham because the first applicant had a steady salary with the Indonesian National Military's ground forces (Tenaga Nasional Indonesia - Angkatan Darat). The applicants requested that they be stipulated as Muh. Ilham's legal adoptive parents.

The court cited art 171(h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which states that an adopted child is a child for whom the responsibility to cover their educational costs and the like is transferred from their biological parents to their adoptive parents, pursuant to a court judgment. Moreover, pursuant to art 49(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, for the sake of legal certainty, an adoption based on Islamic law requires a religious court determination.

The court found that, pursuant to Islamic legal provisions, child adoption is legal if the following conditions are met:

1. the child's welfare is prioritised;
2. the child's educational expenses and the like are covered, per art 171(h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws;
3. the child's adoption does not sever the bloodline between the child and his/her parents;
4. the child's adoption does not result in the child being deemed to share bloodline, inheritance or any other legal relationship with his/her adoptive parents, except for the responsibilities mentioned above in point 2;
5. the child is to inherit one-third of their parents' estate, pursuant to art 209 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws;
6. the child's adoption requires an agreement between the adoptive parents and the representative or person/legal entity facilitating the adoption;
7. the adoption must adhere to current laws vis-a-vis the prospective adoptive parents;
8. the adoption must adhere to current laws for the sake of the child;
9. the adoption of a Muslim child is to adhere to the fatwa of the Indonesian Council of Ulama, No: U-335/MUI 182 of 10 June 1982; and
10. in the interests of legal certainty, child adoption, pursuant to Islamic law and art 171(h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be ratified by a religious court decision.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court acknowledged that, even though Muh. Ilham was 21 years of age and adoption was no longer appropriate, the history and nature of the applicants' relationship with Muh. Ilham was such that he could be declared their adopted child.

Fatwā concerning the legality, based on their interpretation of Islamic law, of a) the responsibility of mosque officials to prevent unwell congregants from entering a mosque’s premises and b) the temporary suspension of congregational and Friday prayers, and subsequent mosque closures. The answer provided by the Fatwa Committee, who met on 18 February 2020, is that a) mosques’ management has the religious duty to request or prohibit any unwell congregants from entering the mosque area, whether for performing prayers or other matters and the closing of a mosque and b) the suspension of congregational prayers and Friday prayers during this situation, is required.