SHARIAsource

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.

This fatwa states that the consumption of the placenta of an animal slaughtered in a shari'a-compliant way is permitted, provided it is not hazardous for its consumer. Consumption of the placenta of a carcass, however, is forbidden (haram).

Plaintiff Peter McDaniels sued various prison officials, alleging that they intentionally failed to provide him with pre-sunrise meals during Ramadan and with an Eid al-Fitr meal at the conclusion of Ramadan, in violation of his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. The Plaintiff also contended that the lack of provision of ḥalāl meat and deprivation of an Arabic Qurʾān for nine months were discriminatory violations of his rights. The Respondents moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted the Respondents' request for summary judgment on the Ramadan meals issue, stating that the Plaintiff failed to show that such failures to provide a meal on isolated incidents imposed a significant restriction on his religious practice. However, the District Court decided that the Respondents did not meet their burden of demonstrating that the religious diet policy furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the Respondents deprived the Plaintiff of his rights by not allowing him access to a Qurʾān, finding that the Respondents were not required to provide the Plaintiff with an Arabic Qurʾān or dates to be used in his devotional practice, given the absence of any showing that Respondents prevented him from obtaining such items. The Plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief, but the Court found that the individual Respondents were entitled to qualified immunity, so they could not be held liable for personal damages under RLUIPA.

This fatwa regulates the usage of animal placenta in cosmetics and topical medications.

This fatwa regulates the cleaning of machinery used to process both halal and non-halal products with substances other than water.

This fatwa declares that the consumption of rabbit meat is halal.

This fatwa states that the fur, hair and horns from the carcass of a halal animal, including those not slaughtered in a shari'a-compliant manner, may be used for non-consumable items, but is forbidden (haram) from being consumed.

The Plaintiffs, Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) prisoners Eric Dowdy, Averis X Wilson, Roger Hunt, Amira Salem, Tom Traini, Patricia L. Caruso, Dave Burnett, and Michael Martin, alleged that the Defendants, various MDOC employees, violated their rights under federal and state constitutional provisions and RLUIPA by unlawfully restricting their religious practices. Specifically, the Plaintiffs challenged the Respondents’ alleged failure to accommodate certain religious practices which they claimed must be observed during particular days and times each week. The Muslim Plaintiffs specifically challenged that the inability to attend Friday (jumuʿa) prayer services without obtaining permission to exercise a “call-out”—permission which is often denied—violated their federal and state constitutional rights. The Muslim Plaintiffs also challenged the Respondents’ alleged failure to accommodate their religious dietary restrictions and their observance of the Eid al-Fīṭr and Eid al-Aḍḥā feasts. In response to the first allegation, the Respondents claim that there is a legitimate governmental interest in prison security that would be compromised if inmates were allowed to attend prayer services. The District Court determined, however, that while a legitimate governmental interest existed, the restriction of prayer services was not the least restrictive means of protecting this compelling interest in prison security. Accordingly, the District Court did not grant summary judgment in response to the Plaintiffs’ Friday prayer claim. In response to the second allegation, the Court determined that failure to provide Muslim inmates with a ḥalāl diet substantially burdens a religious exercise, but found that a question of fact exists as to whether the Plaintiffs received such a diet.

This fatwa states that Islam shariatises medical treatment as it constitutes a part of disease prevention. Medical treatment may not contravene shari'a, while medicine used for the purposes of medical treatment must use holy and halal ingredients. The fatwa requests that the government ensure such halal medicine is readily available, and implores business operators to have regard for halal components in medicine and not to assume that using medicine implies the patient's condition is an emergency. It also requests that authorities not certify as halal medicine containing forbidden (haram) or unclean (najis) ingredients, and implores people to always use holy and halal medicine.

This fatwa permits the provision of the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) to immunocompromised children until there is an IPV that is holy (suci) and halal.

This fatwa approves the Shafi madhab opinion that the consumption of frog meat is not halal. It does, however, permit the cultivation of frogs for other associated benefits.

This fatwa forbids the provision of bribes (risywah), corruption, and the provision of gifts to officials. If, however, a gift is provided to an official before they hold that position, provision of a gift is halal (not forbidden). It is also halal if an official receives a gift and between the gifting party and the official there is no, or will be no, official matter of business.

This fatwa defines 'income' (penghasilan) as all income, such as wages, honorariums and services obtained in a halal way. It states that from all halal income that reaches the minimum income threshold (nishab) there must derive 85 grams' worth of gold (2.5 per cent of income). Income-dervied alms can be spent when it is received if the minimum income threshold is met.

This fatwa regulates meningitis vaccinations for Muslims travelling to Saudi Arabia to perform the Hajj and Umrah. It states that vaccines containing pork are prohibited. Where no halal vaccines are available, however, vaccines containing pork are mubah (permissible).

This fatwa permits and defines shari'a multi-benefit vouchers as commercial vouchers offered to consumers to obtain access to shari'a-friendly multimedia education and entertainment (edutainment), as well as other benefits, such as:

1. long-term investment savings to encourage consumers to retain shari'a financial services;
2. discounted halal products; and
3. raffled bonus rewards.

This fatwa declares birds' nests to be holy (suci) and halal. In the event, however, that a birds' nest is unclean (najis) it must be cleaned in accordance with shari'a before consumption. The fatwa also permits the cultivation of birds' nests.

This fatwa acknowledges that shellac is a resin secreted by the lac insect that lives in plants. It declares that shellac is holy (suci) and its use in food, medicine and cosmetics is halal, provided it provides benefit and is not hazardous.

This fatwa borrows the definition of 'mutual fund' (reksa dana) from Law No. 8 of 1995 on Capital Market, defining it as:

'... a container used to collect funds from society financiers to be reinvested in a securities portfolio by an Investment Manager.'

The fatwa qualifies that there are many components of a conventional mutual fund that contravene Islamic shari'a, from a contractual perspective, as well as from investment and profit-distribution perspectives.

Among other points, the fatwa stipulates that mutual funds may not be used to invest in non-halal investments, such as gambling enterprises, conventional financial institutes that rely on interest-bearing banking activities, non-halal food and beverage distributors and producers, and insider trading. Profits must also be divided proportionally to financiers.

This fatwa states that snails are categorised as hasyarat (insect). The consumption of hasyarat is considered forbidden (haram) according to the Hanafi, Shaf'i, Hanbali, and Zhahiri schools, while Imam Malik states that hasyarat are halal if there is benefit in their consumption, and they are not hazardous. The fatwa, however, states that the consumption of snails is forbidden, as is cultivating and exploiting them for consumptive purposes.

This fatwa states that the genetic modification of flora, fauna, and microbes is permissible (mubah), provided that such modification:

1. is conducted for human benefit;
2. is not hazardous for either human beings or the environment; and
3. does not involve the use of human genes or other human body parts.

Genetically-modified flora is deemed halal and permitted for use, provided that it:

1. is of benefit; and
2. is not hazardous.

Genetically-modified fauna is halal, provided that:

1. the animal is fit for human consumption;
2. it is of benefit; and
3. it is not hazardous.

The use of genetically-modified organisms in food, medicine, and cosmetics is halal, provided that it:

1. is of benefit;
2. is not hazardous; and
3. does not derive from forbidden (haram) sources.