SHARIAsource

This statute regulates the Indonesian Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi). Specifically, it regulates the Court's position in the court hierarchy, as well as its judicial composition, and the types of cases it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate. The statute also regulates the appointment and resignation/dismissal of Constitutional Court judges.

This Supreme Court jurisdiction states that divorce can be granted where a marriage is marred by irreconcilable ongoing conflict, to the extent that, with the approval of both the families of both parties, the parties are no longer co-existing under the same roof.

In response to the decision that the Federal (civil) High Court holds jurisdiction over syariah courts on the matter of legal custody in Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & ORS (2013), Pathmanathan Krishnan successfully appealed his case in 2015 to the Civil Court of Appeals in Pathmanathan Krishnan v. Indira Gandhi Mutho & Other Appeals (2015). The Court of Appeals held that first, the Judicial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to determine the issue of the children’s conversion to Islam as the validity of the conversion of any person to the religion of Islam and status of whether a person is a Muslim or not was “a matter falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Shariah Court under section 50 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004.” Secondly, the court held that the learned Judicial Commissioner had “committed a grave error when he approached the jurisdiction issue” by venturing into the constitutional construct of the fundamental liberties.

The Sultan of Brunei enacted this document on March 31, 1908, with the approval of M.S.H. MacArthur, British Resident of Brunei. It establishes the structure and jurisdiction of Brunei's courts, the maximum penalties they can impose, and the codes that they are to follow. Most of these were codes already in force in the Straits Settlements or Federated Malay States.

In this case, the El Paso Appeals Court addressed the issue of whether the lower court had denied Dickerson a hearing on Doyle's forum non conveniens motion. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court, holding that the court could have even declined jurisdiction on the same grounds on its own and that Dickerson was given a fair hearing on the issue.

This case was brought by the parents of Maria Huberdina Hertogh for the following reliefs: that Hertogh's marriage to Inche Mansoor Adabi be declared void and of no effect; that Inche Mansoor Adabi be ordered to deliver Hertogh to the custody of the Consul-General for the Netherlands; that the Consul-General for the Netherlands be free to restore Hertogh to her parents; and that Inche Mansoor Adabi and Amina Binte Mohamed be prohibited from removing Hertogh from the jurisdiction of the court pending the hearing of the application. The Court ruled that it did have jurisdiction to declare the marriage void, that the marriage was invalid, and that Hertogh should be returned to the custody of her mother.

This appeal against the ruling reported in Malaya Law Journal XVII 12 was made on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to declare void the marriage between Maria Huberdina Hertogh and Inche Mansor Adabi, that Hertogh was a Muslim "in fact and in law," and that her marriage to Inche Mansor Adabi was valid. The Court ruled that the declaration of the illegality of the marriage was beyond the Court's jurisdiction, but that Hertogh was domiciled in Holland. As Inche Mansor Adabi had not proven that the marriage was valid by the laws of Holland, the Court had rightly ordered custody of Hertogh to be returned to her parents.

This presidential decree implements the provisions of Law No. 18 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for the Special Province of Aceh. The decree covers the name, jurisdiction, and authority, of the shari'a courts, as well as the status of employees, infrastructure, and financial resources. Notably, the increase in the courts' authority extended to criminal and public law, as well as worship (ibadat) and Islamic symbolism (syiar).

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

The appellant strongly objected to the lower court's lack of sensitivity towards the fact that this case, he claimed, came under the jurisdiction of another shari'a court. The Court acknowledged the appellant's concern, noting that, pursuant to art 73(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, amended by Law No. 3 of 2006, in conjunction with art 132(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the respondent had filed for divorce with the religious court in her new residential jurisdiction, despite the respondent having left the parties' place of residence without the appellant's permission, and relocating to Aceh Timur (East Aceh). As the evidence and reason relating to why the respondent had relocated was dubious, the Court found that the Idi Shari'a Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the hearing at first instance, appointing the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court as the appropriate forum instead.

A foreign Pakistani custody decree was entitled to comity because the Pakistani custody decree was based on the best interests of the children.

This qanun regulates the shari'a courts (Mahkamah Syar'iyah) of Aceh, as well as the personnel and hierarchy therein. It also defines the areas of law over which the courts have jurisdiction, those being al-syakhshiyah (family law), mu'amalah (civil and commercial law), and jinayat (criminal law). The elucidation of the qanun defines jinayat as including offences such as zina (extra-marital sex), accusation of zina, murder, physical abuse, alcohol consumption, gambling, and failure to abide by prayer and fasting requirements.

This citation manual provides an "open and compatible implementation of a uniform system of citation" for the laws, cases, and secondary materials of all jurisdictions, globally. The Indigo Book is available in both PDF (below) and HTML (through this link). It is not affiliated with The Columbia Law Review Association, Inc., The Harvard Law Review Association, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc., or The Bluebook® A Uniform System of Citation®. 

A Muslim former Naval engineer sued the Secretary of the Navy under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on religion and national origin. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he was subjected to ethnic slurs and jokes, leading to a hostile work environment. The Court adopted the report by the magistrate judge granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust proper administrative remedies before bringing the case to court. The Court further noted that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the compensatory damage issue.

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Republic of Indonesia (Republik Indonesia), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Indonesia's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. However, one province—Aceh Province—has established Islamic law formally within its jurisdiction.

This document shows the ruling made by Judge Datuk Hanipah Farikullah of Malaysia’s Federal High Court that only the Syariah Court has the power to decide on the validity of the Selangor fatwā that labelled the activist organization Sisters In Islam (SIS Forum) as a “deviant group” for promoting “liberalism” and “religious pluralism.” This ruling shows the grounds on which the decision was made that the [civil] High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the Sister in Islam’s application for judicial review to challenge the validity of the fatwā issued by the Selangor Fatwa Committee.

Ethiopian law allows personal and family law matters to be adjudicated in sharīʿa courts as long as all parties voluntarily submit to the courts’ jurisdiction. This Proclamation spells out three levels of sharīʿa courts: (1) the Federal First-Instance Court of Sharia, (2) the Federal High Court of Sharia (which hears appeals and cases above a certain monetary threshold), and (3) the Federal Supreme Court of Sharia. The courts apply Islamic law but follow civil rules of procedure. The Federal Courts of Sharia are the country’s only official courts that apply religious law.

This enactment "consolidate[s] the law relating to the Religious Council and State Custom, the Kathis Courts, the constitution and organization of religious authorities and the regulation of religious affairs." It was enacted by the Sultan in Council and during the Residency of J.O. Gilbert, to take effect on February 1, 1956. It establishes a Religious Council (Majlis) and defines its composition, powers and responsibilities. It also establishes the jurisdiction and procedure of the Religious Courts in Brunei, and has sections on family law, criminal law, and laws of religious observance. Its provisions are divided into ten parts and 204 sections.

Lawmakers in Brunei passed the Syariah Courts Criminal Procedure Code Order in 2018, and it took effect on January 1, 2019. The Code details procedures to be followed in implementing the country’s Syariah Penal Code Order of 2013, parts of which took effect in 2014 and the remainder of which took effect in 2019. The SCCPCO outlines the structure and jurisdiction of the Islamic (Syariah) courts as well as procedures for arrest, summons, warrants, trials, sentencing, implementation of punishment, and appeals.

Lawmakers in Brunei passed the Syariah Courts Criminal Procedure Code Order in 2018, and it took effect on January 1, 2019. The Code details procedures to be followed in implementing the country’s Syariah Penal Code Order of 2013, parts of which took effect in 2014 and the remainder of which took effect in 2019. The SCCPCO outlines the structure and jurisdiction of the Islamic (Syariah) courts as well as procedures for arrest, summons, warrants, trials, sentencing, implementation of punishment, and appeals.

The case concerned a couple married in the United States according to Islamic law, who had a child custody dispute. The mother, among other things, contended that she should have custody as East Jerusalem, where the husband resided, had become dangerous.  The father filed a claim for custody in the Sharia Court of Israel. The Massachusetts Appeals Court remanded the case to the probate court for further consideration, including the issue of whether it had jurisdiction in the matter, thus not engaging any substantive issues related to Islamic family law.