SHARIAsource

This fatwa acknowledges that within society and shari'a financial institutions there has emerged a need to trade in commodities in a shari'a-friendly manner.

The fatwa dictates that commodities must be halal, legitimate, physically transferrable, be in the possession of the trader or their agent, and that all dealings must be executed pursuant to the agreement between the trader and purchaser. The fatwa also requires the Jakarta Futures Exchange to create shari'a-friendly commodities trading mechanisms, as well as facility for physical trades to be made.

This fatwa acknowledges that there are conflicting ulama opinions as to whether or not worms are fit for consumption. One states consumption of worms is haram (forbidden), while the other states that it is halal provided no inherent danger exists. Cultivation of worms, however, is not contrary to Islamic law. The fatwa also declares that crickets may be used for medicinal and cosmetic purposes, and are fit for consumption or sale provided no inherent danger exists.

This fatwa acknowledges the need for shari'a banking to expedite development and adopt the practice of mutual funds. Shari'a mutual funds may be authorised by a financial institution that is a legal entity according to current regulations. The agreement between an investor and financial institution must adhere to the mudharabah system (that is, the two parties agree to share the profits). Mutual fund investments made may not be contrary to shari'a. Such investments include gambling, prostitution, pornography, non-halal food and beverages, and financial institutions that offer interest-bearing accounts. Transactions may not carry with them excessive risk.

This fatwa states that dyeing one's hair is permissible (mubah), provided that:

1. halal and holy (suci) products are used:
2. it is intended for a shari'a-compliant purpose;
3. it brings about a benefit that is not contrary to shari'a;
4. the dye does not prevent water from coming into contact with the hair;
5. it does not bring the person misfortune; and
6. black-coloured dye, and other colours that give rise to deceit (khida') or have a negative impact, are avoided.

This fatwa acknowledges that shari'a financial institutions accumulate funds through savings, deposits, and account transfers, pursuant to shari'a-friendly contracts. Moreover, that in order to attract the public's interest in their products, shari'a financial institutions offer their customers rewards as promotions, as well as for customer loyalty. The fatwa concludes that promotional rewards may be an item or a service, but not a sum of a money. That item or service must be halal. The shari'a financial institution may set conditions vis-a-vis receipt of the reward, provided those conditions are not interest-bearing. Should the recipient breach these conditions, they are required to return the reward. Rewards are also not permitted if they are for the personal gain of an employee of the relevant financial institution, have the potential to be deemed a bribe, and/or are covertly interest-bearing.

This fatwa states that the meat and milk of livestock that is fed unclean (najis) feed or raw foodstuffs, the unclean content thereof being minimal or not significant, is fit for human consumption. Moreover, if livestock is fed haram food products which do not affect the smell or flavour of the livestock, and do not endanger the consumer, the meat and milk derived from that livestock is deemed to be halal. If the feed given to the livestock does, however, alter the smell or flavour of the livestock, and does endanger the consumer, the meat and milk derived from that livestock is forbidden (haram).

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated the parties' joint assets as several parcels of land, the proceeds from the sale of a parcel of land, as well as a Janome sewing machine.

The appellant challenged the lower court's decision on the grounds that property claimed by the respondent was not the joint assets of the parties, but rather the property of the respondent's parents, as well as the appellant's personal property. As evidence, the appellant produced a certificate of declaration from his biological mother, a certificate and declaration of a bequest from the appellant, and a certificate and declaration from the parties' four children. The Court, however, found that these supporting documents were prepared by the appellant alone at the time of the proceeding and were, therefore, inadmissible.

The Court also noted that the proceeds from the sale of joint assets sold while the marriage was still on foot did not entitle the appellant not to share the proceeds evenly with the respondent. Indeed, an even distribution of those proceeds was deemed by the Court to be halal, and an uneven distribution would be a sin (dosa). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

This fatwa acknowledges the Indonesian public's need for financial insurance, but notes that shari'a-friendly insurance agreements must not contain anything that is deliberately misleading, or that pertains to gambling, interest (riba), mistreatment, bribery, non-halal items or immorality.

The fatwa stipulates that two types of contract between a customer and insurance-provider are permissible:

1. tijarah (mudharabah - sale-purchase), whereby the insurance-provider acts as a manager and the customer is the policy-holder; and
2. tabarru' (hibah - gift), whereby a customer provides a bequest to be used to assist another affected customer.

The fatwa also stipulates that a tijarah agreement may be amended to become a tabarru' agreement if the party whose rights are denied voluntarily relinquishes those rights, thereby absolving the party who is yet to execute their obligations. A tabarru' agreement, however, may not be amended to become a tijarah agreement.

The appellant sought to challenge Cirebon Religious Court Decision 0310/Pdt.G/2014/PA.Cn, dated 7 May 2015, which had dismissed his claim in full and ordered him to pay costs (IDR 2,151,000). Principally, the appellant objected to the conduct of the three respondents, who had auctioned his property, the plaintiff submitted, contrary to the terms of the appellant's agreement with the first respondent.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the agreement between the appellant and the first respondent was halal as it met the contractual requirements stipulated in art 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata). Moreover, pursuant to art 13(1) of the agreement, the first respondent was correct to declare that the appellant had defaulted on the agreement, and, pursuant to art 13(2), was therefore entitled to provide the appellant with reminder notices. When the appellant failed to act on these reminder notices, the court found that the first respondent was entitled to make efforts to remedy the default, pursuant to art 16(1)(a) of the agreement, and one of those ways was to auction the appellant's leveraged property, pursuant to art 19 of the agreement.

This challenge to the validity of Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997 on the Surveillance and Control of Alcoholic Beverages was submitted by Front Pembela Islam (FPI - the Islamic Defenders' Front), represented by Habib Muhammad Rizieq Syihab, the founder and chairperson of FPI, and KH. Ahmad Sabri Lubis, the secterary-general of FPI.

The applicant cited several teachings from the Qur'an and Hadith, the Holy Bible, and Buddhism that prohibit the consumption of alcohol, as well as Hinduism, which discourages excessive consumption of alcohol. As a state based on the principle of One Almighty God (Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa), the applicant submitted that Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997 should, therefore, be invalidated for contradicting the religious values contained in Pancasila ('five principles' - Indonesian state ideology) and the 1945 Constitution because not one religion in Indonesia permitted or deemed halal the consumption of any alcoholic beverage. The applicant also cited the physical effects alcohol consumption can have on people, as well as other people who may fall victim to alcohol-induced theft, battery, abuse, rape, and even murder.

The applicant also submitted that Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997 was contrary to several national statutes, including arts 46 and 47 of Law No. 36 of 2009 on Health. This was because the decree only categorised alcohol rather than prohibiting it, while the detrimental effect alcohol can have on health repudiates the aim of arts 46 and 47, which is to improve the health of Indonesian citizens.

The court questioned whether the applicant believed its rights and/or authority had suffered because of Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997. It also questioned whether the applicant believed it had suffered any specific and actual loss or could potentially suffer any loss, and whether or not there was a causal relationship between that loss and the decree it was seeking to impugn. The court found in the applicant's favour in this regard, granting it the requisite legal standing. It then acceded to the application but did so on the grounds that several of the statutes that constituted the legal basis for Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997 were no longer valid laws themselves.