Search | SHARIAsource

Abū ʿUmar Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Kindī, Kitāb al-Wulāt wa-kitāb al-quḍāt. Page 477.

Abū ʿUmar Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Kindī, Edited by Rhuvon Guest, Posted by Daniel Jacobs, 04 November 2020

Show Summary

Abū ʿUmar Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Kindī, Kitāb al-Wulāt wa-kitāb al-quḍāt. Page 506.

Abū ʿUmar Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Kindī, Edited by Rhuvon Guest, Posted by Daniel Jacobs, 04 November 2020

Show Summary

Country Profile: Senegal

Nazow Tarakai

Show Summary

Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision No. 19 of 2008: Constitutionality of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Posted by Daniel Peterson, 23 September 2016

Show Summary

The applicant, Suryani, requested that the Constitutional Court review the constitutionality of art 49 (and its elucidatory statement) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary. Article 49 of Law No. 7 of 1989 states: 'Religious courts are tasked and authorised to investigate, determine, and resolve cases in the first instance between persons of the Islamic faith in the areas of: a. marriage (perkawinan); b. inheritance (waris); c. wills (wasiat); d. gifts (hibah); e. endowments (wakaf); f. alms-giving (zakat); g. infaq; h. shadaqah; and i. shari'a economy (ekonomi syari'ah). The applicant submitted that art 49 circumscribed his constitutional right to freedom of religion and to practise that religion in accordance with that religion's teachings, as guaranteed by arts 28E(1), 28I(1) and (2), and 29(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

In dismissing the application, Justice Moh. Mahfud MD, on behalf of the court, noted that the applicant's submissions were incompatible with the relationship between the state and religion in Indonesia. Specifically, Moh. Mahfud MD held that Indonesia is not a country based on one religion, nor is it a secular state that transfers religious affairs to the individual and society. Rather, Indonesia is a state based on the belief in Almighty God (ber-Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa), which protects every person's right to practise their respective religion. In abiding by the Indonesian state philosophy of Pancasila ('five principles'), national law must, therefore, guarantee state ideology and territorial integrity, while facilitating just and courteous religious tolerance. It follows that Indonesian national law is a vehicle for national unity and that the Indonesian state is not based on majoritarianism or minoritarianism, ethnicity or race. While it can be said that Islamic law constitutes a source of national laws, it is not the sole source thereof, with customary (adat) law, Western law, and other traditional legal sources also serving as sources of national law.

Giri Menang Religious Court Decision No. 207 of 2013 on Asset Distribution to Beneficiaries

Pengadilan Agama Giri Menang, Posted by Daniel Peterson, 04 September 2015

Show Summary

The plaintiffs stated that Amaq Sidin and Inaq Sidin (husband and wife) had passed away in 1983 and 1986 respectively, and were survived by their five children and beneficiaries (three sons and two daughters):

Sidin bin Amaq Sidin (alias Amaq Kidi), who passed away in 1980, was married to Inaq Kidi, who also passed away in 1985. They were survived by three children:

Kidi, who passed away in 2008, and was survived by three of her own children (14th, 15th and 16th plaintiffs);
Mendur bin Sidin (alias Amaq Kidi) (first plaintiff);
Sriti binti Sidin (alias Amaq Kidi) (second defendant);
Nawati binti Amaq Mundri, who passed away in 1990, and was survived by her three children (eighth-tenth plaintiffs);
Idaniati binti Amaq mundri (11th plaintiff);
Ayuni binti Amaq Mundri (12th plaintiff); and
Ariantini binti Amaq Mundri (13th plaintiff).

Cili (alias Inaq Saidi binti Amaq Sidin), who passed away in 2003, was married to Amaq Saidi, and was survived by seven children, two of whom had passed away (third-seventh plaintiffs);
Amaq Rusdi bin Amaq Sidin (first defendant);
Amaq Mugasih bin Amaq Sidin (second defendant);
Marike (alias Inaq Mundri binti Amaq Sidin), who passed away in 1982, having married Amaq Mundri in 1980, who had also passed away, was survived by:

Nawati binti Amaq Mundri, who passed away in 1990, and was survived by her three children (eighth-tenth plaintiffs);
Idaniati binti Amaq mundri (11th plaintiff);
Ayuni binti Amaq Mundri (12th plaintiff); and
Ariantini binti Amaq Mundri (13th plaintiff).

Amaq Sidin and Inaq Sidin left to their beneficiaries three plantations, two rice padis, and one coil made of pure gold with an estimated worth of IDR 1 billion. The plaintiffs claimed that, following the passing of Amaq and Inaq Sidin, the land and gold coil had remained in the possesion of the defendants as the deceaseds' sons, without being distributed among the other worthy beneficiaries. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants had sold several portions of the bequeathed land to the co-defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested that the court distribute the assets of the deceased pursuant to Islamic inheritance law (hukum faraidl), that those portions of the aforementioned land already sold be included as part of the assets of the deceased, that a caveat be placed on that land not yet transferred to any third party, and that the plaintiffs' case be prioritised over any other related proceedings already on foot.

In enforcing the rights of the children of those beneficiaries who had passed away prior to Amaq and Inaq Sidin, the court cited arts 74(1) and 85(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which permits the children of a deceased beneficiary to assume their entitlement. Moreover, the court noted that male children were entitled to twice the share of female children, per art 176 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court stipulated as beneficiaries the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to transfer to the plaintiffs their share of the assets of Amaq and Inaq Sidin, as it had outlined and quantified, and ordered the defendants to auction parts or all of the properties if such a transfer was not physically feasible. It also ordered the defendants to pay court costs (IDR 2,371,000).

Aceh Shari'a Court Decision No. 78 of 2010

Mahkamah Syar'iyah Aceh, Posted by Daniel Peterson, 08 June 2015

Show Summary

Syarifah binti Abdurrahman perished in the tsunami of 26 December 2004. The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) stipulated as the deceased's beneficiaries: Nurhayati binti Abdurrahman (sister and first appellant); Nurjannah binti Abdurrahman (sister, deceased); Jumiati binti Abdul Wahab (daughter and co-first appellant); M. Amin bin Abdul Wahab (daughter and co-second appellant); Maisarah binti Abdul Wahab (daughter and co-third appellant); Hazmin bin Abdan (nephew and first respondent); and M. Ali bin Abdan (nephew and second respondent).

The lower court stipulated as the deceased's estate three shops and three parcels of land, and divided the estate among the parties as follows: the first appellant (one-quarter); Nurjannah binti Abdurrahman (one-quarter, transferred to the second-eighth appellants and fourth co-appellant); the co-first, co-second and co-third appellants (one-quarter); and the first and second respondents (one-quarter).

The appellants appealed the decision on the grounds that the respondents' initial claim lacked clarity. The Court, however, found that it was sufficiently clear both in terms of identifying the then-defendants (now appellants), as well as the property subject of their claim as the deceased's estate.

The Court found fault with the way in which the lower court had distributed the estate among the beneficiaries. It noted that two or more sisters were only entitled to a two-thirds share, in accordance with surat An-Nisa, verse 176 from the Qur'an. As one of the deceased's siblings (Ansari binti Ibrahim) had passed away before her, art 185 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws dictated that Ansari's inheritance claims devolved to her heirs. Accordingly, Nurjannah binti Ibrahim's share became that of her heirs as well, as she had passed away in 2007 after the deceased.

In accordance with the Qur'an and art 182 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sisters that pass away are only entitled to a two-thirds share, and are not entitled unless there are no ashabah beneficiaries (beneficiaries from the father's side, not specifically bequeathed any part of the deceased's estate), per art 193 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Based on the hierarchy of ashabah beneficiaries, the Court found that the respondents as nephews of the deceased were indeed ashabah beneficiaries in this instance, as no closer male relative existed.

Accordingly, the Court distributed the deceased's estate as follows: the first appellant (two-ninths); Nurjannah binti Abdurrahman (two-ninths, transferred to the second-eighth appellants and fourth co-appellant); the co-first, co-second and co-third appellants (two-ninths); and the first and second respondents (three-ninths).