SHARIAsource

In June 2020, the Court of Appeal in The Hague convicted a former teacher associated with the mosque for advocating female genital mutilation (FGM). The court sentenced him to 80 hours of community service for sedition and incitement to commit violence against women, emphasizing that his public statements promoting FGM were illegal and harmful.

This fatwa declares the prohibition on female circumcision to be in contravention with shari'a provisions on circumcision, both for men and women. It specifies that female circumcision only requires the removal of the membrance that covers the clitoris. The fatwa requests that the Indonesian government and Department of Health take the necessary steps to make the fatwa a reference point for the stipulation of a regulation regarding female circumcision, and that the government and Department of Health provide medical staff with the necessary training to enable them to perform such an operation in accordance with the fatwa.

This fatwa defines the aurat as the entire body, except for the face and palms of the hands. It states that female medical personnel may expose the area from their hands to their elbows if an urgent medical-related need exists. In addition, the fatwa states that occupational clothing must be made from non-transparent material and not show the shape of the body.

This fatwa states that:

1. women who leave their families to work in another city or overseas may do so provided they are accompanied by a relative, family or a trusted women's organisation;
2. it is haram (forbidden) to send female workers to another city or overseas if they are not accompanied by a family member or a member of a trusted organisation, except in an emergency situation that can be accounted for, and where their safety and dignity is guaranteed;
3. all parties and organisations involved in the provision of female workers are liable; and
4. the Indonesian government, organisations and other relevant parties are obliged to guarantee the safety and dignity of female workers, and to establish a legal protection organisation or trusted organiastion in every relevant country and city where female workers are sent, again, to guarantee their safety and dignity.

This fatwa states that a woman may not act as a prayer imam if a man is present in the congregation. It is, however, permissible (mubah) if the congregation comprises women exclusively.

This regional regulation makes provision for the obligation on Muslims in Solok Selatan, West Sumatra, to wear Muslim dress. Dress standards apply to workers, school students, both male and female.

A female applicant filed a complaint against the Traffic Police for refusing to grant her a motorcycle license. The Court of Administrative Justice rejected the argument that the police department was allowed to issue such a license only for men and stated that riding a motorcycle has nothing to do with gender and is not prohibited under law.

The prosecution submitted that, on 28 April 2010 at around 9.30pm, the male and female co-accused were found in close proximity together out of wedlock (khalwat). Specifically, the female co-accused had allegedly left her home to purchase noodles, unbeknownst to her husband and without his blessing. After leaving her home, the female co-accused had collected the first witness and met the male co-accused, who had been waiting for her at a roadside point. The female co-accused then told the first witness to leave her alone with the male co-accused. Both co-accused were allegedly found in close proximity with one another by the husband of the female co-accused (the second witness). When the second witness found the two co-accused, the male co-accused allegedly left the scene.

The prosecution submitted that the conduct of the co-accused contravened arts 5 and 22(2) of Aceh Qanun No. 14 of 2003. Accordingly, it requested that the court sentence the co-accused to two months' imprisonment, and that it order both co-accused to pay a fine of IDR 5 million each.

The court dismissed the application of the prosecution on the grounds that, on the evidence before it, the co-accused had not committed khalwat, as defined in art 2 of Aceh Qanun No. 14 of 2003. Specifically, the definition of khalwat specifies that the conduct of both parties must be heading towards adultery (zina). Based on the submissions made by all the relevant parties, the court concluded that the conduct of the co-accused resembled an ordinary conversation. Therefore, citing art 191(1) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure, the court released the co-accused on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to establish any misconduct on their part.

The document discussed in this essay is an English translation of an Israeli Supreme Court (the “Court”) decision from 2013 in which the Supreme Sharia Court of Appeals (“Sharia Court of Appeals”) is a respondent. The decision resolved a petition made against the Sharia Court of Appeals ruling that it is impermissible to appoint a female arbitrator in a divorce proceeding before a Sharia Court. The Court overturned the Sharia Court of Appeal’s decision on the basis of Israeli equal rights legislation (and Ḥanafī-style legal reasoning) and remanded it back to the Sharia Courts for further arbitration with the option of choosing a female arbitrator.

This court record, from the Islamic court of Tripoli (Lebanon) in April 1679 revolves around the fate of a female slave in the household of a recently deceased provincial Janissary. In short, the enslaved woman (Raziya bt. Abd Allah) successfully wins her manumission through the legal norm of “umm walad,” in which an enslaved woman who bears her master’s child should be manumitted after his death. This case is remarkable because, as Raziya explains, she miscarried after carrying the fetus for four months. Based on a fatwa and some rather extraordinary witness testimony, the judge agrees that Raziya holds the status of umm walad, even though she was never visibly pregnant and did not give birth to a baby.

This case offers a view into Islamic laws of slavery, manumission, sexuality and reproduction in a middling-elite, early modern household. In particular, it illustrates forms of exploitation endured by female slaves within the household, but suggests that enslaved people could be empowered by the shari’a court system and had knowledge of the legal strategies available to them under Islamic law. In this case, a female slave successfully wins her manumission after her master’s death. According to the record, she is exploited first by her master for sexual purposes, and subsequently by her master’s widow who attempts to keep her as part of her late-husband’s estate. Ultimately, the case offers an example of how the sharīʿa court could work in favor of the socially weaker party at the expense of more politically and economically powerful actors. At the same time, the case highlights several ways in which the formulaic structures of the sijills obscure crucial aspects of motive, consequence, and interpersonal relationships between legal actors joined together by blood, affection, and misfortune.

A female Muslim employee sued her former employer under Title VII and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA) for discrimination based on religion. The plaintiff claimed that she was suspended and then terminated from her job for failing to remove her religiously mandated head-covering (ḥijāb). The Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff’s claim was untimely, having passed the statute of limitations for both Title VII and the DCHRA.

Government Regulation Number 28 of 2024 implements Indonesia’s Health Law (Law Number 17 of 2023), introducing significant reforms to the healthcare system. The regulation strengthens hospital governance, sets standards for medical services, and enhances oversight of foreign medical personnel. It also addresses public health concerns by regulating processed foods, controlling substances like tobacco, and incorporating digital health technologies. Notably, the regulation explicitly prohibits female genital mutilation (FGM), marking a critical step in safeguarding women's and girls' health and rights in Indonesia, aligning national policies with global human rights standards.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent had been married for 39 years and one month, 38 years and seven months of which had been harmonious. Since January 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because:

1. the respondent would always threaten the applicant with a kitchen knife;
2. the respondent would often become jealous of the applicant's female employee for no apparent reason, causing the employee to no longer want to work for the applicant;
3. the applicant felt distressed as a result of the respondent's attitude; and
4. the respondent would often utter profanities that the applicant deemed inappropriate from a wife.

The respondent's behaviour had caused the applicant to leave the matrimonial home in January 2011, and the parties had remained separated for the six months prior to the proceeding. The parties had, however, remained in contact.

The applicant subsequently agreed to withdraw his claim after coming to an agreement with the respondent, the conditions of which were:

1. the applicant would alter that of his behaviour which upset the respondent, such as favouring one employee over another;
2. the applicant would no longer transport on his motorcycle his female employee of which the respondent was suspicious;
3. the respondent would no longer threaten the applicant with sharp objects;
4. the respondent would no longer behave in ways that upset the applicant; and
5. both parties would abide by their statements.

The general prosecutor submitted that the two accused, on Sunday 11 September 2005, at approximately 3:40pm (Western Indonesian Time), were found in close proximity with one another out of wedlock (khalwat), in the offices of the Star Moon Party (Partai Bulan Bintang). The shari'a police (Wilayatul Hisbah) attended the offices after receiving a tip-off via telephone from a witness named Fuadi, who had called around 4:30pm (Western Indonesian Time) regarding a member of the Regional People's Consultative Assembly (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah), whom he suspected to be in the act of khalwat with a woman. Fuadi also reported his suspicions to Said Zulkarnaini, a shari'a police team commandant, after which Said Zulkarnaini and 10 shari'a police officials attended the Party offices.

Upon their arrival, another witness (Iskandar) attempted to peak through a window on both sides of the office, only to find that all the curtains had been drawn. Seeing that an air-conditiong compressor on the right-hand side of the building was still active, Iskandar believed that there were people inside the room. Meanwhile, Said Zulkarnaini and Fuadi approached the front-door, knocking approximately six times, while making verbal greetings to the people inside the room. Fuadi unsuccessfuly tried to force the door open twice, but on the third occasion, the door was opened from the inside by one of the accused. Fuadi introduced himself and requested his permission to inspect the office, but after entering the room, another witness (Irwan) saw the other accused looking nervous, somewhat frightened, reading a newspaper upside down, with her lipstick smeared. Irwan also saw a motorcycle parked at the office's waiting room, as well as a white bag belonging to the female accused on the work desk of the male accused. After inspecting the room, it appeared that there were no other people present. When one of the witnesses requested to see the identity card of the female accused, the male accused instructed her to keep it concealed. When the female accused was prevented from exiting the room by another wintess (Fauzan), the male accused summoned Said Zulkarnaini over to inquire as to why they would not let the female accused leave. The male accused said: "You are all being arrogant. Don't be like those former shari'a police officers I recommended for dismissal" ("Inilah kalian arogan jangan seperti anggota WH lama yang saya usul pecat"), then threatened to call the mayor (walikota), Head of the Banda Sakti Police, and the Head of Islamic Shari'a Services, as well as journalists, to report these supposedly brash shari'a police officials.

The prosecutor sought to have the two accused found guilty of conduct proscribed under art 5, in conjunction with art 22(1) of Aceh Qanun No. 14 of 2003 on Close Proximity (Khalwat).

The court acceded to the prosecutor's application, finding the conduct of the two accused to have met all the elemental requirements of art 5. The court, pursuant to art 22(1), sentenced both the accused to five strokes of the cane, as well as a fine of IDR 1,000.

This fatwa states that corpses are to be bathed, shrouded, prayed over, and buried in accordance with Islamic law. In emergency situations (such as the Aceh tsunami, earthquakes, and other natural disasters), however, corpses may simply be washed down prior to burial. Any clothing attached to a body, or a bodybag, may be used as a shroud, even if it is unclean. Corpses may be prayed over after burial even if from a great distance.

The fatwā also states that victims' corpses are to be buried immediately, may be buried en masse, and need not be buried facing Mecca. A mass burial may be carried out in such a way that male and female, and Muslim and non-Muslim corpses, are buried together. A corpse may also be buried immediately at the site of its location.

This regional regulation makes provision for Gerakan Masyarakat Magrib Mengaji (Qur'anic Magrib People's Movement) and its activities. The aim of Gerakan Masyarakat Magrib Mengaji is to enable Muslims to understand fundamental religious teachings and to develop strong religious character (art 3). Its activities are designed for all Muslims, male and female, adult and child, in Kampar regency (art 4), and its curriculum focuses on Qur'anic literacy and practice (art 11). Activities are designed to activate the ummah through Qur'anic studies conducted at magrib (sundown), and costs associated with their implementation are borne by the Kampar Regency Expenditure and Income Budget, or other legitimate sources with no affiliation to the regional government (art 19).

Plaintiffs, Muslim prisoners, sued the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, alleging violations of state and federal law, including the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, § 1983, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Plaintiffs alleged that being patted down by female prison guards violated their First Amendment free exercise rights inasmuch as it contravened the tenets of their Islamic faith, which forbids intimate contact between unrelated members of the opposite gender. The Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment for most of the claims, but denied it with respect to the RLUIPA and the Massachusetts General Law claims, concluding that a jury would best be able to determine whether the alleged infraction violated the terms of these two statutes.

The petitioners, Elwood "Atheem" Small and Parlie DuBose, Jr., alleged that their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when they were strip-searched in the presence of women and when their participation in religious holiday events was, according to prison policy, conditioned upon their signing a document that allegedly placed restrictions on their religious practice. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the claim. The petitioners appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Appellate Court held that the Ramadan policy was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The Appellate Court also determined that the practice of strip-searching the petitioners in a group of inmates in the presence of female staff members did not violate the petitioners' Fourth Amendment rights, because exigent circumstances existed that necessitated the search.

A principal aim of sharīʿa implementation was to address the many social ills besetting Nigeria, or, in this case, besetting the Muslim North. This volume documents changes in the law made variously in the sharīʿa states specifically to address corruption, alcoholic drinks, gambling, sexual immoralities, other matters related to women, unedifying media, and miscellaneous other social vices. Two scholarly essays analyze these “Changes in the Law in the Sharia States Aimed at Suppressing Social Vices” and “Sharia Implementation and Female Muslims in Nigeria’s Sharia States.”

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

This regional regulation makes provision for the obligation on all Muslim high school students and workers in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi (Sulawesi Selatan) to wear Muslim dress (arts 5 and 6). In preambular statement (c), the regulation states that covering one's aurat (modesty) in Islam is obligatory during ibadah (worship). The regulation states that the meaning of Muslim dress is to show that one is God-mindful and pious, and that they are putting Islam into practice (art 2). Meanwhile, the aim of Muslim dress standards is to form Muslim attitudes that are good and noble (art 3(1)), to make Muslim dress in daily life the norm, both in family life and public life (art 3(2)), and to create a society that observes and carries out its religion (art 3(3)).

Specifically, male workers must wear trousers or shorts that reach their knees, as well as a short- or long-sleeved shirt, while female workers must wear a long-sleeved shirt that covers their hips, a skirt or trousers that reaches their ankles, and a headscarf (kerundung) that covers their hair, ears, neck, nape, and chest (art 7(1)). Male students are to wear shorts and either a short- or long-sleeved shirt, while female students are to wear a shirt that covers their hips and chest, a skirt or trousers that covers their ankles, and a headscarf (kerundung) that covers their hair, ears, neck, nape, and chest (art 8(1)).