SHARIAsource

This fatwa states that the burial of Muslim corpses is obligatory for the community (wajib kifayah), and that the government must make land available for public burials. Every Muslim may prepare a particular site for their own burial, and may state in their will (berwasiat) their desire to be buried in a certain place, circumstances permitting. The fatwa declares that the sale and purchase of land for the purposes of a gravesite is permissible, pursuant to the following conditions:

1. the conditions and pillars of sale and purchase are met;
2. the transaction is conducted in a simple manner, not being overly excessive or acquiring and using land in an excessive fashion;
3. Muslims are not to be buried alongside non-Muslims;
4. the administration and organisation thereof is to be carried out pursuant to shari'a provisions; and
5. the rights of other persons are not precluded as a result of retaining burial services.

The fatwa reiterates that the sale and purchase of land, as well as businesses selling land, for exorbitant burials, is forbidden (haram).

This fatwa recommends that inherited plots of land that are not particularly expansive remain as one plot, rather than being divided between the relevant beneficiaries. This should be achieved by the beneficiaries working together in a cooperative fashion. If this is not feasible because one or more of the beneficiaries needs the financial proceeds that would be obtained through the sale of such land, it is preferable that one of the other financially-secure beneficiares purchase from any beneficiary in financial need their interest in the land. If this is not feasible, the fatwa preferences sale of the inherited land to the owner of one of the neighbouring plots of land. If this is not feasible, efforts should be made to sell the land to another Muslim who lives in the same kampung or village so that the plot of land may one day become the object of infaq/sadaqah or zakat, thereby furthering the general well-being of other Muslims, as per Islamic teachings.

Pursuant to a murabahah sale-purchase agreement, the defendant had obtained a murabahah loan facility valued at IDR 142,400,000: IDR 80 million in gains, with the bank’s profit margin being IDR 62.4 million. The period of the loan was 60 months, commencing on 21 October 2011 (signing date) and ceasing on 21 October 2016. The defendant was to use the finance to purchase 360 m² of land in Patemon, Purbalingga. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had defaulted on the loan, that it had served the defendant with several reminder notices, and that despite providing the defendant with yet another opportunity to make the necessary repayments, the defendant had failed to do so. The plaintiff made several other attempts, such as billing the defendant, sending a reminder, as well as approaching the defendant through his family. The defendant’s inaction forced the plaintiff to lodge an application with the court, pursuant to art 49(i) of Law No. 3 of 2006 on Amendments to Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, in conjunction with art 55(1) of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Shari’a Banking.

The plaintiff requested that the court secure the defendant’s property against the debt owed, that it declare the original agreement valid, that it find the defendant in breach for default, and that it order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff in material damages IDR 138,456,468.

Despite being summonsed to attend the proceeding, the defendant failed to do so. In the defendant’s absence, the court declared the agreement valid, and ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 138,456,468 in material damages, as well as court costs (IDR 491,000).

This is a notice of donation to the Islamic Waqf in the area: 3700 liras, 14 Ottoman golden coins for the Waqf to purchase land from Ali and Aisha.  The donation also covers all expenses incurred in relation to making the contract of sale with Ali and Aisha.

The deceased was survived by two wives, five sons and three daughters. In his will he left behind land and a house, proceeds from the sale of which were to be distributed to all 10 beneficiaries. The appellants sought to challenge the Bireuen Shari'a Court's interpretation and subsequent distribution of the will.

The Court found that the decision of the lower court was correct, however, it chose to restate the distribution per beneficiary in a clearer fashion.

The Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated the joint assets of the parties in its decision, including a parcel of land, a vehicle, and a range of household applicances. The lower court had ordered the appellant to transfer half of those assets to the respondent, and to sell those assets that could not be transferred, instead transferring half the proceeds from those sales to the respondent.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the lower court, specifically in regards to the parcel of land. The Court held that, while the appellant had purchased the parcel of land when he was married, he did so only having just married the respondent, but more importantly, using money he had saved from having worked for his parents prior to marrying the respondent, before he had his own business and source of income.

The Court also commented that the philosophy behind art 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage was that marriage adds value to assets acquired collectively as husband and wife, whereas in this case, the parcel of land was not acquired under such circumstances and could therefore be distinguished from true joint assets. It found in favour of the appellant in this regard.

In regards to the parties' three children, the Court granted joint custody, but required the appellant to pay IDR 1 million per child, per month in child maintenance, until the children were independent.

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.

The appellant and his children (respondents) disputed the owernship and distribution of the estate of the deceased (wife/mother). The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated the beneficiaries of the deceased's will as being the parties to the dispute, and distinguished between property that constituted the joint assets of the appellant and deceased, from property that was solely that of the deceased and therefore suitable to be distributed between the beneficiaries.

The lower court had granted half of the latter property to the appellant, and divided the remaining half into fifths between the respondents (the male respondent receiving two-fifths, while the female respondents received one-fifth).

On the whole, the Court accepted the judgment of the lower court. It found, however, that the lower court had erred in applying an Acehnese custom whereby the owner of a parcel of land and the builder of the shop and home complex on the land were to split the proceeds of any sale of the land and home/shop 50/50, because the builder had made no such request, and no such agreement was in place. The Court also criticised the haphazard nature of the lower court's decision, which made it difficult to decipher between the joint assets of the appellant and deceased, and other items/property. Accordingly, the Court provided a new decision to replace that of the lower court, attending to those deficiencies.

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated the parties' joint assets as two parcels of land, the proceeds from the sale of a vehicle (IDR 50 million), and two motorcyles. It ordered the parties to ensure these assets were split 50/50.

The appellant, however, claimed that the lower court was incorrect to dismiss his claim that a debt owed by both parties to Bank BPD Aceh of IDR 50 million was also a joint debt. The lower court had reasoned that because the appellant had repaid that debt on 12 September 2006 by taking out another loan of IDR 60 million, that the loan had been repaid. The Court disagreed, stating that additional loan did not release the respondent from her joint-obligation with the appellant to repay the debt.

Chapters on nominate contracts (endowment, sales, options, barter/ mu‘āwaḍa, hire and lease, partnerships -shirka, muzāra‘a, musāqāt, muḍāraba-, reward/ju‘āla, deposit, fungible and non-fungible loan, agency, financial and personal guaranty, assignment, settlement, pledge, gift), shuf‘a, wills, inheritance, marriage and divorce, mahr, and alimony took almost all of its substance from prominent Shi’i fiqh treatises. Other chapters (classification of properties, easement, usufruct, general rules of obligations and contracts, nationality, registration of civil status, domicile, engagement, guardianship, and evidence) are mainly influenced by Swiss and French Civil Codes and Swiss Code of Obligations.

The plaintiff submitted that the first defendant had issued him with a murabahah financing facility (Murabahah Financing Facility Agreement No: PLS/2010/008/MRB) valued at IDR 330 billion, which he had used to finance the construction of a home. The plaintiff had obtained from the first defendant another murabahah financing facility (Murabahah Financing Facility Agreement No: PLS/2011/077/MRB) valued at IDR 1.459 billion, which he had used to supplement his own business capital to purchase stock for his chilli and red onion supplier business. The plaintiff had repaid IDR 1 billion of the collective total of the two agreements, leaving him IDR 3.789 billion in arrears. In order to be eligible for both agreements, the plaintiff had leveraged the following properties and their respective deeds of title:

1. three adjacent plots of land upon which were situated a home and restaurant;
2. two adjacent plots of land upon which were situated a home and warehouse;
3. a plot of land upon which was situated a home;
4. another plot of land upon which was situated a home, as well as two plots of farmland.

When the price of chilli dropped the plaintiff incurred substantial financial loss. Consequently, in 2010, 2011, and January-February 2012, the plaintiff repaid to the first defendant IDR 2.068 billion. Having defaulted nonetheless, the second defendant sold one of the plaintiff's properties for IDR 170 million at auction. The plaintiff submitted that the property would have sold for IDR 300 million if the sale had been made available to the public. Similarly, the plaintiff submitted that the first defendant had sold, in an underhanded manner, one of his leveraged properties for IDR 250 million, and another two for IDR 150 million each, when they all would have sold for IDR 300 million each had the sales been made available to the public. The plaintiff also submitted that he had already repaid to the first defendant IDR 2.638 billion, while the first defendant had threatened to auction the plaintiff's remaining leveraged properties. The plaintiff maintained that to relieve him of all his assets was contrary to the law given that he intended, in good faith, to repay the loans.

In dismissing the plaintiff's action, the court referred to the discrepancy in the plaintiff's submission: at point 2, the plaintiff submitted that both defendants had systematically, collectively, and collegially worked to relieve him of his assets, while at point 10, the plaintiff submitted that the first defendant had threatened to auction his remaining properties through the second defendant. The court also took issue with point 3 of the plaintiff's submission, noting that it suffered from insufficient clarity and detail with regard to the object of the auction, as well as the language used.

The Court noted that the appellant had lodged his complaint as illegal misconduct (perbuatan melawan hukum), something outside the jurisdiction of the religious courts. It acknowledged, however, that the basis of the appellant's claim did indeed constitute a shari'a economy case, for the purposes of the elucidation of Law No. 3 of 2006, art 49(22)(i). This was because the basis of the appellant's claim derived from a Murabahah (sale-purchase) financial agreement, and a power of attorney, which the appellant believed to be legally invalid. Under the power of attorney, the respondent was authorised to sell, transfer and relinquish all rights over a parcel of land to any person, including itself, if the appellant had failed to pay its debt owing to the respondent. The appellant submitted, however, that as he had signed the agreement without properly understanding its content and effect, it, along with the Murabahah agreement, should be declared null and void. The Court disagreed with the appellant, upholding the ruling of the lower court.

J bin T passed away on 24 January 2008, stipulating as his beneficiaries: C binti S (wife and first appellant); J binti J (daughter); A (mother); P binti T (sister); R binti T (brother); T bin T (brothers); and N binti T (sister and fifth respondent).

The Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court) declared as joint property of the deceased and first appellant two shophouses, two parcels of land, accumulated social security monies totalling IDR 770 million, the remaining proceeds from the sale of a truck (IDR 70 million), and insurance monies totalling IDR 100,000. As the estate of the deceased alone, the lower court stipulated four separate parcels of land.

The lower court distributed to the first appellant half of what was determined to be the joint property of the first appellant and deceased, while the other half, along with the deceased's personal estate, was distributed among the stipulated beneficiaries.

The Court amended the decision of the lower court, applying the Supreme Court-endorsed principle that, if the deceased had a child/children, his estate was only to be devised/bequeathed to his parents, spouse and children, to the exclusion of all other beneficiaries. Accordingly, as the deceased was survived by his daughter (second appellant), his estate was to be distributed among both appellants and the deceased's mother.

The Court also disagreed with the lower court's finding that the social security monies (IDR 770 million) and the insurance monies (IDR 100,000) were the joint property of the deceased and first appellant, because art 22(1) and (2) of Government Regulation No. 14 of 1993 requires that life insurance be paid to the surviving spouse or child/children, and in the event there is no surviving spouse or child/children, to the closest living blood relative(s). Accordingly, the monies were to be paid to the appellants. As for the insurance policy monies, art 1(1) of Law No. 2 of 1992 on Insurance Companies required that those monies be paid to the parties specified in the deceased's policy.

The applicants claimed that, since 2003, the first applicant had been a customer of the first respondent, via its shari'a Bukittinggi branch (PT. Bank Bukopin Cabang Syari'ah Bukittinggi). Prior to becoming a customer of the first respondent, the first applicant had been a debtor of PT. Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI) Cabang Bukittinggi, to which it owed IDR 483,2333,530 as at June 2003. At that time, the first applicant's business was experiencing financial difficulties, leading the first applicant to apply to the first respondent for a financial loan for financial support, as well as to pay his debts with PT. BRI Cabang Bukittinggi. After examining the relevant securities documents, the first respondent agreed to enter into an Al-Murabahah (sale-purchase) agreement with the first applicant. Once the relevant documentation was executed, the first respondent provided to the first applicant IDR 500 million, with which it paid its debt to PT. BRI Cabang Bukittinggi. The first respondent then took from PT. BRI Cabang Bukittinggi the deed of title of a property in the name of the second applicant (the second applicant was already an authorised guarantor pursuant to the agreement between the first applicant and first respondent).

In the Al-Murabahah agreement document the first respondent had agreed to make available items for the first applicant to the value of IDR 500 million, and the first respondent was to sell those items to the first applicant for IDR 794,816,460. (In an Al-Murabahah agreement there is an absolute requirement that there be items for sale subject of the agreement.) As there were no items purchased by the first applicant from the first respondent, the agreement had no legal authority. The agreement was further prohibited, according to the applicants, because it allowed the first applicant to borrow from the first respondent a sum of money, secured by a stationary object (the property) for a period of five years, with an additional payment for the first respondent which, according to Islam, constituted riba (usur or interest).

The Supreme Court, in the first instance, declared that the relationship between the first applicant and first respondent was one based on borrowing a sum of money, secured against a stationary object. Furthermore, that profit instalments provided by the first applicant to the first respondent were to be treated as payment instalments against the debt it owed to the first repsondent, because providing additional payments outside the scope of the principal to the lender would be contrary to shari'a. The other relevant documents, including the debt notice, the applicants claimed, were also null and void.

In addition, another Al-Murabahah agreement had been made by, and before, the first co-respondent, tying the first applicant and first respondent to the sale and purchase of items valued at IDR 581,230,044, with a sale price of IDR 350 million, and a murabahah profit for the first respondent of IDR 231,230,044. This was to be paid in instalments over 60 months, tied to a debt notice and mortgage deed, both of which were prepared by, and before, the first co-respondent, secured by the same property. Similarly, however, this agreement had no object for sale or purchase.

The total of both agreements resulted in the first applicant being in IDR 850 million debt to the first respondent. After the first applicant had paid to the first respondent IDR 363,611,240, the remainder owing, it claimed, was IDR 486,388,760. However, while the first applicant had originally owed PT BRI Cabang Bukittinggi no more than IDR 500 million, it now claimed the first applicant owed IDR 1,376,046,504 (this was the principal debt combined with interest). The first applicant maintained, however, that he had paid to the first respondent IDR 363,611,240 in instalments up until March 2006.

The Bukittinggi State Court had already issued a notice stating that the property held as a security would be auctioned on 16 August 2006. The first applicant, upon becoming aware of the fact that the two Al-Murabahah agreements were null and void, sought to prevent the first respondent from auctioning the property. Despite being made aware of, and reading, the notice, the second respondent went ahead with the auction. Accordingly, the applicants claimed that the auction should have no legal authority, and pursuant to art 49 of Law No. 3 of 2006 on the Religious Judiciary, the civil courts were precluded from resolving shari'a economy-related matters anyway.

The applicants also objected to the conduct of the third respondent, the purchaser of the property and a staff member of the legal team of the first respondent. The applicants alleged that the third respondent knew the auction reserve price and therefore only had to pay a little bit over the reserve to secure the property.

The applicants sought damages for actual loss, as well as pain and suffering. They claimed that the land was worth IDR 2.5 billion, and yet the third respondent had only paid IDR 993,600,000 as the purchase price. Moreover, they sought IDR 500 million in damages for the stress and emotional strain incurred from the entire ordeal.

The Bukittinggi Religious Court (lower court) had declared the two Al-Murabahah agreements null and void, and declared the relationship between the first applicant and first respondent a financial loan (Al-Qardh). The IDR 850 million debt owed by the first applicant to the first respondent was reduced to IDR 486,388,760, taking into account the instalments paid by the first applicant totalling IDR 363,611,240. The first respondent had also been ordered to transfer to the applicants the profit from the auction, minus the remaining debt of IDR 486,388,760, leaving the respondents owing the applicants IDR 447,595,240.

On appeal to the Padang Religious High Court, the decision of the lower court was overturned. The Padang Religious High Court found that the lower court was not authorised to adjudicate the case. Moreover, the Supreme Court, in the first instance, rejected the applicants' cassation appeal, upholding the decision of the Padang Religious High Court.

The applicants used their last avenue of appeal before the Supreme Court (reconsideration or peninjauan kembali) claiming that the Supreme Court's judgment, at cassation level, was erroneous. The applicants asserted that the Al-Murabahah agreements contained an arbitration clause whereby the parties had agreed to resolve any legal disputes before the Indonesian Islamic Civil and Commercial Arbitration Body (Badan Arbitrase Muamalat Indonesia), designating the Bukittinggi State Court registrar's office as the appropriate venue. Whereas, in actual fact, the respondents had submitted their request to seize the property to the Bukittinggi State Court. Moreover, the applicants claimed that the Al-Murabahah agreements failed to meet the following shari'a requirements:

1. interest (riba)-free;
2. the sale-purchase items may not be forbidden (haram);
3. the bank is to finance some or all of the items, pursuant to the agreed-upon classification;
4. the bank is to purchase the items in its own name;
5. if the bank makes representations to the customer that it is purchasing the items, the agreement is executed once the items the bank is purchasing become the property of the bank; and
6. the bank provides all information relating to the items, including cash or credit purchases.

The Supreme Court found that the two reasons submitted by the applicants did not fall under any of the reasons for review (peninjauan kembali) contemplated by art 67 of Law No. 14 of 1985, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

In November 2010, the plaintiff permitted his daughter and son-in-law to use his property to secure a murabahah financing agreement for IDR 182,400,000 from the defendant. Rather than his daughter and son-in-law being parties to the agreement, it was in fact their company that became party to the agreement, a point to which the plaintiff did not object. On 22 November 2010, the defendant requested that the plaintiff sign a declaration acknowledging that he was financially responsible for the agreement, as well as a power-of-attorney granting the defendant authority to deal with his property as it saw fit, in the event his daughter's company defaulted on its repayments.

The plaintiff submitted that he did not know what the loan money was intended for, nor did he know about the repayment scheme agreed to by the parties to the agreement. On 24 April 2013, the plaintiff was informed that his property would be auctioned as his daughter and son-in-law's company had indeed defaulted on a repayment. While the plaintiff was informed by his son-in-law that the debt owing was IDR 118,604,000 (four monthly repayments), when the plaintiff requested the relevant information from the defendant to repay the debt, the defendant, the plaintiff submitted, failed to provide him with that information, confusing the plaintiff further by telling him that the total debt was not actually IDR 182,400,000. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant then unilaterally set the sale price of the property, rather than obtaining a quote from an independent and reputable appraisal company registered with the Ministry of Finance, contrary to Law No. 4 of 1996 on Mortgages of Land and Fixtures. The plaintiff further submitted that the credit arrangement was unlawful as the plaintiff had still not seen any evidence of an agreement, such as a repayment receipt. More significantly, contrary to art 18(1)(g) and (3) of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, the plaintiff submitted that the defendant had included in the agreement a requirement that the plaintiff be subject to any new regulations the defendant sought to include. This conduct, the plaintiff asserted, was punishable by a maximum fine of IDR 2 billion (art 62 of Law No. 4 of 1996).

After court-sanctioned mediation failed, it initially appeared that the court had successfully counselled the parties, bringing them to reconcile. When this proved not to be the case, however, the plaintiff lodged an amended claim. In his amended claim, the plaintiff alleged that, in November 2010, the co-defendant, via his daughter, used the same property to secure the murabahah agreement. The plaintiff consented to this arrangement, pursuant to which the co-defendant secured IDR 182.4 million. On 22 November 2010, the plaintiff was asked by the defendant to sign a written statement that declared the plaintiff responsible for the financed amount, and that the plaintiff would fulfil all obligations pursuant to the agreement, pay all arrears and/or repayments, and provide his property as a security. On the same date, the plaintiff then signed a power of attorney before a notary, granting power of attorney to Limo Endriyanto, as head of the defendant's branch, to deal with the property as necessary in the event of a default. The plaintiff also signed a mortgage power of attorney in favour of the marketing department of the defendant, and a new mortgage deed was drafted on 20 December 2010. On 24 April 2013, the plaintiff was informed by the co-defendant that, owing to a default on the repayments to the defendant, the plaintiff's property would be auctioned on Wednesday 29 May 2013.

The plaintiff claimed that the co-defendant had informed him he would need to repay four instalments totalling IDR 118,604,000, however, he had only guaranteed repayment of IDR 182,400,000 in total. Moreover, despite his requests for further information to the defendant and co-defendant regarding the debt, the plaintiff received no information that clarified the situation.

On 25 December 2013, the plaintiff submitted, contrary to the mortgage deed, that the co-defendant visited him at his home and requested that he repay IDR 401,250,200, rather than the original IDR 182,400,000. The plaintiff also maintained that the co-defendant and defendant's conduct breached Law No. 4 of 1996 and Law No. 8 of 1999, as per the plaintiff's initial claim.

As a result of the confusion caused by the defendant and co-defendant, as well as time lost, the plaintiff submitted that he had suffered IDR 1 million in material damages. Moreover, due to the concern, disharmony and anxiety suffered by the plaintiff and his family, the plaintiff sought IDR 200 million in damages.

The court, however, finding that the plaintiff lacked the necessary legal standing as he was not a party to the original murabahah agreement, dismissed the plaintiff's claim.