Whether decisions in Syariah Courts can be reviewed by ordinary courts.
The coexistence of the civil courts and the Syariah Courts creates jurisdictional problems and the possibility of conflicting decisions.. In some cases, issues relating to Islamic law came upon the civil courts and common law was applied common law to the exclusion of Islamic law. In the case of Ainan bin Mahmud v Syed Abu Bakar bin Habib Yusoff & Others , it was held that the Evidence Enactment overrides the rule of Islamic Law which states that a child born within six months of marriage is illegitimate. In the case of Myriam v Mohamed Ariff , the High Court applied the Guardianship of Infants Act which is contrary to Islam or Malay custom.
The decision made by the civil courts in the above cases raised concerns as the decision made was contrary to Islam and the matter handled by the courts are within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. Currently, the addition of clause (1A) to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution has expressly removed the two High Courts and the inferior courts’ jurisdiction over any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. In other words, it also prevents the civil courts from reviewing decisions of the Syariah Courts as reviewing the Syariah Courts’ decisions would mean the civil courts are reviewing issues regarding Islamic laws which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the civil courts any more.
Thus, does this means that the Syariah Court is an individual court separated from the civil courts standing by itself whereby no appeal could be made to the Superior courts anymore? Does that mean that even the Federal Court does not have the power to review the decisions in the Syariah Courts? That seems to be the case ...
... middle of paper ...
...ing a new law or by amending the current law to clarify its intention with regards to whether the civil courts have can review the decisions made by the Syariah Court. Thirdly, we may unify the civil and the Syariah Courts at all levels – in effect, federalizing the Syariah Courts. In a case raising civil and Islamic law issues, two judges should sit , one from each discipline. The civil law judge decides civil law issues while the Syariah judge decides on Islamic law issues. The final judgment of the court is to be given by both jointly.
THE CONSTITUTION OF A MUSLIM MAJORITY STATE:THE EXAMPLE OF MALAYSIA http://unmis.unmissions.org/Portals/UNMIS/Constitution-making%20Symposium/2011-05_Faruqi_Malaysia.pdf Wakaf: Conflict Of Jurisdiction Between Civil And Syariah Courts In Malaysia
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/DisplayArticle.aspx?ArticleId=131268620&SearchId=1mmu1
If the right to habeas corpus is not being extended to the detainee, the majority judges are of the opinion that the branches such as executive and etc. except judicial, would have a whole control over Guantanamo Bay causing the judicial branch to have no position in reviewing the legal processes. The majority judges had stated
Opinion by Carnes, Circuit Judge. We conclude that the district court’s judgment was an appealable “final decision”. We also hold that the arbitration agreement in this case defeats the remedial purposes of the TILA and is unenforceable.
Every religious sect has its own traditions and historical rituals that they abide to. In religions, almost everything has significance to it. And anyone concerned about the future of his/her religion, will continue to ensure that these traditions are followed, to preserve their own way of life. Now, most countries have religious freedom clauses in their constitutions that state that anyone living on their soil has the right to practice the religion of their choice. Now this might seem a minuscule fact for someone of a common religion, but to someone of a minority religion, this is all the protection they have from the legal system. This paper is only a taste of the justices and injustices that Rastafarians have faced in legal systems across the globe. Some instances a loophole for the "misfortunate", others an outcry from the oppressed.
As stated in the first paper; The Constitution of the United States was designed to be a framework for the organization of our country’s government. Many foreign countries also have constitutions, which outline the rights of individuals and the powers of the law; such as the Iraqi Constitution of 2005. I will compare the similarities and differences of the US and Iraqi Constitutions and discuss Articles 2, 36, 39, & 90 and women’s rights of the Iraqi Constitution.
In Corinne Barrett Lain, “Upside- Down Judicial Review”, she presents the idea of instead of upside down judicial review and how it has worked to transform the present courts of modern times. Lain argues her point of upside down Judicial review being used by the Supreme court in order to stray away from the majority's views of the other branches of government. Lain speaks of the idea of when widespread attitudes change on a certain issue of time, but the law hasn’t changed, there is a certain type of pressure that builds up that implements change. Nevertheless, the changing of the attitudes gives force of the law in the way that one's attitude, values and policy preferences start to show in larger society settings. However, the only job of the court is to respond to prevailing norms that are unable to be decided in another form of the government branches.
The Texas judiciary branch of its state government has not one but two Supreme Courts, the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas. With the two separate Supreme Courts in its state government benefits are clearly displayed, but negative aspects are also clear here as well. I will describe what these two courts do for the state of Texas and I will tell of aspects I will leave be due to the benefits they provide but, I will also list changes to be made to fix the negative effects two Supreme Courts bring in this state.
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
The legislators are there to define the rules, the judiciary to interpret them and the prosecutors are designed to determine when to invoke them. But, as the current law appears to be failing to accurately express society’s changing values and opinions, it seems more than appropriate that judges should be left to exercise their discretion.
Muftis begin by developing a strong understanding of the time, place and context of the environment. Doing so allows them to reorganize cases and analyze the most important issues. For example, in a case regarding property, the mufti makes four considerations about the most relevant and controversial topics. The four considerations are analogous to the major issues of the case: the role of appointed guardians, attaining mental maturity and rules for purchasing property1. His fatwa expresses his strong understanding of the circumstances of the case and how both litigants are trying to win. In another case about divorce, the mufti contrasts different circumstances for divorce to the current one. He addresses the ordinary necessities (maintenance, lodging and clothing) of a marriage and compares them to the current one, in which there is no basis for a divorce. Subsequently, this mufti’s opinion also conflicted with that of the Qadi’s2. This is not uncommon because the mufti produces his fatwa independent of the Qadi’s opinion. In addition, Qadis act sympathetically to litigants in some cases, thereby losing objectivity3.
Many people enjoy working or participating in a group or team, but when a group of people work together chances are that conflicts will occur. Hazleton describes conflict as the discrepancy between what is the perceived reality and what is seen as ideal (2007). “We enter into conflicts reluctantly, cautiously, angrily, nervously, confidently- and emerge from them battered, exhausted, sad, satisfied, triumphant. And still many of us underestimate or overlook the merits of conflict- the opportunity conflict offers every time it occurs” (Schilling, nd.). Conflict does not have to lead to a hostile environment or to broken relationships. Conflict if resolved effectively can lead to a positive experience for everyone involved. First, there must be an understanding of the reasons why conflicts occur. The conflict must be approached with an open mind. Using specific strategies can lead to a successful resolution for all parties involved. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument states “there are five general approaches to dealing with conflict. The five approaches are avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise, and collaboration. Conflict resolution is situational and no one approach provides the best or right approach for all circumstances” (Thomas, 2000).
Legal Pluralism is the presence of various legal systems within a single country or a geographical area. Legal Pluralism is omnipresent although it is generally assumed to exist in countries only with a colonial past. This is because in most countries with a colonial past, colonial laws co-exist alongside indigenous laws. However, if we look at the expansive definition of legal pluralism, it can be said that every society or country if legally plural. The modern definition of legal pluralism also deals with the issues of relation between state and non-state legal orders. It shows the dichotomy that exists between customary legal norms and state law. The judiciary of India has upheld this principle of pluralism in many cases by showing that
workplace include greater total resources, greater knowledge band and a greater source of ideas. However, these advantages can also bring on conflict within teams and the entire workplace. Varney (1989) reported that conflict remained the number one problem within a large company. This was after several attempts were made to train management in conflict resolutions and procedures. However, the conflict remained. The conflict possibly remains because the managers and leaders did not pay attention to the seriousness of the issue. In order to maintain an effective team, leaders and team members must know and be proactive in the conflict resolution techniques and procedures.
• Malaysia has a single hierarchy of courts which enforces both Federal and State laws. • The courts can pronounce on the: a. Legality of executive Acts of Government, Federal and State. b. Validity of any law passed by the Parliament and State legislatures c. Interpretation of any provision of the Constitution, Federal and State • The hierarchy of courts begins from the Magistrates' Court, Sessions Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, and finally, the Federal Court. • The superior courts are the High Court, Court of Appeal, and the Federal Court, while the Magistrates' Courts and the Sessions Courts are classified as subordinate
It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.”
Marriage and divorce are very significant aspects of Islamic law, but criminal law could be considered the most controversial. The Sharia categorizes its offenses by the types of punishment each receives. There are offenses which are paired...