Iraqi Supreme Court Interprets Constitutional Provision Barring Laws From Violating Settled Rulings of Islam

An op-ed published on Jurist earlier this month discusses a little-noticed decision handed down last December by Iraq's Federal Supreme Court which for the first time interpreted the provision in Iraq's Constitution (Art. 2) prohibiting civil laws from violating "settled rulings" of Islam.  At issue was a provision in Iraq's Law of Evidence requiring contracts over a certain amount to be proved by showing a writing.  The lower court had refused to accept oral evidence of the existence of a construction contract. Appellant claimed that requiring a writing was inconsistent with sharia, and thus invalid. The Federal Supreme Court, instead of merely holding that there was no "settled ruling" against requiring written contracts, engaged in its own interpretation of the Qur'an, citing two verses which it said supported requiring a written document. Haider Ala Hamoudi, writer of the op-ed, suggests that while Islamic religious authorities were not exercised by the Court's interpretation of religious law here, it would be very different if the Federal Supreme Court challenged religious authorities on core matters such as women's divorce rights.