Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ) is taking decisive action to amend the Islam Act of 1912, which made Islam an official religion in Austria, after a Viennese court faced backlash for recognizing Islamic law as a legitimate basis for civil arbitration in a contractual dispute between two Muslims.
“This opens the door even further for political Islam,” the FPÖ constitutional spokesman, Michael Schilchegger, announced on August 19. “This is a sad day for the secular constitutional state, a sad day for women’s rights in Austria.”
Austria’s Islam Act (Islamgesetz) recognized Islam as a religious denomination under public law in the early 1900s, granting it official status within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The law was amended in 2015 to allow for the celebration of religious holidays while at the same time banning the foreign funding of mosques in the country.
The FPÖ, the largest of five parties in Austria’s National Council (the lower house of Parliament responsible for federal legislation), slammed the court ruling after the Austrian daily Die Presse reported on August 18 that the Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters had endorsed the decision of two parties to settle a contractual dispute under Shariah in May.
Contract Based On Shariah Law
When entering into the contract, the two Muslim men agreed to arbitrate any dispute “on the merits based on Islamic law (Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah) and to the best of their knowledge and belief.”
The case involved a dispute over shared property and compulsory auction of property shares, and the costs of the enforcement application.
When an arbitration tribunal ordered one party to pay €320,000 to the second party, the appellant contested the tribunal’s ruling, arguing that the arbitral award, since it was based on an Islamic law contract, “is unenforceable because it violates public policy.”
The recognition of an arbitral award based exclusively on Sharia principles—a religiously motivated system of norms outside the Austrian legal system—represents a serious violation of Austrian public policy.
Turkish Community in Austria (TKG)
He also contended that “the application of the law is arbitrary, the interpretation of Shariah is subject to debate in the Muslim world, and the principles vary depending on the interpretations of different scholars.”
Court Defends Application of Shariah
The Viennese court, however, confirmed the
tribunal’s decision “in accordance with the law or rules of law agreed upon by the parties.” It clarified “that the bracketed expression ‘Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah’ in the arbitration agreement obviously means a concretization of Islamic law to a particular interpretation or school of interpretation of Islamic law.”
Using the term “Shariah” fifteen times in its ruling, the court cited as precedent a Supreme Court judgement of February 2011, which ruled that “Sharia is applicable in Austria, provided its application would not lead to a result incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Austrian legal system.”
“Shariah is (partially) integrated into the national law of individual states,” like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran,” the Viennese court noted. “The Islamic legal provisions could therefore be validly agreed upon in the arbitration agreement in question, especially since it concerns contract law.”
“Islamic legal provisions are legal rules within the meaning of Section 603 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) and can be effectively agreed upon as arbitrable claims for property rights in an arbitration agreement,” the ruling concluded.
Freedom Party Fights Shariah Creep
“The ruling elevates parallel Islamic societies in Austria and weakens those forces that do not want to submit to Islam,” an FPÖ press spokesperson told Focus on Western Islamism (FWI). “If Austrian courts henceforth recognize arbitration awards based on ‘Sharia,’ they will submit to the will of fanatical Islamists.”
“The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the Islamic legal order (‘Sharia’) is incompatible with a modern, secular, and democratic constitutional state,” the spokesperson added. “We will draft a bill to amend the Islam Act, which will specifically prevent the implicit recognition and application of ‘Sharia’ by Austrian authorities and courts.”
Upper Austrian FPÖ state party leader Deputy Governor Manfred Haimbuchner, argued that while the court had ruled on the validity of the agreement between the parties, it was not necessary to verify what rules were applied to the contract.
“The fact that a contract based on Shariah law is not considered immoral is pause for thought. It is undisputed that Shariah law also recognizes stoning as a just punishment and tolerates—or even prescribes—the beating of women,” Haimbuchner warned. “Private autonomy must not open the door to parallel justice.”
Secular Turks Oppose Ruling
On August 20, the Turkish Community in Austria (TKG), an association of secular Turks advocating against the recognition of Shariah law in Austria, announced that it would file an application to annul the award under Section 611 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
“The recognition of an arbitral award based exclusively on Shariah principles—a religiously motivated system of norms outside the Austrian legal system—represents a serious violation of Austrian public policy,” the TKG stated in a press release.
Established after the 2005 Madrid and London bombings, the TKG has become a fierce critic of the increasing influence of Islamist and Erdoğan-aligned groups within the Turkish diaspora.
The TKG also stated that the court’s application of Shariah was “neither compatible with the Austrian Constitution nor with the European Convention on Human Rights” and “would result in legal inconsistency, as it would effectively result in the recognition of a parallel legal system.”
Comparing Shariah with the Catholic magisterium, the TKG noted that Islamic law “is interpreted very differently and subjectively—even among Muslims,” since “Islam has no clergy, and the establishment of one is strictly prohibited.”
“The application of this paragraph to religiously based agreements with an economic value in dispute of around €320,000 opens the door to the establishment of a parallel justice system,” the TKG warned. Such a ruling “violates the principle of separation of church and state enshrined in Austrian constitutional law” and could encourage “dangerous precedents.”
“The Austrian People’s Party, Social Democratic Party of Austria, and the New Austria and Liberal Forum must abandon their blockade against the Freedom Party and join us in pushing for a law banning political Islam,” the FPÖ spokesperson told FWI. “We invite them to support our proposal.”
The three parties, who tend to be center-left, social-democratic, and liberal have consistently opposed the FPÖ and attempted to block its legislative proposals in Parliament primarily due to its populist, nationalist, and anti-Islamist stance.
In 2015, Austria’s Parliament amended the Islamgesetz by banning foreign funding for mosques and imams, requiring imams to speak German, mandating German translations of religious texts, and allowing for the closure of unregistered mosques. The amendment also ensured the provision of halal food and religious leave for Muslims in public institutions.
The Islamic Religious Community in Austria (IGGÖ), which serves as the official representative organization for Muslims in the country, did not respond to a request for comment from FWI.