Blog

Among the paradoxes and clearly unacceptable things that are happening in modern Greece is the existence and maintenance of an anachronistic and completely unconstitutional institution. This concerns the existence and operation of a judicial body (single-member court) for a certain category of Greek citizens, Muslims by religion, and for certain cases of private (civil) law. These are the Muftis with the powers granted to them by law to resolve disputes of a family and hereditary nature. The problem is unknown to the majority of Greeks.

In the simplest way possible, so that it can be understood even by non-lawyers, I attempt to present the issue and propose, in my opinion, solutions.

Previously, some data should be provided on the population composition of Western Thrace, where the problem is acute, and a brief reference should be made to the prehistory of the institution.

Western Thrace and its inhabitants – The Pomaks

According to the official 2011 census, 335.000 Greek citizens live in Western Thrace. Of these, 241.000 are Greek Orthodox Christians and 114.000 are Muslims. The percentages over time tend to change to the detriment of the Greek Christian majority with the decrease in birth rates, immigration and the policies followed by Greek governments. Of the Muslims, Turkish speakers amount to 54.000, Pomaks (who speak a Bulgarian dialect) to 36.000 and Roma (Gypsies) to 24.000. The percentage of Greeks who converted to Islam (voluntarily or forcibly) in the region who are listed as Turkish speakers in the census is unclear. However, if we take into account the percentage of genuine Turks and this Turkey, which does not exceed 20%, according to the latest statistics and biometric surveys, the percentage of Greek citizens of Turkish origin in Western Thrace cannot be greater than that of Turkey. The remaining part of the population of Turkey is made up of Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Assyrians, etc.

A special case for the Muslim population of Thrace is the Pomaks. The total number of Pomaks of Rhodope is 135.000. Of these, 75% are found in the territory of Bulgaria and the rest in Greek Thrace with the largest concentration in the Prefecture of Xanthi (27.000). According to the prevailing view, they are descendants of an ancient indigenous Thracian people of mountainous farmers and herders who did not accept any admixture and cultural overlaps from the beginning of their existence. Of the many opinions that have been expressed from time to time about their origin, the closest to the facts is the one that considers them descendants of the ancient Thracian tribe of the Agriani, who also formed a select part of the army of Alexander the Great. They themselves used the word "Agrian" as their national emblem until the mid-20th century. In old Xanthi, the Pomak district was called "Agrian Mahalesi" and in Evros there is the toponym "Agrian Bunari" (source of the Agrians). Etymologically, the name derives, according to one view, from the corruption of the words "hippomachos" or pomax (drinker) or from other foreign words such as the Bulgarian verb pomagam (to help). The Pomaks were Orthodox Christians until the 14th century.^th century, when their gradual Islamization began, which was completed in the 19th^ο century. Despite this, the Pomaks did not completely abandon the memories of their Greek-Christian past. Thus, the Pomaks of Bulgaria, which does not distinguish between Pomaks and other Turkish-speaking peoples, when Eastern Rumelia was awarded to Bulgaria after the Treaty of Berlin, declared an autonomous republic in 21 of their villages, but the Bulgarian army annexed them by force in 1883. And after the end of World War II, the Pomaks of Bulgaria requested their integration into Greece, which, however, was indifferent, although it could have achieved it due to Bulgaria's pro-Axis stance. If the request of the Bulgarian Pomaks were accepted, Greece would reap multiple benefits, both from the control of the entire Rhodope mountain range, which would constitute a natural barrier to the danger from the North, and from the obviously Greek conscience of the applicants, which would contribute to the awakening of their brothers in Greek territory and the avoidance of their embrace by Turkish propaganda. But also from a religious point of view, the traditional tolerance of the Greeks towards foreign religions, combined with a lenient treatment of the Pomaks' beliefs, would result in their gradual reintegration into their previous faith. This is because their conversion to Islam is not very distant, and remnants of their Christian faith are still active today, such as their faith in Saint George and other Christian saints, which is manifested through vows and celebrations on their feast day.

A more special case is the Kizilbassids – Bektashis, who maintain certain Christian customs intact. Thus, they particularly honor Saint George and the 15^η On June 1st they celebrate the Forty Martyrs. On their great feast (kirk qurbani) animal sacrifices are made, and it is said that they also drink raki, cross their bread when they cut it, make crosses on their socks, light candles, eat pork and drink alcohol. All their ceremonies have a mystical character, a distant memory of the Orphic mysteries. The same is true of the Turkish-speaking gypsies, whose calendar largely coincides with the Christian one.

In an article published in the newspaper “DEMOCRACY” (7-8-2012), political scientist Konstantinos Holevas states that through the internet, voices are heard from Pomaks of Thrace who thunder that they are Greeks and not Turks, that they want their children to be taught their mother tongue (Pomak) as well as Greek, the language of their homeland. These voices are the offspring of the seed sown by the heroic teacher Mrs. Hara Nikopoulou, daughter of the President of the Supreme Court Mr. Vas. Nikopoulou, and they need support and, above all, protection. The state must intervene given that the Turkish-speakers of Western Thrace are characterized by a Treaty as a religious and not an ethnic minority, in contrast to the Greeks of Polis, Imbros and Tenedos. From this it follows that the Turks themselves, when concluding the relevant Convention, did not believe that the Turkish-speaking, non-exchangeable people of Western Thrace were ethnically Turks.

Recent reports in the daily press report that the Turks, realizing the risk of division among the Turkish-speaking, Pomak and Gypsy people of Thrace due to their different religious beliefs, are trying to integrate everyone, with financial incentives, into a single Islamic sect called "Suleimantzides".

Anthropologically, from biometric research, it emerged that the Pomaks do not have the anatomical characteristics of the Turks, and from personal observation I know that Pomak children from birth until the end of their childhood are beautiful, usually blond, and their costumes, like those of adults, resemble those of other Thracians, with the exception of the headscarf that the women are forced to wear. At home and in conversations with each other, they speak their own particular dialect, but at school they speak Turkish, which they are forced to learn.

The problem of the existence of a large Muslim population in Western Thrace arose after the population exchange (1923) between Greece and Turkey, during which the Muslims of Western Thrace and the Greeks of Constantinople were excluded. The exclusion favored Turkey, which was thus able to exert influence through religious means on Greek territory, in contrast to Greece, which was unable to protect the Greek minority with the well-known results of its reduction to the point of extinction, in violation of every legal and moral principle, especially that of reciprocity, which Greece faithfully followed, in contrast to Turkey, which never respected it.

International and Bilateral Conventions

After the gradual liberation of Greek territories from the Turkish yoke and their integration into the Greek territory under the general name "New Countries", the need arose to normalize relations between the two countries, Greece and Turkey, as well as to regulate social conditions and protect the various minorities that existed in these countries, especially after the voluntary or forced exchange of population groups, which previously, during the Sultanate era, belonged to the various "miliem" based mainly on the religious beliefs of their members, under which, however, ethnological (racial) diversity was usually concealed. Thus, various bilateral or international Treaties were successively signed with the participation of Greece and Turkey, such as the one of 20-6-1881 (Convention of Constantinople, ratified by law PLZG'/1882), the Treaty of London (May 1913), the Treaty of Bucharest (July-August 1913), the Greece-Turkey Convention "on Peace", otherwise known as the Treaty of Athens, ratified by law DSIG/1913, the Population Exchange Convention 123/25-8-1923), the Treaty of Sèvres and the Treaty of Lausanne, which were ratified by the legislative decrees of 25/25-8-1923 and 29-9-1923. The "New Countries" came to Greece in 1881 (Thessaly, Arta), in 1912-1913 (Macedonia, Epirus, Crete). The incorporation of the Ionian Islands took place in 1864, and of the Dodecanese in 1947. The content of the above Treaties and Bilateral Conventions concerned the protection of minorities on both sides in terms of religion, education, language, etc. Further analysis is not necessary, because it would be lengthy and would go beyond the scope of this article. However, what must be emphasized is that their entire content was inspired by the principle of reciprocity, the violation of which was also a reason for unilateral denunciation, withdrawal and annulment of the agreements. This principle permeates the entire legal system of Greece (art. 28 par. I of the Code) and constitutes a basic rule of International Law.

With the introduction of the Greek Civil Code (23-2-1946), the special legal status of Greek Jews was abolished, according to article 6 of the EISNAK. There was no provision for Greek Muslims, which led some Greek jurists, such as Professor Georgios Koumantos, as well as the Legal Council of the State, in their opinion from 1953, to the view that the abolition of special legal statuses for all minority groups in Greece was, even if implicitly, general. The opposite view was expressed by the Plenary of the Supreme Court with its 322/1960 decision. This view was also adopted by the Code of Civil Procedure with article 8 of the introductory part of the Law. However, this article was also indirectly repealed by the article alone of Law 1920/1991 (article 9 of the ratified PNL).

The Sacred Muslim Law and its validity in modern Muslim states, Europe and Greece

It is generally accepted that this Law (sharia, from the Persian saria) is composed primarily of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran, the Holy Book of Muslims, from which various legal rules are deduced interpretively, regulating the social relations of the faithful, especially in matters of family and inheritance law, and, additionally, from the Sacred Tradition (sunnah), the synodal decisions of the early Muslim years and the opinions of great legal teachers of Islam.

Its strictness, rigidity, intransigence and inability to adapt to the modern demands of social life have made it an obsolete, anachronistic and fossilized law. As a law of tradition (Hadith), it does not appear intact and does not have a uniform application throughout the Muslim world, due to the different divergences of the various Muslim sects (Sunnis, Shiites, Hanafites, Safavids, Malakites, etc.). It is precisely for these reasons that the various Muslim states promptly separated religion from the state and introduced modern rules of law to regulate the social life of their people. Thus, in Turkey, with the secularization that Kemal attempted and achieved from 1924, the power of the hierodics (kadıs) to resolve disputes between Turkish citizens, regardless of race, language and religion, was abolished, as a result of the abolition of the formation of the Turkish state based on the millets, and from 1936, a modern legal system was introduced for all citizens, based on an almost faithful translation of the Swiss Civil Code. The same applies to the Balkan states, such as Albania and the former Yugoslavia, which had socialist (more correctly: communist) regimes. More generally, of the Balkan and other European countries, only in Greece does the sharia survive and apply to the personal status of Greek Muslims as a sad remnant of the Ottoman rule. With a noticeable delay, and only from 1946, a modern Civil Code was introduced in Greece. With the exception of certain fundamentalist movements, such as the Mujaheddin (Iran) and the Taliban (Afghanistan), most Muslim states followed Turkey's example, such as Jordan (1951), Syria (1953), Tunisia (1956), Iraq (1959) and Morocco (1959).

The status of Muftis before and after Law 1920/1991

During the time when the "New Countries" were under Ottoman rule, the Muftis (from the Persian mufti) were Muslim theologians (ulema, mullahs) and had this status for a certain region after their appointment by the Sheikh-ul-Islam, i.e. the minister immediately after the prime minister in the government hierarchy, who was the supreme religious leader of Ottoman Turkey and at the same time the Minister of Religion, Justice and Education. For the appointment of the Mufti, a good knowledge of the Holy Muslim Law, piety and graduation from a twelve-year high school of theology were necessary. His duties were purely religious, because he was the supreme religious leader (guide) of the believers. Among these was the drafting of official opinions (fatfads) on religious or legal issues of the Holy Muslim Law, which, however, were not binding on the hieronymous judge (qadi or kat), who alone had the right to dispense justice based on the same law.

The first mention of the Mufti as the religious leader of the Greek Muslims was made with the Treaty of Constantinople of 1881, which provided, among other things, that "the domestic religious courts will continue to exercise their jurisdiction in purely religious matters". In implementation of this Convention, the law ALI/1882 was issued, which provided for the election of Muftis and their responsibilities. This law concerned the Muftis of Larissa, Farsala, Trikala and Volos. Subsequently, with the Treaty of Athens, the equality of Greek Muslims with other Greeks was agreed upon, and it was stipulated that the name of the Sultan would continue to be mentioned in the prayers of Muslims, that their spiritual leaders would be under the authority of the Sheikh-ul-Islamate in Constantinople, and that after the selection of the Grand Mufti by the King of the Greeks and the announcement of the election to the Sheikh-ul-Islamate, the latter would send the elected "Mansurion" and "Muraselen" so that he could exercise his duties. It was also stipulated that the Muftis exercise jurisdiction between Muslims over marriages, divorces, maintenance (nefaka), guardianships, guardianships, emancipation of minors and Islamic wills. Regarding inheritances, interested Muslims can appeal to the Mufti as an arbitrator.

This was followed by the issuance of Law No. 2345/1920 “on the temporary Chief Mufti and Muftis of the Muslim States and on the management of the properties of the Muslim Communities”. The main features of this law are the following: 1) As regards the Chief Mufti, it does not appear that its relevant provision was implemented, nor the one that provided for the establishment of a Muslim Theological School in Athens. Thus, we had a selection of Greek Muslim Muftis, native or naturalized, graduates of foreign theological schools, with all the consequences that this entails. 2) No reference is made to the previous International or Bilateral Treaties, and any other previous provision that regulated the objects regulated by this law was explicitly repealed. Thus, the said Treaties, which are not mentioned in the law as sources of its regulations, were deprived of their Constitutional ratification (art. 28 of the Constitution) and lost their increased force compared to ordinary laws. 3) The method of selecting Muftis was defined with the participation of all Greek Muslims, who were registered on the electoral lists of the district of the Mufti being elected, in contrast to the prevailing in the official and dominant religion of the Greeks, the Clergy of which has always, since the time of the Apostle Paul, been appointed without the participation of the laity. 4) With the repeal of the previous laws (and the law ALI'/1882) the direct involvement of "Mansouris" and "Mouraseledos" was eliminated, as well as the commemoration of the Sultan in the prayers of Greek Muslims. 5) It was determined that both the Chief Mufti and the Muftis are public servants, paid by the state. 6) The jurisdiction of the Mufti over the issues mentioned above was maintained, with the exception of the Mufti's arbitration regarding inheritance cases, which was immediately subordinated to him. 7) For all the individual powers of the Mufti to resolve disputes between Greek Muslims, it was stipulated that these must be governed by the Holy Muslim Law and 8) It was stipulated that in order for the relevant decisions of the Mufti to be enforceable and to constitute res judicata, they must be declared enforceable by the Single-Member Court of First Instance of the Mufti's district. The Court of First Instance cannot examine anything other than whether the decision was issued within the limits of jurisdiction and without examining its content. This last provision regarding the lack of possibility of investigation by the Court of First Instance as to the content was added by the mandatory law 372/1936.

Today in Greece, the Legislative Act (PNP) of 24-12-1990, ratified by law 1920/1991, is in force.

With the PNP: 1) Law 2345/1920 and any other provision concerning matters regulated by the PNP (article 9 par. 1) were repealed. 2) The election of Muftis is now carried out without the participation of the popular element, with the advisory and only participation in the process of election of ten members of the Greek Muslim Community, religious ministers and prominent Greek Muslim citizens, even in the case of non-participation of Muslims, the relevant committee under the competent Prefect. 3) The Mufti who is appointed has the status of a civil servant, as under the previous regime, takes the oath of a civil servant, with the position and remuneration of a general director and has the obligations of civil servants according to the Constitution and the laws. 4) The Mufti exercises, as under the previous regime, jurisdiction over marriages, divorces, alimony, guardianships, emancipation of minors, Islamic wills and intestate succession, as long as these relationships are governed by the Holy Muslim Law. And 5) The need for the declaration of enforceability (more precisely, ratification) of decisions by the Single-Member Court of First Instance is maintained, which investigates only whether the decision was issued within the limits of the Mufti's jurisdiction and whether the provisions applied are contrary to the Constitution. An appeal may be lodged against the decision of the Single-Member Court of First Instance before the relevant Multi-Member Court of First Instance, against whose decision there is no ordinary or extraordinary legal remedy. The PNP with the content mentioned constitutes some progress compared to the previous regime, but it does not resolve the resulting problems, as I explain below.

These problems are the following:

Regarding the Mufti's capacity as a judge

According to articles 87 et seq. of the Constitution, as well as the previous ones, justice (in Greece) is administered by regular judges, who have functional and personal independence, and must respect the Constitution and the laws and not comply with unconstitutional provisions. Thus, they have life tenure, which is extended up to an age limit (65 years up to the rank of Appellate Judge and 67 for higher ranks) and have special salary treatment. There is, therefore, a blatant contradiction between the above regulation of law 1920/1991 and that of the Constitution, since an administrative employee, for whom no age limit is set, exercises jurisdiction over Greek citizens, who, regardless of religion, have the appropriate protection from the Constitution and the laws that implement the constitutional requirement. However, beyond these, the simple law naming of the Mufti as a judge also conflicts with other provisions of the Constitution, such as those of article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2, which stipulate that Greek men and women are equal before the law and have equal rights and obligations. Interpretatively, it has been accepted that a deviation from the principle of equality is permissible for reasons of general (public or social) interest, which in this case do not exist. It is also a violation of the Constitution (article 5, paragraph 2) which establishes the absolute protection of the life, honor and freedom of Greek citizens, without discrimination of race, language and religious beliefs, with exceptions when provided for by international law. And the provision emphasizes the aforementioned autonomy. With all this, it becomes clear that there is a discriminatory treatment of Greek Muslims, who can be tried by judges of their own religion (Muftis), compared to other Greeks, regardless of religion, who are necessarily tried by regular judges who may or may not be of their own religion. The unconstitutionality of the assignment of judicial duties by a Mufti is also pointed out by the Council of State with its 1033/2001 decision based on all Constitutions from the year 1844 to the present day.

Regarding the law applied or applicable by the Mufti

With the adoption of the Holy Muslim Law by the Greek legislator, this Law constitutes internal (national) law and the Greek ordinary judge who is called upon to declare the Mufti's decision enforceable (art. 5 par. 3 of Law 1920/1991) must know it according to the current rule of Roman law jura novit curia. However, there is no codification of the applicable Muslim law, and even if there were, it would have to include all its deviations, which is almost impossible. Indicative of this weakness is the establishment, in execution of a relevant term of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), of a mixed committee for the recording of the customs of the Muslim minority that arise from specific religious practices, which, however, never met. Custom is also a source of law in the legal system of Greece (art. 1 of the Civil Code). The provisions of Law 1920/1991 are purely procedural, that is, they determine the way in which the judge (in this case the Mufti) will resolve the dispute. However, the solution presupposes the existence of a provision of substantive law that was violated and this must be sought in the sharia, which is characterized as undefined in terms of content (Athina Kotzambasi, Professor of Law, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki). In addition, the Holy Muslim Law as a special law is narrowly applicable and not amenable to expansive interpretation or analogous application. This weakness also applies to other fields of Muslim procedural law that the Mufti applies, such as e.g. the weight of each means of proof, which in the Holy Law (as it was in force in the Ottoman Empire) gives more weight to the testimony of a man than to a woman, the inadmissibility of written evidence when it is not combined with witness testimony, etc.

Regarding persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Mufti – International implications

Law 1920/1991, like its predecessors, stipulates that the Mufti's jurisdiction includes the Greek Muslims of his region. However, a gap is created as to what applies to the Greek Muslims of the other regions of Greece, where there are no Muftis, as well as to the Muslims of other nationalities (Egyptians, Tunisians, Turks, Pakistanis, Palestinians, etc.) who are residents of Greece. The problem is exacerbated by the existence of Greek Muslim workers in a European country, which was identified in Germany by Professor Peter Gottwald of the University of Regensburg) and in his opinion he points out the inequality of treatment of women in Muslim marriage and characterizes it as anachronistic, indirectly accepting that Muslim law cannot apply in Germany, nor to Greek Muslims residing there.

Regarding the local competence of the Mufti to resolve a civil dispute as a judge

It is clear that the aforementioned International and Bilateral Conventions concerned the territorial areas of Greece that were liberated from the Turks (the “New Countries”) and had no connection with other areas, such as the Ionian Islands, the Dodecanese and Crete, which did not come to Greece from Turkey, but from other regimes and therefore from other legal systems to which the Holy Muslim Law did not apply, nor was there any relevant provision in the Concession Treaties. Despite this, there were some erroneous decisions of Greek courts that accepted the opposite. However, the biggest error belongs to the Greek legislator of law 1920/1991 that ratified article 5 of the PNL, which does not make the relevant distinction. The back door is thus opened for the establishment of other Muftis, beyond those that exist, at the request of Muslim economic refugees in Greece, many of whom are illegal, with the invocation of the principle of equal treatment under the gaze and pressure of powerful Muslim states, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Libya and especially Turkey, which will rush to exploit the fact, under the pretext of invoking religious interest, but essentially to create hotbeds of national danger in Greece.

Regarding the decisions issued by the Mufti

According to article 93 par. 3 of the Constitution, every judicial decision must be specifically and thoroughly reasoned. It is generally accepted that a judicial decision consists of its history, its reasoning and its operative part. The reasoning consists of the (correct) subordination of the facts that the court accepted as proven to the rule of substantive law that it considered to be applicable to the specific case. Thus, this rule must also be mentioned in the Mufti's decision. But if this rule is not defined and, moreover, accepted by all Muslim sects, then there is no reasoning and the decision is non-existent, as it conflicts with the above constitutional requirement. However, beyond this, the trial of a case of serious subject matter, such as the dissolution of a marriage with a dispute between the spouses, by a single-member court (by the Mufti alone), in contrast to the current Greek procedural law, which requires the trial by a multi-member court, where the exchange of any differing opinions of its members, both in the assessment of the evidentiary material and in the interpretation of the applicable substantive law rule, ensures the most correct possible judgment, entails the risk of issuing an incorrect decision. This risk is maximized by the fact that the decisions of the Mufti, when declared enforceable, are not subject to legal remedies (appeal, annulment) in accordance with article 5 par. 3 of law 1920/1991, a prohibition that does not generally apply to the decisions of civil courts. This creates another further distinction between Greek Muslims and other Greeks. But the adjudication of civil cases by a person who lacks the qualifications of a judge, as these are deleted from national legislation, immediately and directly conflicts with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights of Rome, which has been in force since 1953. This article speaks of the right of every person to have his case heard fairly, publicly and within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 5 of the Convention is also relevant, which recognizes equality of civil rights and duties between spouses, as well as in relations with their children, with regard to marriage during its duration and its dissolution. In addition to this provision, this equality is also ensured by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Regarding the declaration of enforceability of the Mufti's decision

From the provision of article 5 of the PNP./1990 it follows that the single-member court of first instance, in order to declare the decision of the Mufti enforceable, must investigate, in addition to whether the decision was issued within the limits of its jurisdiction, as previously in force, but also whether the constitutional requirements were observed with regard to the provisions applied. From this it follows that these provisions must be mentioned in the decision, with the difficulties already noted, and that they must not be contrary to the Constitution. Since the constitutionality of the substantive law applied by the Mufti is subject to the control of the Single-member Court of First Instance, it further follows that the Mufti must know, not only Muslim law, but also that of the Constitution and its implementing laws. However, such a condition is not included in the qualifications for his appointment. In view of the fact that the decisions of the Mufti are not subject to legal remedies (regular or extraordinary), the Single-Member Court of First Instance should refuse to declare the Mufti's decision enforceable, if its content shows a clear disharmony with the public sense of justice. This follows from the fact that in this newer law (PNP) the previous commitment of the Single-Member Court of First Instance not to investigate the content of the Mufti's decision was not repeated. In conclusion, the above provision of the PNP also contains the seed of self-nullification, since, as I will explain below, all the judicial powers of the Mufti are contrary to the Constitution.

The Mufti's individual judicial powers

1. Marriage between Muslim Greeks, as long as they are governed by the Holy Muslim Law

According to what has been accepted, under Muslim law, marriage is a private law contract and is concluded following a proposal by one party to the other and acceptance of the proposal by the other in the name of Allah, in the presence of two witnesses and by determining a sum of money, as a dowry, which the husband is obliged to give to the wife in the event of dissolution of the marriage due to divorce or death (nikiyah). Up to this point, there is no problem of unconstitutionality or opposition to good morals or public order. The problems arise from the fact that the personal presence of the woman, even if she is an adult, is not necessary at the time of the conclusion of the marriage, but she can be represented by a close male relative. However, this creates the possibility of the conclusion of the marriage solely on the agreement of the groom and the bride's relative, who, under the circumstances of her life, cannot react. The biggest problem, however, arises from the fact that according to the Holy Muslim Law, polygamy is permitted, and indeed only on the part of the man, who can marry and have up to four wives at the same time. In this case, there is a direct and brutal insult to public morals and public order, since bigamy is not only an obstacle to marriage, not only a reason for divorce, but also a criminal offense, according to article 356 of the Criminal Code and applies to all Greeks regardless of religion. Therefore, the Mufti, by ratifying or granting permission to marry and remarry an already married man, commits the above crime as a direct accomplice of the perpetrator of bigamy. From the above, there also arises an inequality of treatment between men and women to the detriment of women, which is intolerable in modern social life and a direct violation of the relevant constitutional provision.

2. Divorces

There are two ways to dissolve a marriage by divorce. Consensual dissolution and dismissal. Consent (hul) does not present any problems and usually comes from the woman's desire, but she is obliged to pay the man some kind of compensation. It is a case of the right of "self-redemption". Dismissal (talag) is made by the man with his declaration to the woman on three consecutive occasions, during periods of "purity" of the woman and during this period he must not have slept with her. This institution, certainly derogatory of the woman's personality, is certainly unconstitutional (art. 21 of the Constitution) but also contrary to good morals. In essence, divorce between Muslim spouses is at the will of the man, who, if he does not consent to the divorce, the woman cannot be freed from an unbearable marriage, since the right to dismiss belongs only to the man, sometimes insisting on him for reasons of revenge. According to the prevailing German jurisprudence, divorce under Muslim law, whether by dismissal or by consent, is contrary to internal (German) public order, since divorce, as in Greece, is pronounced only by civil courts.

3. Diets

In the event of a divorce according to Sharia, the husband is obliged to pay maintenance (nefaka) to his wife for three months from the dissolution of the marriage. This is temporary maintenance because it is considered that after the three-month period has passed, the woman can and must find a new husband. However, there is no provision for the indigent husband, who according to the Civil Code is entitled to maintenance for an indefinite period from his wealthy wife, as well as for the wife for the period beyond the three-month period. In this way, there is an unfavorable treatment of women in particular, which in its entirety almost reflects the Holy Muslim Law. Consequently, there is inequality among Greeks, regardless of gender and religion, which directly conflicts with the Constitution.

4. Parent-child relationships

The equality of spouses in their relations with their children, as defined by the amendments to Law 1329/1983, does not apply in Muslim law. This is because, in the event of divorce, custody of the boy belongs to the mother only until the age of seven and of the girl until the age of nine, while thereafter it falls to the father until they reach adulthood.

5. Islamic covenants

The Mufti's authority lies in the drafting, publication and interpretation of the will before which the testator declares his will to dispose of his property to whomever he wishes. It is similar to the public will defined in the Civil Code with the difference that the will of other citizens is drawn up before a notary who has the status of an unpaid public official and a competent university-educated lawyer supervised by the relevant prosecutor, while the Islamic will is drawn up before an administrative official without any control and without the guarantees of legal knowledge, especially with regard to the formal part of the contracts. Although there is no definition of the content of the Islamic will, it is accepted (Dimetriadis) that the power to dispose of a Muslim's property for the period after his death is limited, because, according to the Holy Muslim Law, intestate succession takes precedence and a Muslim can only dispose of part of his property, and that only for a charitable purpose.

6. Intestate succession

The Holy Muslim Law, defines unfavorable treatment of the Muslim woman for her succession without a will to the inheritance of her deceased husband, providing for more favorable treatment (preference) in favor of male relatives beyond the fourth degree. The complex system of inheritance of the deceased Muslim's assets, which is accepted by all Muslim doctrines as contained directly by the Prophet, is developed in the book by D.N. Dimitriadis (Dimitoglou) HIERONOMIC INHERITANCE OF MOHAMMEDIANS DICAION – FERAYZ, almost incomprehensible to the Greek judge who is called upon to ratify the Mufti's decision. The matter is further complicated by the Ottoman distinction of real estate into pure ownership (mulk) and public land, of which only the former are subject to hereditary succession. The system of intestate succession, which according to Dimitriadis (Dimitoglou) is accepted by all Muslim doctrines, is reasonably questioned by the President of the Court of First Instance, Eust. Tsoukalas, but he himself in his book mentions deviations of various Muslim jurists.

Turkey's expected reactions

Turkey, if Greece repeals Law 1920/1991, regarding its provisions on the jurisdiction of the Mufti, or if the Greek courts accept the unconstitutionality of these provisions, as I propose, is expected to react, since it will lose part of its influence on Greek territory, a remnant of the Ottoman Empire, the reconstitution of which it dreams of. However, its reaction will be ineffectual since it itself has long ago abandoned its Islamic regime and has modern legislation of a secular state. Besides, the established jurisdiction of the Mufti for Greek Muslims was justified by the uniform treatment of Greek Muslims and those of Turkey, which, however, has long ago been voluntarily abolished in Turkey and the principle of reciprocity must be applied.

CONCLUSION

1. The Mufti is not a judge and therefore cannot issue judicial decisions.

2. The Sacred Muslim Law which it applies, in addition to being anachronistic and inconsistent with modern social life, lacks the clarity and definiteness required for its application.

3. All of its jurisdictional powers defined in law conflict with constitutional provisions.

PROPOSAL

The immediate repeal of the Civil Procedure Code and its ratifying law in the part concerning the Mufti's jurisdiction is required. Otherwise, the Greek judge who is called upon to declare the Mufti's decision enforceable must refuse to do so on any of the grounds I mentioned above.

SOURCES (indicative)

From the case law of the Greek courts:

– OlAp 322/60 Legal Forum, volume 8, p. 1121.

– AP 1041/00 Greek Justice, volume 42, p. 427.

– Court of Appeal 1333/01 Armenopoulos, volume 55, page 1263.

– Thrace Court of Appeal 7/01 No. Volume 55, p. 692.

– Court of First Instance of Xanthi 116/81 Case Law Archive, volume 35, page 279.

– Court of First Instance of Xanthi 172/66 Greek Justice, volume 7, page 728.

– Court of First Instance of Xanthi 142/65 Greek Justice, volume 6, page 520.

– Kavala Court of First Instance 524/62 Case Law Archive, volume 696, page XNUMX.

From lawyers and historians:

– The Thracians, from the series “Roots of the Greeks”, Pegasus Publishing, Athens 2012.

– Asterios Ath. Bouzias, Historical Issues magazine, September 2012: Justice in the Ottoman Empire.

– Athena Kotzambasi (Greece 44, 57): The scope of application of the Sacred Muslim Law in the family legal relations of Greek Muslims.

– Efstathios A. Tsoukalas (Greece 30, 741): What law governs the intestate succession of the Muslims of our Thrace?

– Efstathios A. Tsoukalas (Greece 43, 1035): The family and inheritance law of the Muslims of our Thrace.

– George P. Bekiaridis (Arm. 27, 885): Muftis are religious leaders of the Muslims of their region and as public authorities.

– Marianna Papakyriakou (Arm. 55, p. 636): The notary in the European Union.

– K. Tsitselikis (NoV 49, 583): The jurisdictions of the Mufti as a religious judge.

– D.N. Dimitriadis (Dimitroglou): Sacred Inheritance of the Mohammedans Law – FERAIZ, Athens 1915.

– Savvas Pasha: Droit Musulmanian, Paris 1896.

– Savvas Pasha: Etude sur la theoria du droit musulman, Paris 1898.

– Opinion of Peter Gottwald – Dimitris Dimitriou (Arm. 49, 1354).

– K. Economopoulos (Neon Dikaion, 32, 489): The Application of the Treaty of Lausanne on the Muslim minority of Western Thrace.