An interesting precedent has been set here. From the Chicago Sun-Times, with thanks to EPG:
Attorney Reem Odeh said Saturday that her client, Mae Sallal, of Frankfort, should be able to collect her $15,000 dowry, pending a court ruling in Jordan expected soon."They have respect for the American judicial system,'' Odeh said.
Sallal won what Odeh thinks is a virtually unprecedented legal victory last month before Will County Circuit Court Judge Robert Baron. He ruled that an Islamic marriage contract -- known as an Aqed Zawage -- could be enforced in the United States. In the past, Odeh said, judges have been reluctant to uphold religious contracts as binding law.
In that contract, which the couple signed in Jordan where they were married eight years ago, husband Rami Sallal agreed to pay $10,000 Jordanian dinars as a Muacher, or deferred dowry, if the couple split up. He also agreed to give her gold and other jewelry at her wedding as a dowry. In Muslim culture, dowries are given from males to females, said Mae Sallal, who is Palestinian. Rami Sallal is from Jordan.
Here is the main point:
Aaron Jaffe, a Cook County Chancery Court judge who formerly worked in the domestic relations division, said there are no legally binding religious contracts in American law. Jaffe, who is Maria Jaffe's father-in-law, could recall no instances when he upheld Islamic religious law.
It's a contract under common law. It was entered into as part of a mariage agreement. A legal marriage fullfilling all necessary requirements to be recognised in pretty well any country is a contract at the very least. The dowry is clearly part of that particular contract. There are no mitigating factors such as mental incapacity or the husband being too young to understand etc.etc.
It's not case of upholding a religious contract. It is a case of upholding a marriage contract and one that is clearly recognisable as such under Common Law. The USA did base its legal system on Common Law.
You are of f-beam on this one.
A similar case in Los Angeles did not uphold the Islamic marriage contract. It involved an Egyptian couple. The man was a wealthy doctor who had built up a $3 million medical practice. The wife was a homemaker who had never worked outside of the home, in her 40s, who had raised four kids.
This prince of a man wanted to kick the wife out on the street with her generous "due" under an Islamic marriage contract that was signed in a slum in Egypt: the grand total of $30 U.S.
The judge said no, and gave the wife her due under California community property laws: $1.5 million buckerooos.
Where domestic relations under Islamic law, and Western legal systems -- both those of the increasingly statutory-based common law systems of the Anglo-American world, and the civil code systems of the Continent -- are most likely to clash is in the extra-contractual treatment of women. For example, the obvious problem of polygamy, and how to deal with it now that it is no longer just a problem of a few Mormons. Or, where a Muslim husband dies intestate, and the rules of succession allot a certain automatic amount to his wife and to his children, and the children inherit in equal measure whether male or female, according to the civil law (whereas under Muslim law females get less), which violates the sharia. The legal systems of Europe and North America are less likely to bend to Muslim demands than are the political systems, for the latter have those currying Muslim favor and votes, and have the (false) diversity boosters behind them ("false" because Islam is dead set against diversity -- it demands, it requires, that Islam cover the globe and that it, and its adherents, dominate over all other faiths and adherents), and the law, sometimes but not always an ass, can also be our savior.
American law schools tend, where they offer anything, courses on "Islamic law" that innocent law faculty members believe should rightly be taught by Muslims themselves. That is because they do not understand that the principles of disinterested scholarship are far less important than the principles of taqiyya and kitman, of deliberately presenting a sanitized view, or one riddled with apologetics. Furthermore, what is most necessary is not that American law students learn about the shari'a, but that they learn about the elements where Islamic law, and the secular law, are likely to collide. The First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of conscience; our laws are not going to look kindly on those who attempt to punish apostates from Islam. The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion -- but within limits, for where the state has a compelling interest, that free exercise (yarmulkes or Sikh turbans on air force personnel, for example) gets in the way of other reasonable requirements of the secular state, that free exercise may be curtailed. Muslim security guards in prisons, for example, are unlikely to be able to claim that they can leave their posts for the five canonical prayers, the salat, every day. And so on. The severity of the problems between the clash of Islamic laws, especially in domestic relations and in laws of inheritance, will be determined mostly by the willingness of Muslims to conform to the laws of the Infidel states in which they have come to live. Their natural tendency, that of the Muslim masses, is to ignore all such man-made laws, for the only laws that count are those that conform to Allah, and these are the laws of the shari'a. And how much less worthy of respect are the laws that are not only "man-made" but are made by Infidels, an entirely benighted and inferior brand of humanity, who -- in their refusal to accept Islam -- stand stubbornly in the way of the world-wide conquest by Islam, "that dominates and must not be dominated."
When, at Muslim websites, inquiring Muslims in Western lands (Holland, Italy, UK) ask if it is all right to obey the laws of the countries they now live in ("if they have to ask, we Infidels can't afford them (in our midst)" as a wit once noted), they are told they "may" conform to any laws of Infidel states that do not directly contradict the shari'a. But then, they are also told, in somewhat vague terms, that of course one "may have to conform" to the laws currently in force even while working to change them.
The principle that is being invoked here is that of DARURA, or necessity. Some non-Muslims may find this comforting: Oh, I see. It is a case of "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." Well, it would be nicer if they thought "When in Rome, become a real Roman and respect Roman laws and ways" but if this is the best that can be done, okay."
No, this is not what temporary conformity to the laws of the U.S., the U.K., and other currentlyh-Infidel states means. What the answers providing by the offerors of fatwas to their inquirers is: "because for now you have to obey such laws, , but as soon as Rome is in your hands, then you will do as you, and not the original inahbitants of Rome, the Romans, like. For Rome will then belong to Allah and the Believers."
But in the particular case, as stated, the dowry-contract does seem to be simply an ordinary contract with detrimental reliance. There may be some problems with formalities that may have had to be met (was it signed? properly witnessed?). Not all contracts need to be reduced to written form, but this one sounds as if it should have been. Was it a contract without duress?
Fascinating legal hypo for class: A Muslim student wants desperately to stay in the U.S., for the INS is hot on his heels (I said this was just a law-school hypothetical, didn't I?) He woos and weds an American girl, promising her, incidentally, that he is a fabulously-rich Saudi and will give her one million dollars on their fifth anniversary. Her parents insist that he put that promise in writing before the marriage, and he does so. Instead as soon as he has his green card, and his full-fledged American child or two by her, he simply leaves the country. She was useful in supplyingg sex (and perhaps she was even a blonde, long-stemmed American beauty), a green card, and American nationality to his children (his three basic needs).
Now, she wants to enforce the pre-nuptial contract in American courts. And the Saudi hires an American lawyer who argues that the written promise to give her one million dollars on their fifth anniversary was signed under duress, for otherwise the INS was going to send him out of the country, put an end to his American studies, and otherwise ruin his life. Duress, if proven, can justify non-performance. Okay, class: you have one hour, and please write only on the right-side pages in the bluebook.
At this very moment, the radio is hysterically squawking about its "expert's" recommendations for "summer reading." An atrocious concocted category, which apparently means "reading so simple and stupid that you won't have to think at all" while working on your carcinogenic tan. One begs to differ. Summer is the time to take a swim in the big books, Anna Karenina or Middlemarch or The Divine Comedy. Or if they won't fit on the beach blanket (along with the bingo), bring the important studies by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, which are best re-read. Another book that might be added to the list of "unsummer summer reading" related to topics discussed here is Corbin on Contracts. Though Farnsworth is the most recent of the hornbooks on contracts, Corbin's dryly beautiful prose does not date. It's not as exhilarating as climbing Mount Maitland (F.W. Maitland), at the top of which the air is very pure, but Corbin clears the mental sinuses.
Okay Hugh, the contract is binding. He was not under duress by her, and he voluntarily entered into the agreement. He could have complied with the INS but wilfully elected to enter into a contract he had no intention of honoring. Therefore, he is liable for the full amount of the contract plus court costs and pain and suffering.
She and her parents are damn fools, but what the hey, people thought Muslims dealt in good faith with non-Muslims. Hopefully, she wasn't stupid enough to convert to hell.
this contract is basicly a pre-nup, people sign them all the time for all sorts of reasons, This one said that if they couple divorces she gets some amount of money. As long as everyone who agreed to this was doing of their own free will I don't see what the problem is.
I assume the court looked at it and said "Its a contract", and went from there.
I know of a lot of Jewish couples who sign pre-nups that say in the event of a civil divorce both parties agree to a religous divorce as well, with civil pentalties if you don't.
In a few weeks I am going to go with my Fiance to the State of New York and show them her Get (Jewish religous divorce) and ask them to give us a marrage licence. This is the only divorce paperwork she has because its all that you need in Israel, and she was divorced in Israel (where we both live.
Muslim men are going to learn the hard way that in the U.S., they better learn to treat their women right, instead of like dogs. I'm happy this woman won money from this sow.
This should be as far as it goes though. Judges need to pull their heads out of their asses before they're removed from the bench. Some judges are lobbying from the bench, and it needs to stop.
From the article:
He also awarded Mae Sallal, 28, custody of the couple's 1-1/2 year old daughter, their home in Frankfort and two cars.
...definitely unIslamic for the woman to get anything.
The best gift for any American or Western female thinking of marrying a Muslim is still the book/ movie "Not Without My Daughter" When I was stationed in Pakistan, I seen way too many Westerners (Brits, Dutch, Americans) suckered into moving back to the "home" country.
Pakistan might be bad (it is), but we all know about the wonderous treatment of women in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world.
The point is the contract did not reduce her rights under US law . The example given in the second comment was a clear reduction of rights. In the UK and, I hope, in the USA, a contract cannot reduce your legal rights. It is impossible to sign away legally guaranteed protections.
However, the reader will note that the discussion is more about what does and does not constitute a contract and the effect of US law on said contract. All of which proves my initial point.