| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
A small victory against the creeping sharia initiatives of the stealth jihadists.
"Court denies Islamic divorce: Man's attempt to circumvent state law is rejected," by Nick Madigan for the Baltimore Sun (thanks to all who sent this in):
Saying "I divorce thee" three times, as men in Muslim countries have been able to do for centuries when leaving their wives, is not enough if you're a resident of Maryland, the state's highest court ruled yesterday.Yesterday, the Court of Appeals rejected a Pakistani man's argument that his invocation of the Islamic talaq, under which a marriage is dissolved simply by the husband's say-so, allowed him to part with his wife of more than 20 years and deny her a share of his $2 million estate.
The justices affirmed a lower court's decision overturning a divorce decree obtained in Pakistan by Irfan Aleem, a World Bank economist who moved from London to Maryland with his wife, Farah Aleem, in 1985.
Both of their children were born in the United States.
In 2003, Aleem's wife filed for divorce in Montgomery County Circuit Court.
When he filed a counterclaim, he did not object to the court's jurisdiction over the case, according to the ruling. But before the legal process could be completed - and without telling his wife - Aleem went to the Pakistani Embassy in Washington and invoked the talaq, in effect attempting to turn jurisdiction of the case over to a Pakistani court that later granted him a divorce.
When they were married in Karachi in 1980, Farah Aleem was 18 and had just graduated from high school. Irfan Aleem was 29, a doctoral candidate at Oxford University in England. As is customary, the couple signed a marriage contract. It obligated Aleem to give his wife the equivalent of $2,500 in the event of their divorce. When they split, he did so, and claimed he owed her nothing more.
Maryland's highest court disagreed.
"If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property," the judges wrote in their decision.
They said the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation." [...]
Experts in Islamic law and religion who are based in the U.S. said they agreed with the court's ruling. Abdullahi An-Na'im, a Muslim scholar and law professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said "there can only be one law of the land."...
Indeed.
Posted by Robert at May 7, 2008 12:43 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Weasel words. Scholarly Islamic double-talk. Beware the Ikhwanist.
Posted by: John C![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 7, 2008 1:25 PM
Wonderful!
Now, if she can only outrun her ex and his honor-killing kin, she'll have it made.
Posted by: undaunted at May 7, 2008 1:46 PM
I can only hope that an American divorce is not a violation of Irfan Aleem's honor..............
Warning to Muslim men - divorce in American is non-Islamic and very expensive! Stay in the Islamic paradise of your choice where you can invoke the talaq anytime you want.
It is also true in decadent America that women have equal rights. Eck! Stay in Jihadistan and save the souls of your wives!
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 7, 2008 2:33 PM
It is also true in decadent America that women have equal rights.
Such as equal consideration of their testimony in court, and a share of inheritance determined by their parent's will, not the sharia. Don't like these things? Go somewhere else.
Posted by: Bigfoot at May 7, 2008 2:43 PM
Abdullahi An-Na'im, a Muslim scholar and law professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said "there can only be one law of the land."...
For now. But eventually he wants to see that the sharia replaces the infidel, man-made law. Or not?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 7, 2008 3:33 PM
honor-killing
'Honor' and 'killing' in the same breath? Broken...
I call it a Family execution, for that's what it is.
Posted by: Henrik at May 7, 2008 3:44 PM
undaunted---
You are correct. This divorce will have consequences in Pakistan between his family and hers. It appears to have been an arranged marriage. His value on the Pakistani marriage market was tremendous because he had very good job prospects and lived in the West. Meaning they help family members immigrate from cess-pit known as Pakistan
Posted by: dennisw at May 7, 2008 3:45 PM
Wait, am I the only that's stunned by the fact that $2,500 is the dowry/"divorce payment" and is about the equivalent of 2 goats?
More is spent on (some) banquet halls *alone* here in America than that.
Why if Islam is a religion of "peace" and "tolerance" is it the only religion (to my knowledge) that requires the husband to pay a "divorce fee" before getting married? Isn't this Mut'a by any other name (minus the set time for the marriage to dissolve)?
-Peter
*Fight Sharia, for with it there is no peace or tolerance*
Posted by: Peter Nielson at May 7, 2008 4:27 PM
As mentioned else where through out this site there is no moderate Muslims. This is a good example of what Muslims think that sharia is above infidels laws. Sharia should be out lawed in the United States.
Posted by: savsiv at May 7, 2008 5:29 PM
The justices of the Maryland Court of Appeals should receive brief, well-written letters, preferably from such jihadwatchers as may reside in Maryland, praising them for this very important decision.
They need to know that classical, traditional, mainstream Islam has always viewed all other polities and systems of law as illegitimate, to be subverted and annihilated by all means necessary and replaced by sharia under a Musllim despotism. Thus, their resolute assertion of the primacy of kafir law on American soil is of enormous significance. They are on the front line in what might be called the 'legal jihad'.
They should be referred to such useful and instructive items as the Centre for Political Islam's summary of what Islam teaches about women; and urged to study Joseph Schacht.
at May 7, 2008 10:00 PM
I have a knee-jerk reaction to Islamic scholarship, despising, as I do, orthodox Islamic tradition and expecting a smokescreen of taqqiya and kitman; I have since I realized I was taken-in by the-religion-of-peace mantra and the deliberate, non-contextual, edited misquotation of Sura 5, 32.
Posted by: John C at May 7, 2008 11:23 PM
I have a knee-jerk reaction to Islamic scholarship, despising, as I do, orthodox Islamic tradition and expecting a smokescreen of taqqiya and kitman; I have since I realized I was taken-in by the-religion-of-peace mantra and the deliberate, non-contextual, edited misquotation of Sura 5, 32.
Posted by: John C at May 7, 2008 11:23 PM
I agree with you about the oxymoron "Islamic scholarship." LOL. Concerning the Mohammedan doctrine of "taqiyya," I never believe anything a Mohammedan says. Nothing. Mr. "War is Deceit" Mohammed employed taqiyya, and so do his Mo'Bot followers. End of story.
I never was "taken in" by the rop propaganda. Even though at the time of 9/11 I knew nothing - nothing - about Islam and the Qur'an, I knew that 9/11 wasn't "peaceful."
Personal story: My youngest, very PC brother grew a beard in 2002-3. So, we all go out to dinner one night and my mother comments, "You look like a Muslim." My brother, with a smile on his face, replies, "It's the religion of peace!" Immediately, and even though my knowledge of Islam was still limited as all-get-out I said: "Really? What do you call 9/11?"
Silence. At the dinner table! Nobody knew what to do! Constrained by "political correctness," and Islamic propaganda, there was just total mental confusion! As it turned out, nobody wanted to deal with the reality of my response, so after the few moments of shocked silence, conversation turned to the usual non-controversial, banal, tedious and insignificant subjects that may be safely discussed with no internecine dispute.
To this day no one in my family except my husband will discuss Islam, Muslims, etc. They are such ostriches it's unbelieveable! But, many of my friends are like that, too. They do not want to hear about Islam. Period. It's like the "mind-forged manacles" which Hugh referenced on another thread. So, I talk about how great my planter-rack looks with all the various spring flowers I've filled it with - and that goes over GREAT! Everyone loves the flower-filled planter-rack. No one will talk about Islam, Mohammed, Qur'an.
Well, to anyone who slogged their way through all of that verbiage, thanks! I don't know why I got so loquacious.
Posted by: darcy at May 8, 2008 10:58 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)