She signed a prenuptial agreement agreeing to abide by Sharia, but says she was tricked into doing so. This ought to have been taken into account.
Non-Muslims in several states a few years ago tried to outlaw the elements of Sharia that interfere with Constitutionally protected freedoms, not Islam as an individual religious practice. These anti-Sharia measures were aimed at political Islam, an authoritarian ideology at variance with the Constitution in numerous particulars: Sharia denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. That is what people wanted to restrict, and the elements of Sharia that contradict Constitutional freedoms were all they want to restrict. But of course these efforts met furious opposition and were denounced as “Islamophobic.”
Meanwhile, Sharia really does deny equality of rights to women. But to oppose that is “racist.” So Mariam Ayad just has to suffer, you see, for diversity.
“Texas judge denies US citizen due process rights, sends her before Islamic Sharia tribunal instead,” by Phil Shiver, TheBlaze, July 7, 2021:
A judge in Texas earlier this year effectively denied a U.S. citizen her constitutionally protected due process rights, choosing instead to order her to appear before an Islamic tribunal where her testimony is considered inferior. And when her lawyers sounded the alarm — the judge doubled down.
What are the details?
In March, Collin County District Judge Andrea Thompson ordered a Muslim woman seeking a divorce from her husband to undergo arbitration not through regular channels but through an Islamic court, also known as a Fiqh Panel — a move that the woman’s lawyers argue is an obvious and unconscionable affront to her constitutional rights.
The woman, Mariam Ayad, was attempting to exercise her legal right to a divorce last year when her husband, Ayad Hashim Latif, revealed that on the day of their wedding in 2008, she had signed an Islamic prenuptial agreement to have all matters regarding the marriage and divorce be decided according to Sharia law.
According to court documents, Mariam claims that she was essentially hoodwinked and defrauded into signing the document. At the time, she believed she was signing two copies of a marriage acknowledgment form, which is customary in Muslim cultures.
Notwithstanding, Mariam’s lawyers argue the agreement — which outlines that a three-man panel of Muslim imams are to decide all issues relating to the marriage, including alimony, division of property, child support, and even custody of the couple’s 6-year-old son — ought to be voided in lieu of U.S. law. A copy of the agreement was provided to TheBlaze.
The Texas district judge — in complete disregard of both federal and state law — ruled that the prenuptial agreement is binding, without taking testimony from the wife.
In absence of relief, Mariam will now be required to settle her divorce matters with the Islamic Association of North Texas in front of the Muslim clerics who view her testimony and evidence as carrying half the weight as a man’s.
Mariam has filed a writ of mandamus with the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas to restrict the lower court from enforcing the arbitration order. She is being represented by Michelle O’Neil and Michael Wysocki of the O’Neil Wysocki law firm in Dallas.
What changes did the judge make?
Moreover, court documents obtained by TheBlaze show that Thompson vacated the original March order after Mariam’s lawyers challenged it. But instead of changing the order’s effect, the judge seemed to have merely changed some of the wording to make it appear less controversial.
“It is therefore ordered that Respondent’s Motion to Enforce Islamic Prenuptial Agreement and Refer Case to Muslim Court or Fiqh Panel is granted and the Court refers the case to a Muslim Court or Fiqh Panel for [Alternative Dispute Resolution],” the court order dated March 24, which was viewed by TheBlaze, said.
An updated order, dated June 14, removed words such as “Islamic,” “Muslim,” and “Fiqh,” but reiterated the court’s decision.
“The Court has no discretion but to enforce the agreement of the parties in their Prenuptial Agreement signed on December 26, 2008, and refer the parties to arbitration per the terms of their agreement,” the June order states….
somehistory says
“The Court has no discretion but to enforce the agreement”
Judges have a lot of “freedom to decide,”…discretion…things that come before the bench.
She is an idiot and doesn’t belong on any bench…perhaps in the stocks, instead.
People have been known to get out of “agreements,” “contracts,” etc. when the other side is behaving unfairly or the claim is made of deception.
I think this idiot “judge” is “messing with Texas.”
Wellington says
+1
jule says
Every State must take the time to outlaw Sharia and demand the Laws of USA. What country are we?
fadeye@yahoo.com says
Undoubtedly! Let’s pray for her writ to go through!
gravenimage says
Texas judge denies US citizen due process rights, sends her to Sharia tribunal
………………………
This is shocking stupidity. Not only is sending an unwilling participant to an extra-judicial body that flauts US law wrong in and of itself, but doesn’t the moronic Judge Andrea Thompson know that Shari’ah courts often send women back into abusive and dangerous situations? She either does not know or does not care–either of which disqualifies her from her position.
Here’s a representational case from Australia:
“‘I’m not his property’: Abused Muslim women denied right to divorce”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-18/abused-muslim-women-denied-right-to-divorce/9632772?nw=0
Wellington says
+1
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington.
Wellington says
And just imagine, gravenimage, how much this judge knows about Islam. I would guess next to nothing and thus she is a shameful person, with no excuse with America coming up on the 20th “anniversary” of 9/11.
Some people, actually many people, are quite determined to go their grave learning little respecting reality, the truth of matters, and how the world really operates. Like this judge. I think the entire Biden family too. And many, many more. Damn.
gravenimage says
All too true–and with more Muslims pouring into the US again, this willful ignorance is only going to prove increasingly harmful.
Keith O says
Unfortunately GI, we hear and see reports of this sort of abuse on a regular basis here in Queensland.
The police have had a gut full of this type of abuse but the government won’t do anything because of the areas the mudslimes live in are all in their electorates. And of course they the pollies want the votes to keep them in their high paying do nothing jobs.
gravenimage says
It’s the same all over most of the west, Keith.
Alex Lund says
3..2..1..death
I wouldnt be surprised if the Sharia council rules that a) the husband has the right to punish the wife and b) if he kills her then he is within his rights.
Anybody willing to bet against me?
gravenimage says
They don’t openly go as far as b) in the west now–but they probably will in time if this pandering to Shari’ah continues.
Wellington says
Robert Spencer, somehistory and gravenimage are of course correct in their assessments about this “matter.”
All three reveal the real problem in our time: uninformed, effectively ignorant, people in positions of power in the West (like this judge) who know squat about how subterranean and parasitic the Islamic theological blueprint truly is.
Ignorance is arguably the greatest ally of wickedness. For instance, this doofa of a judge. QED here I would contend. I would also vigorously contend that free societies do not need to destroy freedom in order to demonstrate how free they are. Limits exist in every aspect of life, even with liberty, explored as no other civilization remotely has as has Western Civilization. I don’t think this Texas judge grasps any of this. Bet a case of beer on this—no, make that two.
somehistory says
Thank you, Wellington.
Even if she doesn’t know anything about islam….which as you say, she does not… she should know her job and evidence says, she doesn’t know that either.
gravenimage says
True–you don’t actually have to be an expert on Islam to figure out that this ruling is a very bad idea.
libertyORdeath says
Even if she knows nothing of islam or sharia, she should surely know that US law and the Constitution supersedes any such supposed law.
This judge basically treated her like she was ALREADY in a sharia court.
gravenimage says
+1
RonaldB says
I believe it’s a precept in law that you can’t sign away your rights.
For instance, a person cannot sell himself into slavery.
You can’t make a contract allowing another person to maim you or kill you. Arbitration cases generally involve money or property disposition. No one can put into arbitration a sentence of imprisonment.
I’m absolutely certain it’s illegal to arbitrate the disposition of children. The children have rights as well as the parents, and the rights of the children cannot be abrogated by agreement.
As far as being granted a divorce, the state itself specifies the grounds for divorce and the conditions for divorce. You can’t set aside those state prerogatives by an agreement between two parties. If two parties want to have a marriage or divorce judged by a sharia (or any other religious court) they can both agree before the case is heard to abide by the decision. And, of course, the decision is subject to review by a real court. For instance, in a community-property state, half the wealth accumulated during the marriage goes to the wife (and to the husband, however much some may dispute that). There’s some fiddling with that in prenuptial agreements, but the agreements generally are specifically focused on specified amounts of money.
If someone wants to abrogate US rights by specifying a sharia court, then stay in Morocco.
gravenimage says
Good points, RonaldB. The problem for Muslim women is not obtaining a civil divorce–in the west, at least–but an Islamic one, without which they cannot remarry in Islam.
Of course, they would be better off just leaving their ugly creed.
Shari’ah courts are not even needed for Muslim men to divorce–all they have to do is recite the “Triple Talaq”. But Muslim women are often denied divorces even in cases of abuse and death threats.
RonaldB says
If a Muslim woman cannot in Islamic law marry a Muslim man without an Islamic divorce, it’s strictly up to the parties involved. But, in that case, the wife is always free to ask for an Islamic divorce. If the sharia court grants her a divorce, she gets to marry another Muslim man. If it doesn’t, she still has her property rights from a real court, and is free to marry any man who will marry her.
My point in this is, since you’re dealing strictly with individual prerogatives (who to marry), having to get a sharia divorce to marry a Muslim does not prejudice her US rights. cc
gravenimage says
Agreed, Ronald.
Wellington says
Accurate post, Ronald B. Contracts of any kind which are per se immoral and heinous on their face (e.g., a contract to engage in prostitution for a fee) are all ipso facto illegal.
Too bad more don’t know about the many immoral and heinous aspects of Islamic law which, per traditional Western law, whether English Common Law, Roman Law, et al., should be as null and void as any “contract” for prostitution is under Western law.
Sharia stands as a massive insult to the far more enlightened and traditional law of the West. Trouble is that so many, for instance this foolish and ignorant judge in Texas, do not realize any of this.
Oh yeah, the dumbing down continues—and at the expense of the Western world, not the Islamic world. Thus, the Islamic world must be so delighted, as must be traditional authoritarians like Putin and Xi and neo-Marxists in Western academia pushing the monstrosity which is critical race theory.
We live in a mess of a world right now whereby the Frankfurt School is adulated, intellectual parasites that they were, and the Founding Fathers of America, who set up a “system” which is self-correcting, are now regularly denigrated and demonized.
Upside-down world. Hard not to conclude that man never learns. Much more trouble ahead I fear due to the “massive capacity” of man to go stupid time and time again.
James Lincoln says
Wellington says,
“Much more trouble ahead…”
Yes, things are likely to get even worse before they – hopefully – get better…
rubiconcrest says
Perhaps the woman can claim she knew as little about sharia as the judge. ‘I didn’t know anything about sharia? I thought it was antiquated religious law with no real significance.’
Frank Anderson says
Please review the several cases under the title of United States v. Biloxi, starting with the district court case, 219 F.Supp 691 (S.D. Miss. 1963), affirmed, 326 F.2d 237 (5th Cir. 1964), cert den, 379 U.S. 929 (1965). In that case a contract was entered agreeing to violation of Constitutional Rights, which the courts held to be for an illegal purpose, making the contract void and unenforceable.
The lawyers representing this woman should appeal, claiming that the state court is attempting illegally to enforce a rule of law that violates federal law and rights, violating Article 6 Clause 2 of the Constitution and the rules stated in New York Times v. Sullivan and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware. The US Supreme Court wrote in those cases that a state court cannot enforce any rule of law, common or statutory that interferes with federal law or rights. Please note that Texas is still included in the 5th Circuit, making the Biloxi case MANDATORY authority. The trial judge is not only wrong but should be removed for violating the law.
Please consult a currently licensed attorney practicing in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
James Lincoln says
Excellent post, Frank.
Thank you!
Frank Anderson says
James, that is not my opinion. That is the law, especially in the 5th Circuit. I predict the result will not stand if it is properly challenged.
RonaldB says
I also appreciate your very detailed reply.
It brings to mind the likelihood that Muslims would benefit from reading Jihad Watch. It’s like the emergency escape kit you keep under your bed. You don’t think you’ll ever leave Islam, but who knows? Never hurts to have an emergency exit available.
Frank Anderson says
My research on this particular subject started the day I returned from my honeymoon in 1982. There is no sense in the work being wasted. It has been tested by review and litigation. NEVER AGAIN has many important applications.
Rob R (Brit stuck in Britainistan) says
How charming.
You send some woman to be tried in a medieval manner by hairy disgusting cavemen… then it’s off to the country club for the weekend.
What a ditzy, horrible bitch.
Joe98 says
I agree with the decision of the judge.
Go back in time about 10 years and and the woman will praise Islam and Sharia.
Now she is getting divorced she suddenly doesn’t like it.
Tooo bad for her!
The case should be publisized around the world!
.
RonaldB says
You missed the point. US citizens have rights that cannot be negotiated or signed away. There is only one law in the country: US law. Sharia law is found in Morocco and Brunei. US Muslims cannot sign away their rights under US law.
US citizenship is a beautiful thing. We ought to guard it much more jealously than we do.
gravenimage says
I agree with Ronald. The idea that the US should be in the business of enforcing Shari’ah law to somehow teach Muslims a lesson is grotesque.
Walter Sieruk says
This indent reveals some of the sly insidious inner-workings of stealth jihadists for the advancement of Sharia law in America
Kashyap says
Oh, God!
lsfein says
Is there no way to appeal such a decision? Perhaps they need to take it to the court of public opinion? If the woman was tricked into signing the document, how can it possibly be legal to require her to comply with it? The whole thing sounds fishy. Letters to editors of local newspapers, TV stations , etc should be contacted.
RonaldB says
Read the comments, particularly the comments of Frank Anderson. The court decision is deeply flawed; there is no way it can stand under appeal, and the trial judge is subject to judicial reprimand or removal for gross violation of standing US legal doctrine.
OLD GUY says
Since when do we have a MUSLIM COURT in America? Can we now have an Irish court or Hispanic court or how about a Black court or Chinese court? If she is a citizen of this country her divorce case should be heard in our legal system the same as every other citizens. Surprised this Texas judge would recognize any legal right of a SHARIA COURT in the state of TEXAS.
Frank Anderson says
O.G. there is a problem: I am not an Orthodox Jew. In my incomplete understanding, on which I ask and welcome correction, a divorcing Orthodox couple must go through a panel of rabbis instead of taking their case before a US state court. I can see where the Orthodox Jewish community might oppose the arguments I have discussed here because if successful, their practice would be ended too. It is ironic that two groups, one (muslim) that hates the other, and the other that pretends to be not hated, share the hatred and oppression of their women.
You have spotted another claim that I missed: Equal Protection Under the Law. Thank you.
I have much higher regard and respect for my most beautiful, important, significant other than that. She is indeed my “better half”. To imagine her oppression in any form is unacceptable. What I wish for her, I wish for others. Without being muslim or Orthodox, I have seen the oppression of my adopted and birth mothers; and it stinks. That is why such legal issues belong in state courts.
RonaldB says
Here, here.
There are Jewish courts in New York that are accepted by the principals involved and tolerated by the civil courts. I don’t know the limitations of their authority, or what the escape hatch is for Jews who don’t want to come under their authority. If you have an Orthodox male and female, they may actually welcome that their case is disposed of under Orthodox law. As I mentioned previously, religious courts should not have the final say on disposition of the children if in conflict with US law. Also, as you so ably pointed out earlier, even a religious contract should not prejudice the ability of one party to seek relief under US law if the provisions of a previous agreement violated US law.
Frank Anderson says
R.B., my birth mother lived under abusive slavery because of her Missouri Lutheran church giving her no support in the face of an alcoholic spouse. That lasted more or less 30 years because of her guilt from allowing me to be adopted. When I found her, 39 years after the adoption, With my first telephone call I helped her see she deserved better. She gained the self respect and worth she needed to be free of that oppression, and had 20 years of freedom before she died.
Frank Anderson says
R.B., another argument appears: Religious Freedom vs Due Process and Equal Protection.
There is an episode of Law and Order where the wife of a diamond dealer was trapped in an Orthodox marriage because her husband refused to give her a release. If she proceeded to defy the “community” she would be banished and her children taken away, by the community. He died in the opening. It is graphic.
I ran a movie at the Reform Temple about an Orthodox couple that were ordered to divorce because she was unable to have children. She died of heartbreak. Whatever happened to “for better or worse, in sickness and health. . .”?
I have seen too much in my life to accept this kind of tyranny and abuse from anyone.
gravenimage says
Thanks for those accounts, Frank.
Barbara says
People have the right to make prenuptial agreements according to what they want. The real issue here was whether she was under duress. Did she read the agreement? Was it in English. I’m sure many people would like their religion’s tribunals to decide questions about divorce and custody or have private arbitration. When domestic violence is involved, these agreements are subject to criminal law, but other issues are up to the couple. Any rational person will read a prenuptial agreement. If they didn’t provide it in English and misrepresented it, then she has a case.
Frank Anderson says
B. the Biloxi School District had lawyers read the agreement that was found to violate Constitutional Rights. Any agreement must be for a legal purpose in order to be enforceable. Turning a woman into a slave (whose testimony is worth half that of a man), denying her equal protection under the law is an illegal purpose. READ the United States v. Biloxi Municipal School District, 219 F.Supp 691 (S.D. Miss. 1963).
RonaldB says
I’m looking at the One American News Network (OANN) right now. They are talking about the Texas case and about how un-American sharia law is. It’s good that they’re publicizing the abuse of the Texas district court that remanded the case to a sharia court. But, something about the reporting disturbed me.
The consensus on this website is that any contract violating US law is invalid and that legal rights cannot be signed away. So, it’s not necessary to talk about how abusive towards women sharia law is. Doing so implicitly validates the view that if you have a contract to decide a legal question through some religious court, if the religious doctrine of the religious court isn’t all that bad, then the contract should be enforced.
That’s not the point. The point is, that whether the religious doctrine is abusive, or the religious doctrine is relatively benign, a contract cannot be used to circumvent US citizen rights. We don’t need to know the sharia doctrines to have the courts reject the idea that fundamental rights can be signed away. I’m sure an expert in sharia law will argue that if you really understand sharia, the women’s rights are fully protected. You don’t have to get in the grass of sharia specifics. Sharia is not US law, so it doesn’t apply. A US citizen does not have the legal right to put himself under the legal authority of a sharia court. Or any other court.
I’m writing this because as good as OANN is, and they called a spade a spade with sharia law, they kind of boggled the fact that good or bad, sharia cannot be the system of law used to judge a US citizen in US territory.
Frank Anderson says
R.B. I have argued many issues for the first time. Not my first time, but the first time anybody argued them. I am retired. It is vital when arguing issues that not only should the “law” be presented, but also the “facts” be shown to motivate the change being sought, the WHY.
If I were presenting this case, which I am not, and cannot, I would offer sworn statements with a Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which gives 28 days from the entry of the order, that has been adapted by Texas, also under Rule 59, which gives only 10. Those sworn statements would be from every expert that I would try to present as witnesses at a hearing of the motion. That makes certain if the motion is denied without a hearing, the testimony is part of the appeal record. The time for the appeal would start from the denial of the motion, instead of the date of the current order.
My dream list of witnesses would be Robert Spencer, Mark Gabriel, Wafa Sultan, Bill Warner; and their books would be offered as learned treatises. to show islam’s hideous value and treatment of women.
The judge would have no excuse if she failed to vacate her prior ruling. The appeals court would see that she is either blithely ignorant or totally biased against the US Constitution. Either conclusion supports her removal from this case and hopefully the bench as an example to future judges facing the same opportunities to support slavery in the US.
RonaldB says
Thank you. You have shown me wrong in advocating a general principal, rather than specific details of the religious law, sharia, in question. It is always a good thing to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable.
Frank Anderson says
Ronald I learned from some really superior teachers. One of them was the chief editor of the law review, with 6 degrees, including his JD and LLM. Another was a PhD and JD. They spent years looking over my shoulder, reading and editing everything I wrote, and still do from time to time, to help me win some really unusual cases; if not win, at least make a mark leaving a chance for an appeal to continue the process. I refused to practice law for nearly 10 years until they shanghaied me out of accounting school to help start their practices because they liked the way I write. Then I was able to start my own, which never did well, but survived to teach many bad guys good lessons and help many who suffered how to do better.
All credit is due to God, my birth mother who gave me life and then 39 years later helped me keep it, and to these friends. It really feels good to see the good win when they can.
Mike Ramirez says
Our legal system and elected officials are allowing this to happen. The Muslim Brotherhood is advancing in the plan to destroy America from within even by the use of our own hands. Stealth Jihad and Creeping Sharia will continue as long as Islam remains unabated and is allowed to be protected as a “religion,” instead of what it really is: a Supremacist Totalitarian Enemy Threat Doctrine disguised as a religion that seeks the destruction of Western Civilization.
Islam enjoys the advantage to advance its goal under the vague language of our Constitution’s First Amendment on Freedom of Religion.
Trevor Loughlin says
I despise Islamic law but with insane alimony payments men are seeking to protect themselves using either civil or religious pre-nuptial agreements, since men in the West are fast attaining the inferior legal status given to women in the Islamic world. Worst still, some Western men are opting out of the breeding process altogether, leaving the path clear for ethnic groups who treat women less well to take their place. My own theory is that extreme misandrist third wave feminism in Western nations and Islamic fundamentalism in the Arab world and South Asia represent a form of “sex war” that at its most extreme takes no prisoners.