My latest in PJ Media:
Everything is bigger in Texas, including the egregious miscarriages of justice. The Blaze reported Wednesday that Collin County, Texas, District Judge Andrea Thompson “effectively denied a U.S. citizen,” a Muslim woman named Mariam Ayad, “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.” Islamic law, Sharia, taking precedence over U.S. law — in Texas? Celebrate diversity!
Ayad was trying to get a divorce from her husband, Ayad Hashim Latif. Sharia stipulates that while a man can divorce his wife simply by telling her three times that he is divorcing her, a woman has to seek the permission of Muslim clerics and make her case for a divorce before them. There is, of course, no such provision in U.S. law, but when Ayad told Latif that she was going to seek a divorce, he told her that she had signed an Islamic prenuptial agreement that stated the marriage, and any possible divorce, would proceed according to Sharia provisions.
Mariam Ayad contends now that she was tricked into signing this agreement, and thought that what she was signing was something else altogether. Her lawyers state that American law should supersede it in any case. Thompson, however, ruled that the prenuptial agreement was binding, and thus Ayad will have to go through the Islamic Association of North Texas to get permission to divorce. According to The Blaze, this decision was in “complete disregard of both federal and state law.”
This case isn’t over: Ayad is appealing at the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas. Every American can hope that court will rule in her favor and overturn this dangerous precedent. If Mariam Ayad has to submit to Sharia as a U.S. citizen in Texas, she will be submitting to a legal system that contradicts American laws in numerous particulars. Hitting home for Mariam Ayad’s divorce case is the fact that the Qur’an declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.” (2:282)
There is more. Read the rest here.
PRCS says
“If Mariam Ayad has to submit to Sharia as a U.S. citizen in Texas, she will be submitting to a legal system that contradicts American laws in numerous particulars.”
And judge’s order–if not reversed–will set an awful precedent.
gravenimage says
Like this madness in New Jersey, where assault and marital rape is OK since this is the case under Shari’ah law:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/advocates-of-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-by-judges-ruling
PRCS says
I remember that one. The judge–per the appellate ruling–“made a mistake”
There are one or two other similarly idiotic rulings floating around somewhere in the back of my mind.
A chuckle from the article, re: the imam’s testimony:
“However, a husband was forbidden to approach his wife ‘like any animal.’
Thinking of a goat, no doubt.
99pct says
So no marriage licence is needed as well? Does Sharia take precedence? Sorry, Judgie, you are wrong.
HugoHackenbush says
At least in CA, if both parties did not have legal counsel prior to signing a prenup it would be tossed. Anyone know anything about Texas family law?
gravenimage says
Hugo, here’s more on the subject:
https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/prenuptial-agreements-texas.html
It is vague on having legal counsel present–but it does note that such a prenup is *not* enforceable if “the agreement is unconscionable,” meaning that it is so grossly unfair that it would be against the interests of justice to enforce it”.
That would seem to apply here.
HugoHackenbush says
“That would seem to apply here.”
Perhaps not as both parties claim adherence to the same ideology.
gravenimage says
Of course, it has been shown under US law that an agreement that is grossly unfair to one party is not legal, even if both agree to it. So that *should* applly here. But with judges like this one, who knows?
JanD says
Seeing as how previously sensible people are submitting to all these other demands that people can switch their sexual identity and the world must accept their private lunacy as fact, that 1+1 does not equal 2 unless you’re white, that large chunks of history can be erased or distorted to please someone else’s ego, that street slang is legitimate for all usage, that the bulk of Europe cannot see that they are being invaded and destroyed with barely a whimper…well. what’s a paltry set of Texas / American laws when our “elites” are out to destroy everything so they can rule over the cadaver of the US?
Connie says
Unless your white? Elaborate please.
DBM echo says
There are equitable grounds on which this injustice can be corrected. Namely, that enforcement of this Islamic contract would violate public policy. For example, there can be no enforceable contract when the subject matter is itself a criminal act, such as the hiring of a hit man.
Surely her lawyers have come across this method of attack.
HugoHackenbush says
No lawyers to advise prior to signing the prenup? In CA judge would toss the prenup.
gravenimage says
Texas Judge Says Muslim Woman Can’t Get Divorce According to U.S. Law, Has to Abide by Islamic Law
………………..
Yes–this imposition of Shari’ah law from Judge Andrea Thompson is insane–and un-American.
Wellington says
In complete agreement, gravenimage.
I know what to expect from Islam—nothing. But I do expect the preservation of liberty by an American judge—and this judge has failed miserably here and so shame on her forever.
Sharia creep in action, not first and foremost “courtesy” of Islam but first and foremost “courtesy’ of an American judge who has betrayed America and the Constitution.
This judge is a total disgrace. What a common sense, moral intelligence, overall intelligence and complete doofa she is. Again, shame on her forever, and again I would assert this judge has not only betrayed the Constitution but she is also, most certainly, a total ignoramus about Islam.
So far, seen from a perspective respecting what Islam intends for us all, she has no redeeming virtues. She might have some but based on her stupid ruling I will assume none. Right now, guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion and the court of proper knowledge—and accuracy—and patriotism—and many other good things this judge has not displayed in the least.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington. We would not be in the kind of peril we are in if we were just threatened by Islam–it is all the enablers in our own society that are allowing Islam an in here. This judge is supposed to be a Republican–and is in the formerly mostly sane state of Texas, too. No place is safe from this sort of madness.
OTTER says
A white woman as a judge: Note the role of white women in the destruction of the West.
James Lincoln says
gravenimage,
In the United States, if muslims were not “aided and abetted” by non-muslim enablers, and ALL potential immigrants were subjected to extreme vetting, islam could be contained…
gravenimage says
OTTER wrote:
A white woman as a judge: Note the role of white women in the destruction of the West.
………………………
Judge Andrea Thompson is a moral idiot, as most here have said, including myself. She does *not* belong on the bench.
But note that this is not what OTTER is saying. He has claimed many times that white women have to be “controlled”. He has explained that this means that they must not be allowed to receive an education, vote, or work outside the home. He has also claimed that they must be forced to breed–in other words, forced marriage and rape.
So OTTER completely agrees with the Shari’ah court here.
And note that he has *no* problem with the New Jersey judge who excused the man assaulting and raping his wife which I cited above. I’m sure this is for two reasons–firstly, this judge is male, and OTTER has never said a word in criticism of dhimmi men who enable Islam–just women.
Then, he is in agreement that men have the right to rape women–white women, in any case. *Ugh*.
Note that OTTER specifically aimed his post at myself–he has been consitently enraged that I oppose his sick plot for enslaving white women. Too bad–I intend to stand against this at every turn, just as I stand against the same evil in Islam.
Luckily, unlike in Islam, he is not going to find any civilized Infidels to go along with this. Hans’t he noticed that Robert Spencer and other good Anti-Jihadists here have niot taken up his cry to enslave white women? He is either stupid as well as evil, or else just desperately hopes that someone is going to help him make his perverse fantasies come true.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, James. Islam alone is not much of a threat in the west. But dhimmi ignorance and enabling gives Islam an in here. Very dangerous stuff.
Kepha says
Her Dishonor is abiding by Sharia doubtlessly to polish her multiecultie cred. But what is simply awful about this is that Her Dishonor Andrea Thompson of Collin Co., TX is a member of the GOP! Maybe she handed down this appalling decision in order to prove her party isn’t “raycissed!” However, I am sure that this decision will probably be overturned on appeal. It’s just sad that Ayad Hashim Latif will be forced to spend more money.
Connie says
But if there is no US MARRIAGE LICENSE – she had nothing in the US COURT to break. The Judge should’ve asked if the platiff wants to seek under “Common Law” Rather then sending her to a court that has NO RIGHT IN AMERICA – this isn’t America plus Saudia Arabia.
gravenimage says
These are probably two different issues, Connie. She was probably legally married here. She can easily get a civil divorce in the US–but this is not recognized in Islam.
gary fouse says
The 14thAmendment guarantees equal protection under the law. This Mulsim woman is entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. This decision will be overturned.
gravenimage says
I hope so–but in today’s mad climate one cannot be sure.
PRCS says
Will be interesting to follow this case.
Her credentials and license should surely be reviewed after this stunt.
gravenimage says
I’m not sure I’d count on that–we’ll be lucky if her ruling is overturned.
Raja says
This judge can be excused for lack of knowledge on Islam but cannot be exonerated for lack of common sense, logic and natural justice. Is she affiliated to some islamic institutions or some Leftist manual of legal jurisprudence?
Some stupids do find a way to some positions of importance, akin to an Indian high court judge who passed a 140 page judgement on cow, besides virtue-signalling of drinking the urine of cow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PRCS says
” but cannot be exonerated for lack of common sense, logic and natural justice”
And must NOT be exonerated (her ignorance of Islam aside) for failure to rely solely on U.S. law in making her decision. She is, unfortunately, not the first American judge to display such moronic thinking.
gravenimage says
Even understanding little about Islam is no excuse for this ruling. Besides, if she didn’t at least take a cursory look at Shari’ah law in divorce cases for women she is entirely remiss. You can spend less than five minutes on-line and learn that these courts are not egalitarian.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
[1] In what language is the prenuptial agreement?
[2] The husband’s name is Ayad Hashim Latif; the wife’s name is Mariam Ayad. Why is the name surname-first for the husband, but surname-last for the wife?
[3] If under Sharia law a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s testimony, even under Sharia law the wife will win her “I was duped” case if she can produce two other women in whom she confided when she got married. Why? Because 3*(1/2) = 1.5 > 1. The general principle is that under Sharia law the testimony of three women outweighs the testimony of one man (regardless of the Muslimicity or kafiricity of the women and man).
PRCS says
I’m just now listening to Trey Gowdy address the failure of judicial equality re: To Kill A Mockingbird.
Clifford Fodor says
Islam should be outlawed in the USA. They are trying to destroy us. They hate our country. (Just ask Ilhan Omar.) They are using our own laws to destroy us.
Connie says
Right. But no matter what non-American Judges do – we have our Country and they can practice Islam in the middle east. Not in America.
gravenimage says
Islam just needs to be exposed for what it is–all too many people are in denial about the threat of Islam.
John says
Just quit islam, , then have your divorce,
Connie says
Rather, just walk away from that husband who Divorced her. And make a better life for yourself.
gravenimage says
That’s what she *should* do.
Jim says
I cannot believe that. US law comes before Sharia law, just as American law comes before Russian law or Chinese law. Is this judge taking bribes? Or is he working for Joe and Hunter?
Connie says
She claims she a Republican too. Indeed a Rino.
OTTER says
A white woman as a judge: Note the role of white women in the destruction of the West/
Connie says
Stop the Racist rederic the is NOT AMERICA.
gravenimage says
See above for my reply to this claptrap.
Francis says
In the UK probably 80% of Muslim marriages are not civically registered (here if you marry in church in England midway through you sign the register in the church, not at the registry office). I guess that this is the case in the USA so the lady is not actually ‘married.’ I don’t see how the judge’s decision can stand unless I misunderstand your legal system.
gravenimage says
There are civil marriages here in the US–as there are in England, as well.
OLD GUY says
What law school did this judge go to? Didn’t she have to swear to uphold the laws of Texas and America?
Connie says
She needed to tell the Muslim woman that their marriage isn’t under US LAW, so they already see them not married – unless the woman gets a Divorce under Common Law Marriage.
mortimer says
District Judge Andrea Thompson has not read the US constitution about the establishment of religion. Sharia law has no effect under US law. She has erred in law.
There would be an argument supporting her opinion ONLY if Islam were the OFFICIAL, ESTABLISHED religion of Texas.
Now, some states DID have official, ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS at one time, but they shelved those establishments in the 19th century.
State courts could enforce Sharia religious law over US law ONLY if they had their own Islamic establishment which Texas doesn’t have.
James Lincoln says
Perhaps the US Supreme Court should take this up.
That got some time on their hands after ruling on gay wedding cakes…
Connie says
But she has no Contract/Marriage licence to Break – to get a Divorce. That is the real issue. We need to make a Law that all SHARIA CONTRACTS are VOID.
PRCS says
Sharia contracts are fine—so long as they do not violate U.S. law.
That is the issue.
Connie says
She had no US Divorce Contract to get broken, so she had no nothing in US LAW to brake. So she made her bed, she lies in it.
gravenimage says
Actually, this article never says that she was not married under Texas law.
Then, the idea that if she married under Shari’ah law that she has to legally abide by it in the civilized west is mistaken. Do you believe that Muslims have the right to cut off the hands of thieves and stone “adulterers” to death so long as they are Muslim? You are mistaken.
Mkischief Maker in the Land says
The judge is a woman. He words are worth only half those of a man. Does she not know?
gravenimage says
This is true under Islam.
J.P. Travis says
Did this judge even attend law school? Good grief. If a woman signs a prenuptial agreement making her a slave, will this judge enforce slavery in the United States too? What if the prenuptial agreement says the wife has to rob a bank once a week, will the judge rule that robbing banks is now legal? I say it again, good grief. I’m guessing this judge was elected and she ran for office because she was unsuccessful as a practicing lawyer.
gravenimage says
Good questions, J.P..