Blaze: 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.
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. more
h/t NAAC
Well, I guess she, her husband, and their friggin’ sharia “court” could all pack up their shit and move back to whatever shithole country they came from, but that’s just me.
WTF?!?! This is in Texas? The same Texas that is in the USA?
My first question would be, “are they both American citizens?”.
No questions. Only answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjHx9FyBn9g
There’s a lot of this sort of non-legal religious tribunals going on:
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S. | Pew Research Center (pewforum.org)
Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year.1 In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.
However, if the woman in the Texas case will be considered second-class compared to her husband in front of the Sharia court, the Texas judge has made a very serious mistake which puts the woman in jeapardy.
@TonyR, or we could fight to protect the Constitution. The article states the woman is an American citizen; why should she go anywhere? You may not like that she married a Muslim, and you’re entitled to your opinion, but your opinion doesn’t invalidate her rights. You are free to disagree with me on that too, but don’t be surprised when cases like this turn this country into one with a confessional system of law because not enough people stood up for the Constitution we already had.
Go read at Salatomatic separate schools, groceries and more but they keep the courts hidden. And now impossible to find with goog L! its the leftist islamic alliance again
How do you accidentally sign a prenuptial? That woman isn’t too bright. I assume she was Islamic before the wedding? She didn’t know what her life would be like? I don’t buy the doe-eyed innocent babe routine.
The judge will be happy to hear it when she is stoned or beheaded.
“…order her to appear before an Islamic tribunal where her testimony is considered inferior …. the woman’s lawyers argue is an obvious and unconscionable affront to her constitutional rights…”
yeah, there’s that slavery thing again.
Oh, I get it- she’s only partially a slave
Does this set precedent for Leviticus and Deuteronomy to be valid law, in say- san francrisco?
Appeal.
My one cardinal rule for my daughters was no dating a muzzie ever. And it applies to my granddaughters as well.
Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution.
The State took over because of Henry VIII and we’ve perpetuated the travesty because of “case law” and “precedent.”
IF the woman is a citizen of the United States she is entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights – but I’m not certain which rights have been denied her.
izlamo delenda est …
When you sign your soul over to the devil, the devil is what you get. While she may have constitutional rights under “the law,” religions have constitutional laws as well. The judge recognized the freedom of religion, there is a separation of church and State. In this case the muzzie won, religion won. If she doesn’t like Sharia law, leave the religion.
If you’re a woman who wasn’t raised Muslim, then you’re out of your goddamn mind to marry a Muslim.
Consider the source, his track record shows much BS. Not very reliable.
If she didn’t understand muslim’s and their antiquated laws then she is a dunce. But I’m betting she knew what was waiting for her under Sharia Law and was hoping to be saved by the U.S. Constitution.
You can’t have it both ways…..take a hike.
The judge is a leftist asshole. Any contract signed that’s based in sharia law has no validity in the US.
I’m sick of this flood of foreigners coming into this country and deciding they’ll just set their own rules.
It’s true that there are religious hearings held among the christian churches {Catholic} but those are separate and aside from civil law, you can get a marriage annulment through the church but you still have to deal with the local civil authorities. Marriage is still a recognized legal transaction and although you are married in a church the vows are meaningless without the marriage licence.
The first two questions that must be addressed are whether the woman signed a contract, and whether that contract is valid and enforceable under the law (versus whether the contract suffers from some defect that renders it void, voidable, or unenforceable under the law.)
If (if) the answers to those questions are “yes”, then whether you or I like her sharia choice of private contract arbitrator is irrelevant.