Texas Judge Says Muslim Woman Can’t
Get Divorce According to U.S. Law, Has
to Abide by Islamic Law
PJ Media,
by
Robert Spencer
Original Article
Posted By: nuclearnavymom,
7/13/2021 11:19:19 AM
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! CORRECTION*
*Wide headlines must be split or posts will be deleted. Instructions are on Post New Article page.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Northcross 7/13/2021 11:21:22 AM (No. 844292)
Instant recall required!
35 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
DVC 7/13/2021 11:21:38 AM (No. 844293)
The judge needs to be unemployed, soon.
48 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
reefdiver 7/13/2021 11:22:32 AM (No. 844297)
The stoning begins in 3-2-1
20 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Nimby 7/13/2021 11:23:38 AM (No. 844299)
Nope. She is bound by the US laws not Sharia!! This from a Republican ?????????
43 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 7/13/2021 11:30:32 AM (No. 844311)
Her removal from the bench and disbarment process should begin immediately. She is a disgrace to America, the Constitution, and her State even her gender. Typical leftist DemonRAT.
50 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
MDConservative 7/13/2021 11:32:54 AM (No. 844315)
FTA: "...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."
Well, isn't a contract a contract? Are pre-nups not valid anymore? She made a deal. Secular divorce to cover the legalities can come later. Of course, she was "tricked" into signing.
12 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
bobn.t 7/13/2021 11:36:36 AM (No. 844322)
Nuts
This is America not some Muslim country,
We operate under U.S. (and Texas) laws.
The court needs to remove him.
25 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
paral04 7/13/2021 11:37:00 AM (No. 844323)
The woman needs to appeal and then have the judge recalled. Religious law does not supersede our laws. That judge needs to be deported to Afghanistan and let her live with Sharia Law.
24 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Northcross 7/13/2021 11:39:09 AM (No. 844325)
She ran as a Republican, one of those "enlightened" Republicans that think like Democrats. The reasoning was that the woman had signed, probably under duress, a pre-nuptial agreement to be bound by Sharia law. Sorry. Not good enough. Remove the judge.
30 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
earlybird 7/13/2021 12:01:10 PM (No. 844345)
This woman must be a Muslim who entered into an Islamic marriage 23 years ago. I couldn’t find her age, so presume she was of legal age when she married. As much as this pains us, I don’t see what authority a United States judge has in a marriage that was not performed under the laws of the state where they were married. Did they have a license to marry? Did they have a civil marriage as well?
Saying she was “hoodwinked” after being married to this guy for a number of years just won’t work. I don’t see how the judge could have done anything but what she did.
A search found numerous publications and articles on Islamic marriages in America and the legal implications, which can be complex. The contracts described by this woman are apparently standard in Islamic marriages, although the terms may vary.
I am not about to slam this judge. I don’t believe she has the authority to unwind an islamic marriage contract.
9 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
formerNYer 7/13/2021 12:07:09 PM (No. 844351)
This Judge should be arrested and jailed!
7 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
TLCary 7/13/2021 12:07:20 PM (No. 844352)
#6 Contacts that wave Construction Rights are sometimes binding. SOTUS : “every reasonable presumption shold be indulged against … waiver." Getting paid to sign a non-disclosure agreement that contractually limits your 1st Amendment right to free speech is legal. A contract waving your right to call 911 and divulge which of your fellow gang members shot you, not legally binding. This contract that replaces a citizens recourse to the US Legal system is NOT legally binding under the same system it uses to opt out of. This judge is about to get spanked.
12 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
earlybird 7/13/2021 12:09:42 PM (No. 844354)
https://www.soundvision.com/article/license-to-wed-legal-implications-of-muslim-marriage-in-america
1 person likes this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
cold porridge 7/13/2021 12:13:29 PM (No. 844357)
Bull #10. The "contract" is a religious agreement and not compatible with US laws. Sharia is not compatible with US laws. For this reason, Muslims should either refrain from moving to the US or deport themselves if they expect to live according to sharia law. Islamism is not compatible with the US constitution. It is a fact that Muslims want to push sharia law throughout America. It cannot be accepted.
23 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
mseegal 7/13/2021 12:14:08 PM (No. 844360)
Nose of the camel......this must not stand! Nothing should supersede US Laws...NOTHING!
19 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
earlybird 7/13/2021 12:18:17 PM (No. 844362)
Excuse additional post, but I believe this couple married in an Islamic ceremony but never went to the courthouse for a marriage license and were married in a civil ceremony as well.
This imam discusses this:
https://www.islamicity.org/8439/civil-versus-islamic-marriages/
0 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
texaspast 7/13/2021 12:18:26 PM (No. 844363)
When I read the headline and the blurb I figured there must have been a prenup. Sure enough, there was a prenup. You can agree to just about anything in a prenup that isn't illegal (except for waiving child support) and the courts will enforce the agreement, even though it may seem unfair. And it is not a good idea to use the 'I'm just a woman and didn't understand what I was signing' argument in front of a female judge. Nope. Not a good idea in my experience. I never had a client do it, but I was sitting in the courtroom when another lawyer's client tried it. Judge did NOT appreciate it.
7 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
itsonlyme 7/13/2021 12:25:29 PM (No. 844371)
District Judge Andrea Thompson is human filth, wearing a black robe, on the loose.
A threat to the well-being and safety of society.
5 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
downnout 7/13/2021 12:33:42 PM (No. 844382)
So much for freedom in America. Sharia is here.
4 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
DVC 7/13/2021 12:47:14 PM (No. 844398)
I appreciate the explanations by several posters who either are lawyers or have studied this portion of the laws here. Their posts greatly clarify this issue.
So, apparently this is a contractual dispute rather than a 'divorce'. And signed contracts.....carry a lot of legal weight, as I understand it.
12 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Omen55 7/13/2021 12:48:16 PM (No. 844400)
This "judge" needs to be taken before the ABA to explain this now!
3 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Sanchin 7/13/2021 12:59:59 PM (No. 844407)
Simply a manipulative article designed to increase hatred and fear of Islam. A shame! The issue is rather a contract with a defined set of rules and regulations is valid or invalid under US Law. Both parties are presented as consenting adults of sound mind that came to a meeting of the minds (a contract). One party is unhappy and wants out of the contract. Happens all the time even when not dealing with the cultural and religious complexities of this case. Again, this is designed to increase fear and hatred of Muslims and Islam. Speaking of religion and divorce no one seems to write articles when issues of divorce come up with Orthodox Jews. In fact, no one seems to mind that Orthodox Jews have their own legal system that functions within the United States and can sometimes supersede US Law. But then that can't be mentioned.
6 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
jhpeters2 7/13/2021 1:02:17 PM (No. 844411)
Appeal when possible. And maybe it can't be appealed. Meet the nose of the camel.
4 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
earlybird 7/13/2021 1:10:07 PM (No. 844416)
This was not a prenup. This is about the marriage contract that is the essence of the Islamic marriage. It is the marriage agreement and can cover many issues. Now she is trying to get out of the contract.
2 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
zephyrgirl 7/13/2021 1:11:08 PM (No. 844418)
The lesson here is be careful what you sign - prenup, postnup, student loan application, mortgage, car loan, and so on.
5 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 7/13/2021 1:15:51 PM (No. 844421)
This case does not appear to be about "application of Sharia law." It's clearly about a written contract entered into by Mariam Ayad, which does not seem to be a "contract for arbitration." Her result would be in her favor if the issue is direct application of Sharia [foreign] law. This case does not involve enforcement of a foreign judgment or an arbitration award.
In the context of this case the following is very ambiguous:
Texas Government Code, Section 22.0042 includes: [The rules adopted by the Texas Supreme Court must] * * *
"(c)(6) provide that a court may issue any orders the court considers necessary to preserve principles of comity or the freedom to contract for arbitration Section 22.0042 and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitration awards."
Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 771 (H.B. 45), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2017.
The Judge may have decided that this sub-subsection (3)(6) does not apply to her contract because she believes that her contract is not classified as a contract for arbitration.
A maxim of construing the intent of a state statute is "That which is not included is excluded."
If the Rules adopted by the Texas Supreme Court under Section 22.0042 do not address her type of contract, it allows for the {not wholly unreasonable} argument that her type of contract was not contemplated by Texas' Legislature when drafting Section 22.0042.
On the other hand. a court of appeals could hold that the words in (3)(6), ". . while protecting against violations of constitutional rights and public policy in the application of foreign law . . ." do apply to her contract.
5 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
udanja99 7/13/2021 1:33:08 PM (No. 844431)
Where’s that Separation of Church (or Mosque) and State that the left is always screaming about?
4 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
red1066 7/13/2021 1:45:36 PM (No. 844444)
Let me guess. The judge is in Austin.
1 person likes this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
Birddog 7/13/2021 1:58:40 PM (No. 844458)
Get defenders of Ilian Omar...whatever... to explain it. Muslims can be married, unmarried, remarried and multiply married all at the same time...even to Kin. If ONE is in the church, one is in a court, one is in a field full of daisies, then they and only THEY can pick and choose which is valid on any given day. There are many types of contracts, trusts and "entities" that require a "Binding arbitration" rather than a court(or at least prior to any court) to settle any differences among members. This seems very little different than those.
3 people like this.
BULLSHT. We do not recognize Sharia here in the US. Britain started down this road and now places look more like Pakistan than England.
Don't know who this puke judge is but he needs to be disbarred.
3 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
EQKimball 7/13/2021 2:05:44 PM (No. 844464)
What if she had agreed to be his slave, or to be stoned for infidelity, or to be caned at his discretion, or to submit to public humiliation, or an honor killing if she deserved it? The prenup obviously is a violation of public policy and need not be recognized by the courts.
3 people like this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
rochow 7/13/2021 2:30:18 PM (No. 844484)
This country has but one law, American law!!! Islamic law does not count in the US!!! Throw this judge out, apparently she doe not know the law!
2 people like this.
Reply 33 - Posted by:
hershey 7/13/2021 2:33:44 PM (No. 844488)
This country doesn't run on Islamic law...kick that damned Judge out!!!!
1 person likes this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
harleynyc 7/13/2021 2:38:37 PM (No. 844493)
What a ness if this inept judge sets a precedent. The Church does not believe in divorce. So is a person uses this ruling they can keep their spouse from divorsing them.
1 person likes this.
Reply 35 - Posted by:
MickTurn 7/13/2021 2:44:13 PM (No. 844500)
One of thousands of judges we’re gonna have to take to the woodshed
0 people like this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
qr4j 7/13/2021 2:46:39 PM (No. 844502)
Consider this: A woman signs an agreement prior to her marriage to a man than she will engage in sexual intercourse at least three times a week during their marriage. The first year is fine. She loves her husband and is happy with the signed agreement -- what some might call a contract.
But then the second year, she begins to experience pain whenever she has sex with her husband. But he insists that she lives up to the terms of the agreement. But she doesn't. It hurts -- emotionally. All she has to do is lie there. Let him do the work. But she refuses. Can the husband sue his wife for breach of contract? Or is the husband raping his wife whenever he has sex with her, even when she refuses?
1 person likes this.
Reply 37 - Posted by:
SALady 7/13/2021 3:07:48 PM (No. 844523)
If this is the precedence that is being set, then every small town needs to declare that they are under "Christian law" (previously known as the Bible) as it applies to banning abortion and homosexual "marriage" and anti-gun restrictions in their towns.
Hey, fair is fair. If the muslims can have laws that supersede American law, then there are a lot more Christians in the country and we should get the same rules!!!
0 people like this.
Reply 38 - Posted by:
Hermit_Crab 7/13/2021 3:12:47 PM (No. 844526)
That the Judge herself is "Muslim Educated" may help to explain her decision:
> Education:
> South Texas College of Law, Houston, Texas. J.D., 1998
> Marmara University, Law School Study Abroad, Istanbul, Turkey, 1997
6 people like this.
Reply 39 - Posted by:
rabblerouser 7/13/2021 3:20:07 PM (No. 844532)
The Constitution is optional these days.
1 person likes this.
Reply 40 - Posted by:
Quigley 7/13/2021 3:28:29 PM (No. 844540)
Contracts can void because they contradict public policy. It’s pretty clear this one does. Just like a contract whereby one person agrees to be another’s slave would.
The judge no doubt felt that the fire prevention and security were better at the Dallas Court of Appeals than at her courthouse.
Have no fear, the millennial feminists will make a strong presence in favor of ...... the sound of crickets.
3 people like this.
Reply 41 - Posted by:
Quigley 7/13/2021 3:34:34 PM (No. 844551)
One follow up point.
You could sign a prenup (“anti-nuptial” agreement) that calls for arbitration, but you can’t contract away your absolute right to get divorced. Public policy says no one has to stay married. This counsel of clerics can’t decide the woman can’t get divorced.
1 person likes this.
Reply 42 - Posted by:
Quigley 7/13/2021 3:36:39 PM (No. 844556)
Sorry for one more.
What about a prenup that says abortion is forbidden?
2 people like this.
Reply 43 - Posted by:
columba 7/13/2021 4:01:59 PM (No. 844581)
Well, then Go back to 1972 and tell my ex. This time I get my children, so that she cannot destroy them
0 people like this.
Reply 44 - Posted by:
pensom2 7/13/2021 4:04:34 PM (No. 844584)
This case would make for a good essay exam in a contracts law course. We need to avoid conflating or mistaking a marriage recognized by the Muslim faith vs. a marriage recognized by the laws of the State of Texas. A Texas judge can order the dissolution of a marriage recognized by the laws of Texas and the United States, but the Muslim faith may refuse to recognize the order of the court. Thus, the Muslim faith may consider the woman still to be married, while the State of Texas considers her to be divorced. As a result, the Muslim faith may deny her the right to remarry within the Muslim faith, but the Muslim faith cannot otherwise act against her under Sharia law, such as by stoning her for adultery by reason of a new, non-Muslim marriage.
Contracts to perform illegal acts or which contravene public policy are unenforceable.
If this woman and her husband had a legally-binding marriage certificate issued by a governmental authority, the judge should have terminated the marriage and ignored the prenup, on the grounds that an agreement which works to waive one's legal marriage and divorce rights is contrary to public policy. If there was no government-issued marriage certificate, the judge should have ruled that no marriage is recognized at law, and the parties should go their separate ways; or, that the marriage qualified as a legally-recognized common-law marriage, and thereby subject to the statutory divorce laws of the State of Texas.
I conclude that the judge is not evil, but is stupid.
3 people like this.
Reply 45 - Posted by:
DVC 7/13/2021 4:06:28 PM (No. 844586)
Thank you, #26 for a helpful post explaining a portion of the law which (probably) applies.
Sounds like the headline is misleading.
IMO, Islam itself is a serious human problem, shot through with exhortations for violence and murder as "religious duty". And I don't think that Sharia laws should have even the slightest force in the USA. OTOH, if a person willingly signs a written contract, that seriously complicates things. Is a contract a religious "law"? Can a person sign away basic rights? I don't think that either is "yes", but I don't know anything significant about that portion of that law.
I have several friends who are lawyers and certain areas of law have been detailed, extensive topics of discussion, and I learned a bit. Nothing about this stuff, and I doubt that common sense is of the slightest value here, unfortunately.
1 person likes this.
What a stupid headline.
She signed an arbitration agreement to arbitrate the property division in her divorce. The selected arbitration panel is Islamic, as she desired.
Is her right to freely contract to be denied because she is Muslim?
Of course not.
Lesson here is: don’t sign stupid contracts.
5 people like this.
Reply 47 - Posted by:
gramma b 7/13/2021 4:29:29 PM (No. 844621)
I once litigated a lease dispute between a Catholic school and a lessee. The lawyer for the Catholic school tried to argue that the lessee was subject to canon law. That, of course, is a big no-no, and the judge did not buy it. I can't believe this judge did buy it. She must be quite stupid.
0 people like this.
Reply 48 - Posted by:
gramma b 7/13/2021 4:34:27 PM (No. 844629)
Silly me for not reading beyond the headline and excerpt. Apparently this woman signed a contract agreeing to Muslim arbitration of property issues. That's a horse of a much different color. Haven't seen the contract. Maybe the judge isn't stupid.
3 people like this.
Reply 49 - Posted by:
earlybird 7/13/2021 4:51:02 PM (No. 844648)
Re #48, very few read the articles. Sad, but true. It does not keep them from replying.
2 people like this.
Reply 50 - Posted by:
Faithfully 7/13/2021 8:26:41 PM (No. 844843)
Can Catholics obtain a divorce?
0 people like this.
Reply 51 - Posted by:
MickTurn 7/13/2021 8:44:47 PM (No. 844872)
Impeach/Remove/Disbar!
0 people like this.
Mariam, if you do away with him, it voids the contract and you can plead for mercy as a widow. /s
0 people like this.
Reply 53 - Posted by:
zoidberg 7/14/2021 8:13:09 AM (No. 845298)
Oy vey, Sharia!
0 people like this.
Reply 54 - Posted by:
msjena 7/14/2021 8:23:26 AM (No. 845311)
I'm pretty sure there is case law saying you can't waive the right to due process--and a sharia divorce involves no due process for women. For example, women have to have two witnesses and men need none. This is different from marital agreements not to divorce except in say, adultery or abuse. Those would still be adjudicated according regular procedures and would apply equally to men and women.
0 people like this.
Reply 55 - Posted by:
msjena 7/14/2021 8:25:19 AM (No. 845312)
#6, have you ever heard of "confession of judgment" clauses in contracts? No trial, just judgment if the contract is breached. Those have been held illegal.
0 people like this.
Reply 56 - Posted by:
zoidberg 7/14/2021 8:41:17 AM (No. 845324)
Clearly a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Removal of this judge should be only the first step. She should be prosecuted for depriving this woman of her civil rights.
0 people like this.
Comments:
And so it begins...