Texas judge denies U.S. citizen due process rights, sends her to Sharia tribunal

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….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Robert Spencer on Islamophobia and the Threat to Free Speech

Ex-Employee Pulls Back the Curtain, Claims a Toxic Misogynist Culture Prevails at Hamas-Linked CAIR

Muslim migrant went from Arkansas to Yemen to provide support and material to al-Qaeda, then went back to Arkansas

Italy: Muslims send over $1,150,000 to Islamic State and other jihadis

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

4 replies
  1. Bruce Alan
    Bruce Alan says:

    Sharia Law in America ? Is America an Islamic State, a Muslim Nation, HOW is it allowed, are we a Nation that has Multiple Judicial systems? Sharia Law is Completely contrary to America’s Constitution and Declaration of Independence, our Bill of Rights ? There should be NO OTHER Nation’s Laws nor Judicial system Allowed to exist in America …. PERIOD!!!!

    Reply
  2. Leta
    Leta says:

    We have American laws not Sharia law. That should make the prenup illegal. Dumb horrible judge. Got his degree at Wal Mart. This is the trouble in America today anybody can make up their ow law if you can get a judge to uphold it.

    Reply
  3. John Wm Schuetze
    John Wm Schuetze says:

    As I understand it prenuptial agreements are legal in the U.S.; if they meet certain conditions. Although, I am not a fan of Shari law, she will have to prove that hers didn’t. Some States require that each party have legal representation present.
    Child custody is not legality binding as the U.S. court decides what is best for the child. I wonder why the Judge let that slide? There can be no evidence of undue influence, duress or coercion. I read no mention of deceit, but it does mention that the provisions between the parties must be legally permissible. I hope the Upper Court sides with her. We sure don’t need Shari Law in the U.S. I was surprised that the Republican Judge won her 2016 election with over 80% of the vote in the General Election, but did drop to 57% in 2020.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *