Texas judge denies woman divorce proceedings in favor of Sharia tribunal. Under Sharia, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man's.

[Drop Dead Fred]

It looks like the people who participated in the Women's March are getting what they wanted. Before the Woman's March chose Linda Sarsour to be its leader, she had made four different tweets in favor of the U.S. adopting Sharia law. Now the left wing women are getting exactly what the asked for. I hope they are happy.


Texas judge denies woman divorce proceedings in favor of Sharia tribunal

Texas judge denies woman divorce proceedings in favor of Sharia tribunal

By Nicholas Rowan

July 8, 2021

A Texas judge earlier this year ordered that a Muslim woman seeking a divorce appear before a tribunal governed by Sharia, a move that her lawyers said was unconstitutional.

In March, Collin County District Judge Andrea Thompson ordered that Mariam Ayad, a woman attempting to divorce her husband, Ayad Hashim Latif, forgo the usual legal paths and instead submit to arbitration under a Fiqh panel, governed by a traditional Muslim group based in Saudi Arabia. Thompson’s reasoning rested on a prenuptial agreement between the two in which Ayad agreed to allow her marriage to be arbitrated according to Sharia.

Ayad said that when she signed the document, she did not realize that she was submitting to Sharia, according to court documents. Instead, she said she thought she was signing two copies of a marriage acknowledgment form. Under Sharia, a woman’s testimony in divorce proceedings is worth half of a man’s, making her plea to be removed from that agreement especially urgent, her attorneys wrote.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

Ah the good old leftist tombola of causes that end up as a fireworks display.

Lovely.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

At least one judge has sense. Repeal the 19th.

 

[TNHarley]

It sounds like he is holding her to her contract.

 

[Muhammed]

It sounds like he is holding her to her contract.

Yep, a prenuptial agreement.

 

[excalibur]

It sounds like he is holding her to her contract.

But you cannot contract away your rights under the United States Constitution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It looks like the people who participated in the Women's March are getting what they wanted. Before the Woman's March chose Linda Sarsour to be its leader, she had made four different tweets in favor of the U.S. adopting Sharia law. Now the left wing women are getting exactly what the asked for. I hope they are happy.


Texas judge denies woman divorce proceedings in favor of Sharia tribunal

Texas judge denies woman divorce proceedings in favor of Sharia tribunal

By Nicholas Rowan

July 8, 2021

A Texas judge earlier this year ordered that a Muslim woman seeking a divorce appear before a tribunal governed by Sharia, a move that her lawyers said was unconstitutional.

In March, Collin County District Judge Andrea Thompson ordered that Mariam Ayad, a woman attempting to divorce her husband, Ayad Hashim Latif, forgo the usual legal paths and instead submit to arbitration under a Fiqh panel, governed by a traditional Muslim group based in Saudi Arabia. Thompson’s reasoning rested on a prenuptial agreement between the two in which Ayad agreed to allow her marriage to be arbitrated according to Sharia.

Ayad said that when she signed the document, she did not realize that she was submitting to Sharia, according to court documents. Instead, she said she thought she was signing two copies of a marriage acknowledgment form. Under Sharia, a woman’s testimony in divorce proceedings is worth half of a man’s, making her plea to be removed from that agreement especially urgent, her attorneys wrote.

I know Andrea Thompson PERSONALLY.

If there are no children involved, this is nothing more than enforcing an arbitration agreement.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It sounds like he is holding her to her contract.

Like I said, I know Andrea Thompson personally.

This is EXACTLY what she is doing.

 

[BlindBoo]

She shouldn't have signed something she didn't understand imo. But, a religious contract should not contravene US law. Furthermore, any ruling by the Muslim Court in North Texas must comport with Texas and US laws.

 

[colfax_m]

But you cannot contract away your rights under the United States Constitution.

Sure you can. Consider non-disclosure agreements that limit your freedom of speech.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

She shouldn't have signed something she didn't understand imo. But, a religious contract should not contravene US law. Furthermore, any ruling by the Muslim Court in North Texas must comport with Texas and US laws.

Why can't a religious contract contravene U.S. law, when other contracts can?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But you cannot contract away your rights under the United States Constitution.

Sure you can. Consider non-disclosure agreements that limit your freedom of speech.

You cannot contract away the rights, but you can open yourself up for a breach of contract suit.

 

[BlindBoo]

She shouldn't have signed something she didn't understand imo. But, a religious contract should not contravene US law. Furthermore, any ruling by the Muslim Court in North Texas must comport with Texas and US laws.

Why can't a religious contract contravene U.S. law, when other contracts can?

Such as?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

She shouldn't have signed something she didn't understand imo. But, a religious contract should not contravene US law. Furthermore, any ruling by the Muslim Court in North Texas must comport with Texas and US laws.

Why can't a religious contract contravene U.S. law, when other contracts can?

Such as?

Secular arbitration clauses?

 

[surada]

It sounds like he is holding her to her contract.

Yep.. it does sound like that. Odd though .. women generally write their marriage contract.

 

[excalibur]

But you cannot contract away your rights under the United States Constitution.

Sure you can. Consider non-disclosure agreements that limit your freedom of speech.

Blown away when NDAs signed by several people with Trump were totally ignored. Anyway, the First was particularly written to protect political speech.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But you cannot contract away your rights under the United States Constitution.

Sure you can. Consider non-disclosure agreements that limit your freedom of speech.

No, they do not. They provide for damages if you disclose.

 

[BlindBoo]

She shouldn't have signed something she didn't understand imo. But, a religious contract should not contravene US law. Furthermore, any ruling by the Muslim Court in North Texas must comport with Texas and US laws.

Why can't a religious contract contravene U.S. law, when other contracts can?

Such as?

Secular arbitration clauses?

conclusion

Today, the doctrines of civil rights arbitration and religious arbitration collide in a way that severely threatens parties who have suffered discrimination. Religious arbitration of civil rights is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s vision of neutral arbitration. And when a court puts state power behind a tribunal applying religious principles to secular law, it creates an unconstitutional entanglement of church and state. There are strong arguments that every American with a discrimination claim is entitled to a day in court. At the very least, the Establishment Clause protects these citizens from religious adjudication of their basic civil rights. The problem of religious arbitration of secular rights raises a question at the heart of the Establishment Clause: why is it so important to protect the lawmaking process from religious influence? Early statesmen and jurists suggest an answer. James Madison once wrote that “[r]eligion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”194 This has the ring of a jurisdictional argument; religion is a realm outside the authority of government, so the state has no power to dictate an individual’s beliefs. If a law foists religion on a citizen, the citizen has a trump card: the law is illegitimate, and he does not have to obey it. Thus, the only way to protect the legitimacy of the law—to make law enforceable against all citizens—is to keep religion out of it. Citizens may rebel against stateimposed religion, but they have no analogous right to spurn secular laws. As the Supreme Court has stated, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”195 This, ultimately, is why church-state entanglement has constitutional stakes. Religious laws have no force in the public sphere, and a government wielding these laws has no power over its citizens.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9342&context=ylj

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We have had sharia courts in this country for decades. Both husband and wife agreed to sharia jurisdiction when they got married.

Read the fine print.