Shariah Law and Divorce

In an unpublished decision released toward the end of last week, the Michigan Court of Appeals found fault with the Wayne County Family Court in a divorce case that touched on the application of Shariah law.

Specifically, the Hammoud case involved the imposition of spousal support in a realaitively short-term marriage. The Court of Appeals was troubled that the family court conditioned the duration of the "open ended" support on wife obtaining an "Islamic divorce" decree, noting:

As structured by the trial court, plaintiff has no incentive to become self-sufficient or to vigorously pursue an Islamic divorce as she is assured an ongoing income ad infinitum.  The trial court also failed to address or seek further clarification of plaintiff’s contention that she was in possession of a document that would permit others to assist or assure her the attainment of an Islamic divorce without defendant’s consent.  Plaintiff indicated that an agreement existed that would permit her brother and brother-in-law to authorize the Islamic divorce, potentially rendering it within plaintiff’s control to prolong her receipt of spousal support.

The implication, as held by the Court of Appeals, was that the family court pressured the husband into agreeing to an Islamic divorce when, under the establishment clause, it had no power to do so.

The Court of Appeals was not impressed with the lower court, the litigants, or their attorneys.  The case also featured an [untranslated] Arabic language prenuptial agreement proffered by husband to support his position that his wife agreed to forgo any spousal support.

The Hammoud case received national attention with a reference in Law Professor Eugene Volokh's law blog; the Volokh Conspiracy.

We here at the Law Blogger agree that family court is not the place for the implication or enforcement of religious laws; that is for the house of worship and is a private matter between the litigants.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: divorce,Eugene Volokh,Islamic divorce,Michigan Court of Appeals,prenuptial agreement,prognosticator,Shariah law,spousal support,Wayne County Circuit Court

Anti-Shariah Law (Part II)

State Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit)

The Law Blogger recently posted on the Anti-Shariah movement earlier this month.  Now, the Michigan legislature is getting in on the act along with the American Bar Association.

HB 4769, sponsored by Rep. Dave Agema of Grandville and numerous other legislators, seeks to restrict contracts and agreements calling for the application of foreign laws whenever such application would conflict with the rights set forth in the U. S. and Michigan Constitutions.  The bill was introduced last week and was assigned to the Judiciary Committee of the Michigan House of Representatives.

Judges presiding over disputes involving such contracts and agreements would be required to amend the application of the foreign law to protect the litigant's constitutional rights.  If an amended application of the choice of law provision is not feasible, then the foreign law provision is deemed null and void.

Under such a provision, you could kiss Shariah Law goodbye; at least if either party to an agreement calling for the application of the Islamic code wanted to escape the burden of the contract.  This scenario would come up most often in the family law context where prenuptial agreements between religiously devout Muslims frequently call for the application of Shariah Law in the divorce judgment.  If Agema's bill passes, the family court judge could not honor the prenuptial agreement.

This possibility has Michigan's Arabic community speaking out.  Michigan's only Muslim legislator, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D. Detroit), called a press conference to denounce Agema's bill, stating that her constituents found it "very very offensive" to the extent the bill would cast suspicion on Muslims.

Transactional attorneys that negotiate contracts with international choice of forum clauses are concerned these provisions would be subject to litigation.  Until now, such contract clauses routinely have been  enforced by Michigan judges.

In the last few years, anti-foreign law bills have sprung up in 22 state legislatures but only Arizona managed to pass their bill into law in April.  In the 2010 elections, Oklahoma voters approved an anti-foreign law ballot measure, but the proposal was short-lived having been invalidated in federal court on First Amendment grounds.

The American Bar Association passed resolutions earlier this month denouncing any federal or state laws that impose blanket prohibitions against the use of foreign laws or religious codes.

In our free society where the First Amendment reigns supreme, just who's law is it anyway?  Go figure.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: American Bar Association,Dave Agema,Detroit,divorce,family law,First Amendment,Islamic law,Michigan Constitution,Muslim,Rashida Tlaib,Shariah law,U.S. Constitution

The Anti-Shariah Movement

There is a growing movement afoot in the United States and Western Europe to arrest the perceived expansion of Islamic Law; also known as Shariah Law.  As the Anti-Shariah movement gains momentum here in the US, it is bumping up against the "free speech" clause of our First Amendment.

Sharia, the Islamic code that guides a Muslim's beliefs and conduct, is increasingly viewed by some legislators as a legal system that seeks world domination.  This fear has been attached to Islam for centuries.

The most vocal leader of the contemporary Anti-Shariah movement, David Yerushelmi, was profiled on the front page of last Sunday's NYT.  An attorney in New York and a Hasidic Jew, Mr. Yerushelmi has aligned himself with a phalanx of conservative think tanks while making a national mark as an expert on Shariah.  His recent accomplishments include drafting model Anti-Shariah legislation and filing lawsuits against the government that cite Shariah as, "one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the cold war," according to the NYT.

His warning is being echoed on the floor of statehouses throughout the country.  The actual extent of this perceived threat is highly debatable.

Should U.S. Courts ever defer to religious tribunals?  It happens more than you may realize. 

For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans upheld an arbitration award handed down by the Institute for Christian Conciliation.  Also, state courts have long upheld decisions made in Jewish courts known as a bet din.  Even Islamic courts, particularly in the area of family law, receive some "faith and credit" in state courts (if not full faith and credit).

 Particularly in the area of family law, there is an academic perception that religious women are often pressured by spouse and family into arbitrating in religious tribunals.  A problem arises when these tribunals then disregard principles of basic equity, fairness and even constitutional protections.

Recent state appellate decisions, one from New Jersey and one from Maryland, provide a fascinating insight into the issue of Shariah Law now confronting state court judges on an frequent basis.

Some state legislatures are drafting bills that would prohibit state court judges, particularly family court judges, from any consideration of the Shariah; all litigants would be bound by applicable state laws.

Perhaps this would be best.  We are, after all, in America, are we not?

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: bet din,David Yerushelmi,family law,Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,First Amendment,Hasidic,Islamic law,Shariah law