Texas Judge Rules That Woman Seeking Divorce Must Instead Submit to Sharia Tribunal

By Cassandra Fairbanks

A Texas woman is in danger after a judge in the state denied her request for a divorce and instead ruled that she must submit to a Sharia tribunal.

Back in March, Collin County District Judge Andrea Thompson ordered that in order for Mariam Ayad to divorce Ayad Hashim Latif she must go through the Fiqh panel, which is based in Saudi Arabia.

Judge Thompson claimed that this was because Ayad signed a prenuptial agreement in which she agreed to abide by Sharia.

The Washington Examiner reports “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.”

Signing two copies of the marriage acknowledgement is common practice in Islamic nations.

Under Sharia, Ayad’s husband will have the sole right to seek or deny a divorce and Ayad “will not have a meaningful right to be heard,” her attorneys wrote.

“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,” the Blaze reports.

Ayad argued that the agreement should be nullified because she was unaware that she was agreeing to submit to Sharia when she signed it. Additionally, she asserted that the agreement violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Judge Thompson was unmoved by her arguments and ruled that the divorce falls under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Association of North Texas.

The Examiner report continued on to explain that “Ayad’s attorneys took the case to a Texas appeals court, arguing that the Sharia proceedings are in direct conflict with United States divorce law. The agreement itself, they added, is “unconscionable” and in opposition to Texas law as well.”

Timcast has reached out to Judge Thompson for comment and will update this story if one is provided.

For corrections, please email [email protected]

*For corrections please email [email protected]*

56 responses to “Texas Judge Rules That Woman Seeking Divorce Must Instead Submit to Sharia Tribunal”

  1. BethanyJM23 says:

    This female judge has murdered a woman.

  2. BigGuy22 says:

    I agree with ChetF the real story is how is their an Islamic of North Texas law jurisdiction in America?

  3. ChetF says:

    “Judge Thompson was unmoved by her arguments and ruled that the divorce falls under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Association of North Texas.”

    This seems to be the real story. More on this Association and how it has legal power please. Also it would be nice to know if this person is a citizen or not.

  4. roflo1804 says:

    Generally legal practices of marriage and divorce in other countries or of other religions are respected here in the courts. While I have a myriad of problems with Islam and Sharia law coming here, unless she was under duress when she signed it, it’s valid. I don’t like it, but I don’t disagree with the decision. I do, however, disagree with the judge ceding jurisdiction to the Islamic Association of North Texas. That sets a terrible precedent for future cases of unaccountable wahhmen like her claiming ignorance in order to get out of a raw deal that she agreed to.

  5. MorganH says:


  6. JoeVasco72 says:

    Agreed, she can choke on it.

  7. MorganH says:

    Or the government…

  8. JoeVasco72 says:

    Why is Sharia allowed in the Western world?
    Having said that, it suited her fine to sign the anti American prenuptial in the 1st place, deport them both.

  9. Viewtifuljoe says:

    Amen. Know what you sign up for, folks.

  10. BasedBitch says:

    So basically, she is anti womens rights…and pro making men own women like cattle.

  11. TruckeeCrawdad says:

    She signed 2 copies of the agreement that she didn’t read. I call bullshit.
    Now this boils down to a religious liberty issue. If two people both enter an agreement to procede under religious law should the government step in when it doesn’t work out in their favor.
    On a seperate note, why aren’t you contacting the husband for comment? Reporting on only one side of the issue seems a whole lot like activist journalism to ne

  12. Travispatrick says:

    What an evil evil person. How can a judge be so dumb that they really think Sharia law has any basis in this country. Does that judge not realize that they beat people with stones for getting raped in that country?

  13. Yermomco0 says:

    Moral of the story kids read the fine print EVERYTIME. It may take a bit longer to get to the daily mind drone, but I can assure you that you’ll know what your really getting yourself into. Remember the rule of thumb, if your signing a contract pretend it’s from a demon.

  14. Saurfang says:

    Well it sounds like if Sharia doesn’t grant her the divorce, than she can go through the courts again.

  15. CofresiPirata says:

    This is just another woman signing a document and claiming ignorance to get out of it. this is all to common in America and needs to stop.

  16. thndrbrd says:

    Haha, good! I think it’s crap that we now have precedence of Sharia being acknowledged in U.S. law but awesome that some of these morons are going to feel all the equity and peace in the religion of Islam.

  17. NONCOMPLIANT says:

    Sharia my ass, this IS America!!!

  18. heavyirontech says:

    Wait then what is a court room? The state or religion is always involved that is why its “official”. Common law marriage is different in my opinion but courts still rule on those as well. I may not like what this woman will be put through but it is the contract she signed and does not seem she signed under duress.

  19. carneliantopsoil says:

    You didn’t read the EULA!?

  20. Crewe91 says:

    I like it women will now start to feel the weight of inequality balancing in the favor of men in the courtroom. Know your place

  21. higaki_rinne says:

    Marriage is a contract between a man and a women. Not a man, woman, and a council of elders.

  22. EyeSight says:

    I kinda feel like the “I didn’t know what was on agreement because I didn’t read it” isn’t going to help her.
    Why would she sign anything without reading it first?
    We skip Terms of Service acknowledgement and just click “agree” but when it comes to lawyers, doctors, contracts, marriage acknowledgements etc. you gotta look through it.

  23. IntegratedCrazy says:

    You know what.. good. I’m tired of us family court shitting on men. Enjoy a taste of our issues.

  24. Walldoc77 says:

    This is america. This is not a thing in america. Why are all these people trying to turn our nation into a third world shit hole? We did shady things in the past surprise like every freaking nation that has ever freaking existed. We’ve also made amends in those areas. I do not understand how these fools cannot look around and realize they have been fooled by the the far left and far rights soical media propaganda. If they would just shut off their phones and televisions they would see they have been had.

  25. MountainMomma says:

    Can you imagine the left’s outrage if she was sentenced to upholding all edicts of Christian elders?

    However, I’m uncomfortable with the “I didn’t know” argument. Quit signing contracts that “you don’t know”.

  26. roooner says:

    What laws other than Sharia do people follow?
    Feudal laws?

  27. Gdeleon says:

    Great concise article. In my opinion it was the correct decision by the judge although I assume she only did it out of fear of the woke mob calling her an Islamophobe. This case does make me think if the so called patriarchy was still in power, like it is in Muslim countries, we wouldn’t be going through all the crap we are going through now. Meh, but what do I know, just an average José. 🤣

  28. TheDarkworld says:

    I don’t like when people sign contracts then later claim they didn’t know what they were doing but 5th amdt Vs. Sharia *is* a pretty strong argument.

  29. noktirnal.rambler420 says:

    It’s the prenup contract, not sharia.

  30. noktirnal.rambler420 says:

    Right. The court is staying out of the religious decision that the woman contracted herself into.

  31. ricky_6ixx says:

    The problem is the Muslims believe that Sharia Islamic Law supersedes all laws of the land and I think the reason that judge ruled as such is because she’s afraid of backlash from the Muslim community. Really, I believe she could just rule impartially and honor the request for divorce, assign custody to the woman and allow the man to keep his wealth.

  32. Alea_Iocta_Est says:

    I was surprised to see no errors in this post, then I saw Cassandra wrote it, and I was no longer surprised. As always, great work Cassandra.

  33. kaesar says:

    What if you No longer follow Islam though? Can a court then Force a person to Follow a religion/ attend a religious gathering or be judged by people of a faith they no longer recognize ?

    I thought the idea behind separation of church and state was so state could not promote or persecute a Religion or influence how the faith was followed. Likewise to keep a Religion from influencing or otherwise interfering with Government. That being said how can a person legally be forced to participate since the separation should prevent any authority from making a judgment let alone writing a binding document pertaining to religious matters.

    Am I wrong here I am not a lawyer but this seems wrong to me and if it is legal to do this it should not be.

  34. double_fact_checked says:

    This judge should be immediately disbarred and defrocked.

  35. Xvangoras says:

    The divorce court is so one sided in the west in favor of the women that its refreshing to see the wokenes backfire on women. So there you have it boys, get married under Islam and your ass is safe from feminism, life hack 👍

  36. LVIII says:

    Apparently, you didn’t read the parts where the lawyers explained that this violated her Constitutionally-protected rights.

  37. LVIII says:

    First, Thank you for your service. And about this topic… there are such grossly, unimaginably horrible crimes committed against people every day around this world. And someone like this judge, who sits in her ivory tower, have no idea the kind of pain and torment she might be able to bring against someone. You’re definitely right about people hiding behind their blissful ignorance to turn their back and allow, or even condone, such actions. Cowardice.

  38. So from a legal stand point I would think that the judge would realize under Texas law that premarital agreements can’t condone acts that would be illegal under state law. So I don’t know if the judge is looking for a show or their is a little more going on than what is stated in this article. My guess is there might be some history here.

  39. cc20077002 says:

    hurry up with the share function. these are the types of stories that can shatter echo chambers or get us banned from social media. I would rather get banned sharing these stories, than let the echo chambers fester.

  40. Jcoynor says:


  41. A.J. says:

    Anyone care to take a swing at how that would have turned out if she hadn’t signed? No need, the Saudis will do that for ya.

  42. TheGreyMan says:

    I’m not sure that some of you h ave thought out the logical consequences of your stances. Have any of you ever been in an Islamic country? I have. Did two tours of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I witnessed the aftermath of a man who repeatedly inserted a metal rod into his wife’s vagina. Her crime: too much salt in the food. However it didn’t end there, After the husband was finished, he made their children come into the house and made them repeat the torture that he did upon their mother. I saw it after it was all over, I wanted to blow that motherfucker’s head off then go have a cigar. The man was arrested and taken into custody. He was freed later that day after putting into writing that he was sorry and that he would never do that again. One of the Afghan police, a woman, begged me to take her daughter home with me. I say again, the woman asked, no begged me to please take her daughter. Beyond the point that it was not possible, if it had been she knew that she’d never ever see her again. She was trusting that whatever kind of man that I was that I would be heads and shoulders above what life was going to be for her there. The Judge said that the Islamic law held precedence over US Constitutional freedoms. Those of you who say that the person should have known better, at the very least you are soulless and compassionless people, but I suspect many of you are simply moral and intellectual cowards. You want to hide behind the judge or you want to blame this person’s ignorance or foolishness and condemn her to the torturous and capricious whims of an Islamic council. If the Islamic Sharia council is to hold sway in the United States of America, then how far do we allow them to go? Can they then administer punishment? Allow honor killings? And since when are all contracts legal? You show an ignorance of contract law. I cannot contract with you to do something illegal, I cannot sign myself into slavery or sell you my kidney in a contract. They would be considered not worth the paper that they are written on. I sincerely hope that you are grossly ignorant of which you speak, I would hate to know that you are actually intelligent and experienced with the topic.

  43. MariaB says:

    Can we share these great articles or are hey only behind this pay wall for us members.

  44. YellowCakeDealer says:

    Tim Dillon – “This is why women shouldn’t be allowed to read/write, they don’t have the cognitive ability to understand complex concepts like ‘Sharia’ and ‘Marriage’”

  45. pcas says:

    so under this ruling if anyone was married in another country their marriage is null under US laws if they move here?

  46. WhiskeyRomeo says:

    A contract is a contract. I was a bit mad reading the headline but reading the article was enlightening. She signed a contract without reading it, as most of us do when we sign up for almost anything online today. Let this be a lesson to everyone to read what you put your name to because it just might come back to haunt you.

  47. CrispyBacon says:

    Contractual rights and the right to freely negotiate terms/conditions is also an important part of freedom. Now if this women could show that the contract was null/void under contract principles that make the agreement invalid or against US law, that’s a completely different story.

  48. UppityG says:

    Was this pre-nup written and signed in the US? Did the woman have legal counsel? Was she of age to enter into a contract? If the answers are yes, yes and yes, then she voluntarily agreed to an obligation that she should have understood fully before signing. Absent more info answering those questions for me, I can’t be outraged for the woman.

  49. Scootouchard says:

    Our judicial system is just as corrupt as our government. Having 3 branches of government doesn’t work when they are all compromised/corrupted and work in lock step.

  50. Gorilla56 says:

    Interesting, I wonder if this may be a partial case of fear of physical or other retribution from the people adhering to sharia law.

  51. Tsheehan says:

    If they had a marriage license from the state, the state should have jurisdiction… wow

  52. joebuddyisyobuddy says:

    TBH, if you sign an agreement requiring arbitrage at an NGO, thats…your fault. We shouldn’t be breaking contracts just because people don’t like what they signed up for. Now the courts should probably just let her divorce but give her absolutely nothing in terms of alimony, assets whatever since shes refusing to deal with the NGO.

  53. MaineWolf says:

    Is she an American? Then let our courts handle it, if she wants out, let her.

  54. PortraitOfPlato says:

    US divorce law itself is unconscionable in general. Welcome to the other extreme, dear woman, to which much men have been subjected to unconscionable rulings, but with little general notice. Better a considered legal and philosophical judge than a politically ideological hack in either direction.

  55. Feddy_Von_Wigglestein says:

    Where’s the outrage from the left who pretend that separation of church and state is all about the states protection and not the religious rights of people?

  56. Izuku says:

    This is terrifying… Always read the fine print.