Creeping Sharia Law By Richard Miller (London)
This story is from Texas, which is surprising, it would be something expected in multicult Australia, but a court decides to allow a divorce to be heard according to Islamic law rather than US law. Clearly, an appeal to a higher court, less woke, is needed, and I think is occurring.
Robert Spencer does his usual great job in taking this one apart. And, this sort of creeping Shari law is occurring right throughout the West, including Australia and the UK, as I have documented in other blog posts. Beware! The end game of multiculturalism is clear to see for it was never just about ethnic diversity under the existing system, but rather to transform liberal democracy by the Great Replacement to suit the New World Order one world agenda, seen every day here in the UK decay.
“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!
Ayad was trying to get a divorce from her husband, Ayad Hashim Latif. Sharia stipulates that while a man can divorce his wife simply by telling her three times that he is divorcing her, a woman has to seek the permission of Muslim clerics and make her case for a divorce before them. There is, of course, no such provision in U.S. law, but 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.
Mariam Ayad contends now that she was tricked into signing this agreement, and thought that what she was signing was something else altogether. Her lawyers state that American law should supersede it in any case. Thompson, however, ruled that the prenuptial agreement was binding, and thus Ayad will have to go through the Islamic Association of North Texas to get permission to divorce. According to The Blaze, this decision was in “complete disregard of both federal and state law.”
This case isn’t over: Ayad is appealing at the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas. Every American can hope that court will rule in her favor and overturn this dangerous precedent. If Mariam Ayad has to submit to Sharia as a U.S. citizen in Texas, she will be submitting to a legal system that contradicts American laws in numerous particulars. Hitting home for Mariam Ayad’s divorce case is the fact that the Qur’an declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.” (2:282)
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.”
These are the contradictions that come from hard multiculturalism, which goes beyond diversity worship to cultural transformation.
Equally as weird legal judgments are occurring right throughout the West, with this one from Austria:
“Rudolf B. no longer understands the world and the rule of law. The Viennese vocational school teacher (55) was beaten up in his apartment by his neighbor’s brothers until he had to be taken to the hospital. Nevertheless, according to the authorities’ orders, the educator is not allowed to enter his home. Arbitrary authorities, or is this justified?
The entry ban applies for at least ten days, but could also be extended. The background story: After the neighbor’s son spat on his car, he confronted the boy’s mother. A heated argument arose between him and the native Pakistani.
The teacher went back to his apartment. Shortly afterwards, the doorbell rang. Two of the woman’s brothers stormed in, one smashed his jaw. Five days of hospitalization. The police are able to locate the perpetrators quickly. Despite the charges, they remain at large! On his sickbed, Rudolf B. learns that an entry ban has been imposed on him.
Apartment is in exclusion zone
He is not allowed to approach within 100 meters of his neighbor. And his apartment is in the exclusion zone. Why the ban? According to the interrogation protocol, he strangled and hit the woman. But the teacher swears: “I never touched her.”
Indeed, questions remain unanswered. For example, whether a medical officer examined the person concerned. There is nothing about it in the official file. The police are blocking all inquiries in this regard: data protection! Rudolf B. has now hired a lawyer: “The thugs are running around freely. And I’m not allowed into my apartment. Madness!”
It has come to the law and authorities, as seen in the UK protection of the grooming gang rapists for many years before exposure, actively warring against whites, and blaming the victims. When economic decline comes, and takes down the current social opium, I wonder how this will all go? Swimmingly well I suppose.
Comments