SHARIAsource

The appellate court upheld the Superior Court of Orange County’s refusal to divide marital property in the context of a divorce according to Islamic law. The plaintiff introduced a marriage certificate as a “premarital contract,” which, among other things, lays out a set amount to be paid to the wife in the event of a divorce. The lower court refused to consider the certificate a “contract,” as it was not clear that both parties were expressly agreeing to the same terms, consistent with their understanding of Islamic law and custom.

On December 26, 2008, Mariam Ayad ("Wife") and Ayad Hashim Latif ("Husband") got married.  They executed a prenuptial agreement ("Islamic Prenuptial Agreement") on the same day, which the wife alleges she considered to be a customary marriage certificate, not a contract conferring substantive rights and limitations on the Husband and the Wife, respectively.  The couple have a son.  Their marriage started deteriorating in 2020, at which point the Wife alleges she learned for the first time about the existence of the Islamic Prenuptial Agreement and the fact that she had executed it on the day of her marriage with her Husband.  On January 25, 2021, the Wife filed for divorce.  The Husband countersued for divorce and filed a motion to have the Islamic Prenuptial Agreement enforced, which provides that all divorce-related matters, including spousal support, child support, alimony, and marital property division, shall be resolved through the ruling of a fiqh panel to be convened.  The trial court, in rejecting the Wife's arguments regarding the invalidity and unenforceability of the Islamic Prenuptial Agreement, which the Wife had argued based on her assertion that she had thought she was signing a cultural document at the time of signing and that she was not given an opportunity to read and understand the terms, ruled in favor of the Husband and held that the prenuptial arrangement be enforced. 

The Wife appealed to the appellate court seeking relief from the order of referral to arbitration of the trial court.  In her submission to the appellate court, the Wife made four separate arguments:

1. The Islamic Prenuptial Agreement is void on grounds of contravening public policy, as the agreement clearly disavows Texas law and the laws of the United States, and replaces those with Islamic Law, which, according to the Wife's submission, "limits the rights of a woman to obtain a divorce," in violation of Equal Protection, the Establishment Clause, and Due Process, given the different weights assigned by Islamic law to official testimony from women compared to men.

2. The Islamic Prenuptial Agreement is void as a matter of Texas contract law because the agreement was involuntarily executed.

3. The trial court abused its discretion in finding that the Islamic Prenuptial Agreement stipulated to arbitration, as the agreement does not contain evidence of a meeting of the minds as regards an intent to arbitrate.  The agreement's mention of a "fiqh panel" or a "Muslim court" cannot unequivocally be read as an agreement to arbitrate.

4. Relatedly, the trial court also abused its discretion in referring the dispute to arbitration without allowing the Wife to present meaningful evidence refuting the existence of an alleged agreement to arbitrate.

The case is pending before the Texas appellate court.

This document was enacted on August 1, 1913. It prescribes certain measures for the registration of marriages and divorces between Muslims in Brunei, and shows the basic format of marriage and divorce certificates. It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

In divorce proceedings, a wife appealed the decision of the Oakland Circuit Court Family Division, granting her husband’s motion to dismiss her claims and recognize their previous divorce, which occurred when the couple was in India. Specifically, she contested the validity of the “triple ṭalāq” divorce (a version of final, irrevocable divorce under Indian and Islamic law, performed unilaterally by the husband) that her husband performed in India, and filed for divorce in Michigan. The trial court concluded that the certificate of divorce that the defendant husband produced from their earlier divorce was sufficient evidence to dismiss the case under Michigan Compiled Laws 2.116(C)(7) (which bars claims based on prior judgment). The Court of Appeals reversed and found in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the Indian divorce violated due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution art. 1, § 2, as it gave the wife no chance to plead her case concerning the divorce before a court. The Court also concluded that allowing the divorce to stand would be contrary to state public policy, as it privileged the Muslim personal law of India (which placed women in a weaker position regarding property division in the event of a divorce than would Michigan state law) over Michigan state law and the rights and protections extended to persons living in the state.

At issue in this case is the validity of a marriage performed in the Islamic tradition, where the husband sought an annulment of an initial “traditional” marriage and recognition of a subsequent civil marriage. The law of the Philippines does not require a couple to obtain a marriage certificate if their marriage is performed according to the Islamic tradition; accordingly the couple married under traditional Islamic law and obtained no certificate. In seeking annulment of that marriage and recognition of a subsequent marriage, appellant Rafiqul Islam argued that the first marriage was not official; he further argued that the union was not truly Islamic because his so-called wife was not Muslim, because the wedding ceremony was performed by a clerk rather than a religious official, and because neither party intended to enter into a marital relationship. On appeal, the Court upheld the trial court’s decision that the first marriage was a legitimate, state-recognized union, and thus that any subsequent marriage would be considered void.

The parties were married on 7 July 2002 in accordance with Islamic shari'a. Having never complied with marriage administrative requirements, the parties did not hold a marriage certificate. The parties also had two children. They had been married happily for 12 years but, by the end of 2014, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious after the respondent carried on an extra-marital affair with another man. In March 2015, the parties separated. The applicant requested that the court ratify the parties' marriage and grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). After the applicant failed to attend the proceeding, however, the court dismissed the application.

The parties were married on 5 September 1999, the plaintiff's father acting as the parties' wedding guardian (wali nikah). The parties had two children. The parties' marriage certificate (buku nikah), however, had not been issued, and when the plaintiff inquired with the Sekupang Office of Religious Affairs as to its status, it became apparent that the marriage had never been officially registered.

After the first year of marriage, the plaintiff alleged that the parties had begun to quarrel because the defendant:

1. had not provided the plaintiff and their children with sufficient financial support, only working for himself, without showing any care for the plaintiff and their family;
2. had a temperamental nature, always physically assaulting the plaintiff if the parties had a verbal disagreement;
3. often left the matrimonial home without any reason, returning home in the middle of the night or the next morning;
4. would prioritise himself over the plaintiff and their children, not purchasing the children clothing, for example; and
5. had already divorced (pronounced talak) the plaintiff on 28 April 2003 on paper (with stamp-duty paid).

After divorcing the plaintiff, the defendant had left her and their children, ignoring the plaintiff's attempts to reconcile and reunite. The plaintiff believed that divorce was now the only feasible option. The plaintiff also sought custody of the children, who were already living under her care, the defendant having shown no interest in their well-being.

In ratifying the parties' marriage, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff had submitted a marriage ratification application for the purposes of divorce, pursuant to art 7(3)(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It also conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 July 2005 and had two children aged eight and six years. At the time of the proceeding, the eight year old child was in the plaintiff's care, while the six year old child was in the care of the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for seven and a half years but, since December 2013, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. was frequently physically and emotionally abusive towards the plaintiff, which had left the plaintiff traumatised; and
3. was irresponsible in maintaining a household, which would lead to regular arguments between the parties.

Problems escalated in January 2016 when the plaintiff simply wished to discuss with the defendant the drafting of the birth certificate of one their children. The plaintiff submitted that, for reasons unknown to her, this caused the defendant to become so enraged that he plunged the plaintiff into a full bathtub four times. The plaintiff then left the defendant and returned to her parents' home where she had remained since. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, it acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 20 June 1975 and their marriage certificate was issued the following day. They had first lived with the applicant's parents and the respondent's parents before moving to their own home in Langsa. The parties had five children and had been happily married for 35 years. Since June 2010, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent believed the applicant was not providing her with enough financial support. Moreover, the respondent did not agree with the applicant wanting to take another wife and would, therefore, frequently ask the applicant for a divorce. Problems escalated in November 2014 and the parties chose to sleep in separate beds. Familial intervention had failed to make the parties reconcile and the applicant believed that a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the best option.

In her oral response to the applicant's submissions, the respondent submitted that actually:

1. the parties had quarrelled since 1989, not over finances but because the applicant had, while married to the respondent, married two other women without first obtaining the respondent's permission; and
2. problems had escalated in November 2014 because the respondent had learned that the applicant had already married yet another woman.

The respondent told the court that she did not object to the applicant's request to divorce her but she demanded IDR 9 million in backdated financial support for the previous six months, as well as IDR 4.5 million for iddah (three-month period after which divorce has been granted). In response to these demands, the applicant submitted that he should only provide the respondent with IDR 3.6 million for the previous six months and IDR 1.8 million for iddah because the respondent already made IDR 1.5 million per month working on a palm oil plantation.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the applicant's request by granting him a revocable divorce (talak satu' raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It also partially acceded to the respondent's demands by granting the following:

1. IDR 4.5 million in backdated maintenance; and
2. IDR 2.25 million for iddah.

The parties were married on 17 January 2005 but had no children. After marrying in Bau-Bau, the parties had returned to Ambon and lived in a rental property from 2005-2006, before moving to their own home in December 2006. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair in Ambon and Jakarta. The plaintiff had learned of the affair when she called the defendant and the other woman in question answered his phone, resulting in the plaintiff and other woman arguing over the phone.

The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had failed to disclose to her that, after the parties had agreed to rent out their property for one year, the defendant had rented it out for two years, spending the proceeds from rent payments on the other woman. The defendant had also confessed to having a daughter with a non-Muslim woman, the child now being in the care of the defendant's older sister, as well as marrying another woman, with whom he had a four-year old daughter.

Problems escalated on 13 Feburary 2011 when the defendant extended the term of the rental agreement for their property without first consulting the plaintiff. The defendant then spent the rent proceeds on the other woman, the plaintiff submitted.

The defendant submitted that he did not live in Ambon, but rather in Central Jakarta, and therefore the Ambon Religious Court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Moreover, he rejected the plaintiff's submission that he had used proceeds from renting their home to fraternise with another woman. Rather, the defendant submitted that he had used that money to cover the plaintiff's university fees (the plaintif was attending university in Makassar and the defendant did not have sufficient finances to cover the costs). The defendant also rejected the plaintiff's submission that he had married another woman with whom he had a four-year old daughter.

The defendant also submitted that from the IDR 17 million per annum he made from renting the parties' home, he had spent IDR 4 million on plumbing, IDR 5 million on the issuance of a certificate from the National Land Body, provided the plaintiff with IDR 4 million to discharge a debt she owed to a colleague, and IDR 2 million to pay an instalment to the landowner as the land had not yet been paid-off in full.

Dismissing the defendant's claim that the court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, the court found that, based on both parties' submissions, it was evident that the parties were no longer compatible and had already been separated since February 2011. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Chapters on nominate contracts (endowment, sales, options, barter/ mu‘āwaḍa, hire and lease, partnerships -shirka, muzāra‘a, musāqāt, muḍāraba-, reward/ju‘āla, deposit, fungible and non-fungible loan, agency, financial and personal guaranty, assignment, settlement, pledge, gift), shuf‘a, wills, inheritance, marriage and divorce, mahr, and alimony took almost all of its substance from prominent Shi’i fiqh treatises. Other chapters (classification of properties, easement, usufruct, general rules of obligations and contracts, nationality, registration of civil status, domicile, engagement, guardianship, and evidence) are mainly influenced by Swiss and French Civil Codes and Swiss Code of Obligations.

The parties were married by a qadhi before two witnesses. They had one child, had never divorced, and the first applicant had not married another woman. While their marriage certificate was in the form of a declaration, they required a court determination acknowledging their marriage as it had had not been registered with the Office of Religious Affairs. This meant that the parties could not obtain a birth certificate for their child, which was required for the child to be registered for school. The parties also required the court determination in order to apply for passports so that they might leave the municipality or even the region.

Citing Bughyatul Mustarsyidin, and finding the information and evidence provided by the applicants to the court affirmed their claim, the court acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants were married on 18 October 2013 by Tgk. H. Hanafiah, the then village imam. The second applicant's younger brother had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) was five grams of pure gold. Due to a family dispute at the time, the marriage could not be convened at the local Office of Religious Affairs (Kantor Urusan Agama). Accordingly, the applicants requested that the court ratify their marriage retrospectively. Both applicants were eligible for marriage, the second applicant having divorced her previous husband in Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court Decision No. 232 of 2012. The applicants submitted that, while they had already attended the Banda Sakti Office of Religious Affairs to request the issuance of a marriage certificate, the office was precluded from doing so as it could not locate any information relating to their marriage.

The court acceded to the applicants' request, acknowledging that while the parties did not have proof of their marriage in the form of a marriage certificate, they had already married. Moreover, the evidence provided by the witnesses in court did not conflict with the applicants' submissions. Therefore, the applicants' submissions, pursuant to art 7(3)(e) of Indonesian Presidential Instruction No. 1 of 1991 on the Compilation of Islamic Laws, had been established and were grounded in legal reasoning.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 2 October 2004 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had three children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of marriage, which would then enable them to obtain birth certificates for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 15 May 1979 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had five children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of marriage, which would then enable them to obtain birth certificates for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 9 May 1975 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had six children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain birth certificates for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 24 July 2011 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had a child. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their child.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 21 May 1978 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had eight children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 3 September 1995 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a five-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had five children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.