You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Ohio: A Challenge to the Muslim Marriage Decision
2007-11-01
A woman plans to challenge Ohio's first court ruling involving a traditional Muslim marriage agreement.

The case could set a precedent about how such religious contracts are handled in the state.

The ruling says a groom does not have to pay his former wife the $25,000 he promised as part of a Muslim pre-marriage agreement - called a mahr - because the payment is part of a religious pact, not a legal contract.

The wife's lawyer says the ruling sets a dangerous precedent for Muslim women because the contract serves as a protection and safeguard for women who often marry young and do not earn salaries.

The decision was a departure from rulings in other states, which have enforced such contracts, similar to dowries.
Posted by:Delphi

#6  How about 1/2 of everything? It's the American way.
Posted by: ed   2007-11-01 14:18  

#5  If it is a contract, it should be binding. Shouldn't matter whether it is Muslim, other religious, or civil. Even verbal contracts, with no lawyers involved, can be held binding. The key is whether both parties to the contract were capable of making an informed consent. THAT would be grounds for excluding such a Muslim contract.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-11-01 14:15  

#4  Personally I don't want Muslim religious documents being upheld in civil courts.

End of story. Use our existing legal system to enforce contractual agreements or expect us to piss on your effing shari'a law whenever you bring it up.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-11-01 14:07  

#3  A pre-nup is a legal contract drawn up by lawyers. This sounds like a religious document with no legal standing.

Personally I don't want Muslim religious documents being upheld in civil courts.
Posted by: AlanC   2007-11-01 14:04  

#2  The ruling says a groom does not have to pay his former wife the $25,000 he promised as part of a Muslim pre-marriage agreement -

And this is different from a prenuptial agreement . . .how?

There's not enough detail in the story to tell how the court came up with its conclusion, but I've a feeling it'll be flipped on appeal.
Posted by: Mike   2007-11-01 12:33  

#1  Hope she got it in writing.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-11-01 12:02  

00:00