What is the Texas Islamic Court?

Hugh Fitzgerald over at the New English Review came across a Texas sharia court that we identified in one of Creeping Sharia’s very first posts, Sharia Law enforced in Texas!

For the past twelve years Ghassan Hitto has worked in Dallas for a technology company whose chief executive is Arshad Syed. Hitto has been involved with the Brighter Horizons Academy, for Muslim students, which in turn is connected to the Islamic Services Foundation. The Islamic Services Foundation is described at its own website as follows:


Note please not only the Brighter Horizaons Academy, but also the “My Islamic Book Series” — a book series that journalists might want to look into, and the Quranic Institute, but above all, look at the last item on the list — the Texas Islamic Court.

What is the Texas Islamic Court?

I’d like to know because I’d like to know a little bit more about the devout Ghassan Hitto, and his views of the proper place of Muslims in a non-Muslim society, just as I would like to know more about his view of the proper place of non-Muslims — in Syria, for example — in a society where Muslims predominate.

Wouldn’t you?

Read it all at link above and from our 2008 post on the Texas appeals court that ruled that sharia law be applied at said sharia court:

1.  The Parties agree to arbitrate all existing issues among them in the above mentioned Cause Numbers in the appropriate District Court, which includes the Divorce Case, the child custody of the [sic] Noor Qaddura and Farah Qaddura, the determination of each party’s responsibilities and duties according to the Islamic rules of law by Texas Islamic Court.

2.All parties agree to sign the Texas Islamic Court required legal forms, and each party pays his required fees.

3.The panel of arbitrators of Texas Islamic Court will be formed according to the rules and regulations of Texas Islamic Court.

26 thoughts on “What is the Texas Islamic Court?

  1. I thought Texans were those gun-totin’, trigger-happy, red-necks that would not tolerate crap like Islamic courts in their state. Where is the Lone Ranger and Tonto when we need them? Come on Texans! You can do better. You don’t want your women wearing burqas and the men raising their rear-ends to Mecca. (Its a round Earth you know.)

    • My sister lives in Texas and she has never heard of this stuff. This is being done under the covers, to hide the agenda. If We the People don’t get up off our backsides, and start fighting for the rights and freedoms we were given, we will have no one to blame when they are gone. Its 1 minute to mid-night, and all is not well … when are you going to spring into action? … Oh … they already know who you are, you’re on this board … your on the list ….

      • Lynn, how can I help you fight for the rights and freedoms we were given? It sounds like you are part of a group or org that does so. I would be interested in knowing which ones or what one.

  2. As far as I can prove, the only case ever brought before the TIC was the one quoted above. The two Muslims were locked on this issue, because the father was following Sharia law in that he was entitled to custody of the girls, and his wife wasn’t having it. The wife caved in to demands/pressure (I can’t prove that) that she ask for a Sharia hearing and thus was born the TIC. The TX 2nd Court of Appeals set the rules, but had no idea what was IN Sharia law (like the imams were the arbitrators) and thus the wife was bound to lose, which she did, but no TX or US laws were broken (except the concept of equality for all) and the 2ndCOA had to agree to the arbitration agreement put in front of them. I’ve never heard of another case held in the TIC, which doesn’t mean there hasn’t been, but if there have been, none have hit the noise level this divorce did. BUT, this is a perfect example of why American Law for American Courts is so badly needed. There really wasn’t any reason for the 2ndCOA to say no to the wife’s request for a Sharia arbitration, because it’s law, right? What could be so bad?

    • To “dobintexas” – And that makes it right? or the constitutional laws less challenged? The Sharia Court is illegal b/c, its a religious court, which enacts religious law and is held, equal to constitutional law. Muslims don’t need a Sharia court of law for any ruling on Islamic life. Many religions already have religious laws that differ with civil law. Catholics, Jews, even Prostants have certain religious laws. The issue is are you going to observe your religious law or civil law? There are also many fine lawyers who will write “wills” and pre-nupt contracts, ect. There is absolutely NO need for Sharia law; Muslims are pushing, shoving for it to be enacted b/c it devaluates, humilates and de-humanized non-muslims. It also, destroys non-muslims rights to worship freely and to live freely; while it elevates muslims to Supremiscy.

      • The question was: What is the TIC? I answered that, I didn’t say it was okay. But, the reason it was allowed in TX at that time is because there is nothing that says it isn’t okay to consider foreign laws in any court in our land. You’d think so, given Art VI of the Constitution, but not so. Yes, there are religious courts which work within the religious guidelines of their teaching, but none can operate outside the US or state laws. Technically, as I said, the TIC did not break adorny of our laws. The 2ndCOA said “work this way,” and outwardly, all parties did. It is the lack of knowledge of what Sharia is that’s at the root of this problem, and it’s not surprising that the judges and justices are largely unaware of the problem. Give them a law to work with (in other words, get your state senators and reps to pass it into law), like American Law for American Courts and then this kind of thing can’t happen.

        • It would seem that anyone who asks for a Texas Civil Trial would get it. I don’t understand why this even happened. Surely the ‘wife’ would have tried to get to a Texas Court to get her girls away from the Sharia fraud.

          • You need to understand the pressure a Muslim woman is under in a case like this. She’s fighting a brutal husband, a brutal legal system, and a “foreign” law — in this case, American — that she doesn’t understand as well as she knows Sharia. Her case was deadlocked in our court. She asked for arbitration in the TIC. I do not know if she was coerced or not, but it’s on record that it was her request. When the case was “resolved” in the TIC, she’d lost the children, it didn’t look like any US or TX laws had been broken, and so that was that. If there is no chance that a case which involves a person’s possible loss of constitutional rights is allowed to go to arbitration (as would be the case here, and would have been denied under American Laws for American Courts law), the case could have had a better outcome for the children (both girls) and the mother.

  3. Muslims are not in America to pursue the dream of .. “life, liberty and the pursute of happiness” .. They are “here” to pursue the mandate of Muhammed and the Quran. Which is to establish first, Sharia law, as the only and highest law of the land, and second, Islam as the only religion of the land. Everyone else will be subjugated, ruled, in-tolerated, until their beliefs die a slow, painful death.

    IF, our fore-fathers could see what We the People have done, with what they risked and shed their life’s blood for … they would throw the, We the People, of today “out,” as tratiors! Like they did their Loyalists neighbor’s after the Revolutionary War.

  4. Unbelievable that Obama is meeting with groups that are fervently working to sign away the rights of women under the US Constitution. Where are the Democrats? Where are all of the feminists? Where are the legal rights advocates? Where are the human rights groups?

    Why is giving away a female US citizen’s rights OK if she is a Muslim by birth, and was coerced into doing so?

    • No one can prove that she was coerced, as I said above, I just happen to suspect it, because I know the ex-husband. And no one in TX 2ndCOA would have dreamed they were “giving away” her rights. It is up to us to alert our state senators and reps to enact laws like American Laws for American courts to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen again.

  5. wow we are facing a take over every where…am glad that I am an older person and mostly won’t be around to see it…but my thoughts and prayers for with the future generations…this is spreading so much…not just the court thing…but the culture….I don’t think that they come to other countries to get away from theirs…they are coming to them to take over the world are they hv said that they wud…another cult…only they are doing so in such a sneaky way…just putting my views out there…

  6. leona
    u r right; they’re coming here to take over; that is so obvious, and having the muzzie idiot in the wh makes it even easier for them as he ALWAYS favors the muzzies; it is in his dna, period.
    Americans need to wake up to what is going and stay on top of all issues and protests in any possible to get your point across; we do not want muzzies here, we do not want their mosques; their terrorist front organizations such as cair; or any part of them.
    u do obama appointed muzzie to change all the textbooks in favor of muzzies and to discredit our past American history and they started in texas is it is the largest textbook purchaser in the USA.
    keep an eye on what is being taught and our American culture is being written out and theirs put in; what a damn shame.

  7. DOB in TX is correct – help us get the American Laws for American Courts passed. There are 50 cases in 23 states that have used Shariah law as opposed to American laws. Join ACT for America and join a chapter or start one to help get these laws passed!

    • The Texas House ALAC bill is HB750; senate bill has just changed, and we’ll be telling you what that change is soon. To join ACT, go to http://www.actforamerica.org. Other states have other ALAC bills working;
      Alabama’s just passed its senate, I think; Florida’s is about to pass, we hope. LA, TN, AZ, KS have already made it law that judges and justices in their states cannot use foreign law in their court cases if that law would result in an American citizen’s Constitutional laws being forfeit. Thank you, Kelly Kafir, for your post. If ya’ll don’t know what a kafir is, ask Kelly.

  8. Pingback: New leader of Syrian rebels is a Texas Muslim, former CAIR VP | Creeping Sharia

  9. Pingback: Foreign Law Ban Advances in Texas Senate | Creeping Sharia

  10. What most people don’t realize that you can’t just impose some Shariah law and forget the rest. Muslims say that Shariah is god’s law, and the only valid law acceptable in the world. They start with the things like marriage, family, divorce, etc., then comes the interesting part. Islamic law calls for the complete control all the people on the earth. And must fight till all surrender.Then he is offered three choices, convert to Islam, pay a confiscatory tax, or be killed. Don’t be duped!

  11. It is non-binding arbitration to settle civil disagreements is accordance with Islamic law. It does not violate federal, state of local laws and ordinances. It does not supersede or trump federal, state or local law. It only applies to civil disputes and does not affect American criminal or civil law in any way. No settlement arrived at by a Sharia arbitration proceeding may violate our laws.

    Here’s how it works: Let’s say that a Muslim couple wants a divorce. They may choose to have the terms of the divorce settled through arbitration in areas such as property settlement, child custody and other key areas. They present their case to the Sharia tribunal which makes a decision under their religious laws. The decision is then presented to the American divorce court as a proposed settlement. If, and only if, the actual state court finds the settlement to be in compliance with all relevant state and local laws and in the best interest of all parties including the children, the court may issue an order approving the settlement. If the court finds that the settlement is not in the interest of all parties or violates the law, the court will reject the settlement and the case will proceed to trial in a normal court.

    We do this in some Christian congregations now. When two parties are in dispute, we submit the matter to church elders for arbitration under Biblical principles. Once the matter is settled at the church level, the settlement is filed in court as an agreement which the court may or may not accept.

    These Sharia tribunals only act in non-binding arbitration over civil disputes between Muslims. They do not have any legal authority. Their findings are merely proposed settlements. They do not and cannot try criminal matters, and may not impose punishments or sanctions that violate American laws.

    If such a tribunal imposed a criminal punishment such as beheading or cutting off a hand, the participants would be tried, convicted and imprisoned under normal American laws.

    Arbitration has long been a staple of our American justice system when it comes to civil matters ranging from divorce to contract law and even tort claims. It prevents lengthy civil trials and saves litigants time and money. This type of arbitration just happens to be Muslim.

    Funny how the article neglects to mention the details.

  12. And there you go in your very first sentence, the problem with any Islamic court: “It is non-binding arbitration to settle ‘civil’ disagreements is ‘accordance with Islamic law.’” You make Sharia sound like it’s the same as American law. Very smooth.

    Sharia is the anti-thesis of human rights as we understand them, and it’s particularly hard on women. Any Sharia court is going to favor the man. The woman’s American Constitutional rights will not be considered, but unless there is a law, such as American Laws for American Courts at work that wouldn’t allow for the consideration of another form of law in the first place, it’s not obvious that Sharia automatically gives children over seven to the father. That a woman is considered only half as good as a man, therefore can only inherit half of whatever might be in the pot. That a woman can be divorced if her husband declares three times that he divorces her. That a man can forbid his wife to leave his home. That a forced marriage is permissible. That a woman is not allowed to say “no” to sex. That no physical part of a woman should be seen in public. That a woman cannot speak to a man the house or in public who is not a relative.

    These are just a few of the “civil” reasons a woman’s constitutional rights could be violated in a Sharia court. None of these (well, except for forced sex) rises to criminal activity, but they are inhumane, and unnoticeable in a legally arbitrated case. NO civil case should ever be allowed to go to an Islamic arbitration court.

    We should have no separate legal systems here, which is the major difference between Sharia and any other religious tribunal. Sharia is to be the law of the land, replacing the Constitution, the whole end goal of Islam.

  13. Sharia law is slanted in favor of male rights. The women of the Sharia courts are having their civil rights violated. I hope some will wake up and take the moderation from the courts to the justice system. Why isn’t the ACLU taking on these people?

If sharia keeps spreading, you will not only be silenced by the media and big technology, you will be jailed - or worse. Speak while you can!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.