Wednesday, November 02, 2016


RECOGNTITION OF ABU DHABI CUSTODY ORDER OF CHILDREN IN NEW YORK


By
Professor Gabriel Sawma
Case Study: S.B. v. W.A.

In 2012, I was asked to write an opinion to the Supreme Court of Westchester County in New York on behalf of S.B. who obtained a divorce decree from Abu Dhabi, UAE. The divorce decree granted the wife custody of the children and ordered the husband to pay his wife, a mahr of $250,000.00, and legal fees. 

The New York’s Supreme Court of Westchester County took a judicial notice of the constitution and laws of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for purposes of determining whether entry of judgment of divorce and order of child custody entered in Abu Dhabi would be recognized and registered in the state of New York. (See procedural and background of the case S.B. v. W.A. at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/1616620.html

Background
Both S.B. and W.A. were married on May, 1998 in a civil ceremony in the City, County, and State of New York. Following that, the parties married in an Islamic ceremony in compliance with Islamic law, also in the State of New York. They both signed a marriage contract, in which the husband promised to pay his future wife an advance mahr of $5,000.00 and, in the event of divorce, or death of the husband, a deferred mahr of $250,000.00. Two children were born of the marriage, a girl, born on July 12, 2001, and a boy, born on August 3, 2004. Both children were born in the United States.

In 2006, the defendant (husband) received an employment in the emirate of Abu Dhabi (UAE), and decided to move there. The plaintiff (wife) and children remained in the U.S. until August 2007, when they joined the plaintiff in Abu Dhabi.

Domestic Violence in Abu Dhabi
While in Abu Dhabi, the plaintiff initiated criminal proceedings against the defendant following an incident of domestic violence that occurred on January 28, 2009. After that, the marital relation soured and the wife obtained a divorce judgment from the Court of First Instance in Abu Dhabi, along with an order awarding her custody of the children and other financial relief. The divorce and custody order was affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the Court of Cassation, which is the highest court in Abu Dhabi.

The Plaintiff Seeks Recognition of the Divorce Judgment Obtained from Abu Dhabi
In support of her motion, plaintiff submitted certified copies of the Abu Dhabi orders, judgments, and decrees, which were translated from Arabic to English by a legal translator duly licensed by the Ministry of Justice in the UAE, who attested to the correctness of the translation.

She also submitted an affidavit from this author, as expert consultant on Islamic divorce in the United States and Middle East laws, including the legal structure of the courts of the UAE.

In my affidavit, I explained the structure of the judiciary in the UAE, the legal proceedings between the parties, and the judgments and decrees rendered by the Abu Dhabi courts.

Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit from an attorney admitted to practice law in Abu Dhabi, who represented the plaintiff in connection with post-matrimonial issues. In his affidavit, he explains the legal proceedings in Abu Dhabi.

Divorce Proceedings in Abu Dhabi
On July 1, 2009, the plaintiff filed a petition for divorce in the Court of First Instance under Article 117 of the Personal Status Law of the UAE. Hearings on the divorce were held on October 13, November 8, and December 14, 2009. Both parties participated in the proceedings, and both were represented by counsel.

On December 27, 2009, in the presence of both parties, the Court of First Instance issued a judgment on the merits, granting the plaintiff a divorce from the defendant; directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the deferred mahr of $250,000.00; directing the defendant to pay alimony for the children, including food, clothing and transportation allowances; directing the defendant to pay monthly alimony to the plaintiff. The Abu Dhabi Court also awarded the plaintiff custody of the children, and directed the defendant to pay all relevant fees and expenses.

The decision of the Court of First Instance was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which rendered a decision on April 4, 2010, and the Court of Cassation, which rendered decision on November 8, 2010. Both courts affirmed the judgment with minor modification related to the iddah Alimony.

Jurisdiction of the Abu Dhabi Courts
The defendant claimed that the parties are deemed married under the laws of New York, as the Abu Dhabi courts entered a divorce judgment based on the religious marriage, applying the laws of the Islamic Sharia, and no divorce action has been filed based upon the civil marriage. He claimed that the Abu Dhabi divorce was a religious judgment of divorce, not a civil judgment of divorce, and therefore, the New York courts should not afford it comity.

The question before the New York’s Westchester Supreme Court (Judge Francesca E. Connolly) was whether the Court of Abu Dhabi had jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court held that:

“Both parties were residing in Abu Dhabi when the plaintiff instituted the divorce proceedings. The divorce decree was obtained after a trial and tow appeals, including an appeal to the highest court in Abu Dhabi, the Court of Cassation, that rendered a final and binding judgment of divorce. Both parties were represented by counsel, participated in the divorce proceedings and had a full opportunity to contest jurisdiction and all other issues. There is no question that the foreign court had jurisdiction over the parties at the time the divorce judgment was issued and that it was a final binding order, thereby precluding the defendant from now collaterally attacking its validity or relitigating any of its provisions (See Borenstein v. Borenstein, 151 Misc. 160, 270 N.Y.S. 688 [Sup. Vt. N.Y. Co, 1934]; Greschler v. Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d at 376, 434 N.Y.S.2d 194, 414 N.E.2d 694).
“A court has the inherent power pursuant to the principles of comity to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment of divorce “unless there is some defect of jurisdiction shown to be against the public policy of the domestic state” (48A N.Y. Jur. 2d, Domestic Relations at 2809). “[A] party who has properly appeared in a foreign action is ordinarily precluded from attacking the resulting judgment by bringing a collateral New York proceeding …. Only where there has been a showing that the foreign judgment was fraudulently obtained … or that recognition of the judgment would conflict seriously with a compelling public policy … cab a collateral attack be entertained” (Robinson v. Robinson, 120 A.D.2d 45, 415-16, 501 N.Y.S.2d 874 [1st Dept, 1986]). “Absent some showing of fraud in the procurement of the foreign country judgment … or that recognition of the judgment would do violence to some strong public policy of this State … a party who properly appeared in the action is precluded from attacking the validity of the foreign country judgment in a collateral proceeding brought in the courts of this State) (Greschler v. Greshcler, 51 N.Y.2d at 376, 434 N.Y.S.2d 694).

The New York’s Supreme Court of Westchester County recognized the Divorce Judgment
The Court in New York recognized the divorce judgment obtained from Abu Dhabi pursuant to the doctrine of comity:

“The general principle of law is that a divorce decree obtained in a foreign jurisdiction by residents of this State, in accordance with the laws thereof, is entitled to recognition under the principle of comity unless the decree offends the public policy of the State of New York” (kraham v. Kraha, 73 Misc.2d 977, 342 N.Y.S.2d 943 [Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 1973]). “Although not required to do so, the courts of this State generally will accord recognition to the judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity which is the equivalent of ful faith and credit given by the courts to judgments of our sister States” (Greschler v. Greschler, 54 N.Y.2d 368, 376, 434 N.Y.S2d 194, 414 NE.2d 694 [1980]). “Loosley, [comity] means courtesy, respect, or mutual accommodation; practically, it means that each sovereign, including the State of New York, can decide for itself which foreign country judgments it will recognize and which it won’t” (Siegel, N.Y. Prac. 472 [5th edi.])

New York’s Supreme Court of Westchester County Recognized the Custody Order of Abu Dhabi
The Supreme Court of Westchester County recognized, not only the Abu Dhabi divorce judgment, the Court also recognized all the contents of such a decree, including the custody of the children. The Supreme Court held:

“Since New York recognizes bilateral divorce decrees from foreign countries, recognition will be given to all the contents of such a decree, including a separation agreement incorporate and approved therein…”

The Court held that:

“The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) applies nationally and internationally and is designed to promote uniformity throughout the world in custody determinations (See Sobie, Practice Commentaries, [McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 14]). The UCCJEA is mandatory and provides that “a child custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this article must be recognized and enforced,” except where “the child custody law of a foreign country as written or as applied violates fundamental principles of human rights” (Domestic Relations Law 75-d[2] and [3]).

The Court held that the UCCJEA “is not a reciprocal act”. There is no requirement that “the foreign country enact a UCCJEA equivalent” (See Sobie, Practice Commentaries [McKinney’s Const. Laws of N.Y., Book 14].) The statute “is designed to eliminate jurisdictional competition between courts in matters of child custody, with jurisdictional priority conferred to a child’s home state.” (Hector G. v. Josefina P., 2 Misc. 3d 801, 809, 771 N.Y.S.2d 316 [Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2003]).

The Court held that:

“The decision from the Court of First Instance noted that the mother usually has the right to custody of the children unless proven otherwise. The defendant made no showing to refute the custody award to the plaintiff. This award of custody to the plaintiff was affirmed following two appeals, including an appeal to the highest court in Abu Dhabi. The defendant thereafter petitioned the Abu Dhabi court to change custody from the plaintiff to the defendant based upon the fact that he had moved to the United States. Defendant’s application was denied by the Court of First Instance and affirmed on appeal.”

The Court concluded that neither party alleged that any of the child custody laws of the UAE violate fundamental principles of human right or that the Abu Dhabi courts were without jurisdiction to determine custody. “Nor does the New York’s Supreme Court of Westchester County found any such violation or lack of jurisdiction:

“Therefore, based upon the principles of comity and pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 75-d, this Court must recognize and enforce the custody determination of the Abu Dhabi courts awarding plaintiff custody.”



The Appellate Division Affirms

On January 20, 2016, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of the lower Court. It held:

"Although not required to do so, the courts of this State generally will accord recognition to the judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity which is the equivalent of full faith and credit given by the courts to judgments of our sister States" (Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 376; see Kuznetsov v Kuznetsova, 127 AD3d 1031). Comity should be [*2]extended to uphold the validity of a foreign divorce decree absent a showing of fraud in its procurement or that recognition of the judgment would do violence to a strong public policy of New York (see Matter of Gotlib v Ratsutsky, 83 NY2d 696, 699-700; Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d at 376; Farag v Farag, 4 AD3d 502, 504; Azim v Saidazimova, 280 AD2d 566, 567). Moreover, in extending comity to uphold the validity of a foreign divorce decree, New York courts will generally recognize all the provisions of such decrees, including any agreement which may have been incorporated therein, unless modification is required by reason of some compelling public policy (see Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d at 376-377; Rabbani v Rabbani, 178 AD2d 637, 638).


Moreover, the Supreme Court providently determined that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of an attorney's fee and expenses incurred in connection with the issues of custody, child support, maintenance, and distribution of property (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a], [b]).” 

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-second-department/2016/2012-11549.html 

DISCLAIMER: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

Gabriel Sawma is a lawyer with Middle East background, and a recognized authority on Islamic law of marriage, divorce and custody of children, Hindu marital disputes in U.S. courts, and Iran divorce in USA.
·         Professor of Middle East Constitutional and Islamic law,
·         Expert Consultant on Islamic divorce in US Courts and Canada,
·         Expert Consultant on Hindu divorce in U.S. courts,
·         Expert Consultant on Iranian Shi’a divorce in USA,
·         Expert Consultant on Islamic finance.
Admitted to the Lebanese Bar Association; Associate Member of the New York State Bar Association and the American Bar Association.
Prof. Sawma lectured at the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) in New York State and wrote many affidavits to immigration authorities, Federal Courts, and family State Courts in connection with recognition of Islamic foreign divorces in the U.S., Hindu divorces, and Iranian marital conflicts.
Taught Islamic Finance for MBA program at the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Travelled extensively to: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Syria and Palestine.
Wrote many articles on Islamic and Hindu divorce in USA, custody of children in the Middle East and Central Asia; and on abduction of children to Muslim countries; 
Speaks, reads and writes several languages including Arabic, English, French and others.
Interviewed by:

Author of the book titled “The Qur’an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread. The Aramaic Language of the Qur’an”.
Contact Information:


Tel. (609) 915-2237

For more information on our field of expertise, please visit our websites at the following links, where you will find most of our articles:

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Treatment of Gays Under Islamic Shari’a
By
Prof. Gabriel Sawma
As we mourn the death of 49 American citizens who were massacred in Orlando by an Islamic extremist terrorist, Omar Mateen, the question that is being raised is whether Islamic sharia calls for the death penalty for gays and lesbians. This article covers the penalties as stated by Islamic law and by modern Islamic states in the Middle East and North African nations.


The Qur’anic Verses
There are four verses in the Quran that are borrowed from the Old Testament in relation to Lot, they are:
“And [remember] Lut[1] (Lot), when he said to his people: “Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the Alamin [mankind]”.[2] (Quran 7 80)

“Verily, you practice your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds [committing great sins]”.[3] (Quran 7: 81)

“Verily, we are about to bring down on the people of this town a great torment from the sky, because they have been rebellious [against Allah’s command].”[4] (Quran 29: 34)

“And we rained down on them a reain [0f stones]. Then see that was the end of the Murimun [criminals, polytheists and sinners.”[5] (Quran 7: 84)


The Hadith
Hadith is the collection of saying ad deeds that are attributed to Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, written more than two hundred years after his death (d. 632 AD). There are six collections of Hadith in Sunni Islam, they are: (1) al-Bukhari (d. 870 AD), (2) Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875 AD), (3) Abu Dawood (d. 888 AD), (4) al-Tarmidhi (d. 915), (5) al-Nissa’I (d. 915 AD), and (6) Ibn Maja (d. 886).

The Qur’anic verses mentioned above, represent a general idea about the sexual acts of Lot with his daughters as stated in the Old Testament. The Quran does not give a specific penalty for homosexuals. It was up to the writers of the Hadith to impose penalties on gays and lesbians based on what the Prophet of Islam said.

One saying attributed to the Prophet of Islam reads: “if a man is having sexual relation with another man, both are considered adulterers.” The companions of the Prophet of Islam claimed that the people who imitated Lot should get the death penalty. They reasoned that after the prophet’s saying that “if you find a person who does like what Lot did, kill both of them.”

The companions of the Prophet did not agree on the method of execution. The second Caliph and some of his companions suggested stoning of the adulterers as one method; others called for death by burning.[6]


Penalty of Gays and Lesbians in Modern Islamic Nations
Section 489 of the Penal Code of Morocco imposes a penalty of six months up to three years in jail and monetary compensation of 120 to 1000 Dirham. Tunis: Section 230 of the Penal Code of Tunis imposes a jail penalty of three years. In Algeria, Article 338 imposes a jail penalty from two months up to two years with monetary compensation of 500 to 2000 Dinars.

In Sudan the penalty of flogging is handed down. Article 148 of the penal code states that a gay will get up to 100 lashes and imprisonment of up to five years. In Libya the penalty is up to five years in jail. In Mauritania, article 308 of the penal code imposes the penalty of stoning. In Lebanon, the penalty is up to one year in jail. Article 520 of the Syrian code imposes a penalty of up to three years in jail.

Saudi Arabia applies the strict Islamic interpretation according to the Hadith, which is stoning for a married gay, or 100 lashes and imprisonment for one year to non-married. The same penalties are applied in Yemen.

According to article 354 of the Federal Emirati Law of the UAE, the penalty for committing adulterous gay act against a minor under the age of 14, is death by execution. However, each emirate in the UAE has the right to impose its own penalties in these cases. For example, in Abu Dhabi, the penalty for gay act is 14 years in jail. In Dubai, the penalty is 10 years according to article 177 of the penal code.

In Kuwait, the penalty is 7 years in prison according to article 193. Article 281 of the Qatari penal code, the penalty is 7 years. In Oman, article 223 imposes a jail penalty from 6 moths to three years.


DISCLAIMER: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

Gabriel Sawma is a lawyer with Middle East background, and a recognized authority on Islamic shari’a (law). Adjunct Professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, New Jersey.
·        Professor of Middle East Constitutional and Islamic law,
·        Expert Consultant on Islamic divorce in US Courts and Canada,
·        Expert Consultant on Islamic finance.
Admitted to the Lebanese Bar Association; Associate Member of the New York State Bar Association and the American Bar Association.
Prof. Sawma lectured at the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) in New York State and wrote many affidavits to immigration authorities, Federal Courts, and family State Courts in connection with Islamic law of marriage, divorce, custody of children, and abduction of children to Muslim countries.
Testified in many family courts throughout the United States in relation to Islamic family law.
Taught Islamic Finance for MBA program at the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Travelled extensively to: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Syria and Palestine.
Wrote many articles on Islamic and Hindu divorce in USA, custody of children in the Middle East and Central Asia; and on abduction of children to Muslim countries; 
Speaks, reads and writes several languages including Arabic, English, French, Syriac, and Biblical Aramaic.
Interviewed by:

Author of the book titled “The Qur’an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread. The Aramaic Language of the Qur’an”.
Contact Information:


Tel. (609) 915-2237

For more information on our field of expertise, please visit our websites at the following links, where you will find most of our articles:



[1] Lut is a reference to Biblical Lot, Son of Haran and nephew of Abraham in Genesis 11: 27. According to Genesis 19: 17-22, as the cities of the valleys were being destroyed, where Lot and his daughters fled from Zoar, where they had taken refuge, up into the hills of Moab. Dwelling with their father in a cave, through incestuous relations.
[2] Translation by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Noble Qur’an, King Fahd Complex For the Printing of the Holy Qur’an, Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
[3] Translation by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] In the Old Testament, the penalty of homosexuals is death by execution.

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Abduction of American Children to Iran


By
Professor Gabriel Sawma

The United States severed diplomatic and consular relations with the Government of Iran on April 7, 1980 as a result of the events surrounding the seizure of our Embassy in Tehran, Iran on November 4, 1979. In April of 1980, the United States Government formally asked the Swiss Government if it would assume diplomatic and consular representation of the United States in Iran. The Swiss agreed to perform specific consular and administrative functions o behalf of the U.S. Government.

One of the major problems facing the U.S. is parental kidnapping of American children to Iran. Iran is not signatory to The Hague Convention on Child Abduction, and the Iranian government has placed strict limits on the ability of Swiss diplomats to intervene in cases involving parental kidnaping of American children to Iran. The Iranian government placed restrictions because they do not recognize the concept of dual nationality and therefore, when one parent is an Iranian citizen, consider the children involved to be Iranian citizens only. Consequently, removing kidnaped children from Iran would be considered kidnapping under Iranian law.


Fear of Potential Abduction
In many instances, the wife fears that the Iranian husband may kidnap the children to Iran without her knowledge. One of the first steps is to notify the Department of State’s Office of Legal Assistance and Citizenship Appeals at (202) 326-6178. The Office can block the issuance of a U.S. passport in the child’s name upon submission of a court order giving the wife sole custody or prohibiting the child’s departure from the U.S. without permission of the court. That office can also tell whether the spouse has already applied for and obtained a passport for the child. However, if a passport has already been issued for the child, that office cannot revoke the passport or prevent its use. For more information, see this ink: http://www.passportsusa.com/family/abduction/country/country_498.html (accessed June 3, 2016).

Iran Does Not Recognize Dual Citizenship
A child born of an Iranian father is considered Iranian citizen according to Iranian law, and could travel abroad with Iranian passport without the consent of the mother. The U.S. State Department can do nothing to prevent the issuance of an Iranian passport by the Iranian Interests Section of the Embassy of Pakistan. The address and telephone number of the Iranian Interest Section of the Embassy of Pakistan, Tel. (202) 965-4990. See this link: http://www.daftar.org/Eng/default.asp?lang=eng  (accessed June 3, 2016).


American Women Marrying Iranian Men Need Permission to Leave Iran
American women who marry Iranian nationals, gain Iranian nationality. The woman’s U.S. passport will be confiscated by the Iranian authorities. American women may not leave the country without permission from their husbands. The U.S. Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy in Tehran can provide only very little assistance if an American married to an Iranian man face marital difficulties and/or encounters difficulty in leaving Iran.


Iran Does Not Recognize U.S. Custody Orders
Custody orders issued by U.S. courts are not recognized or enforced by the government of Iran. When a child is abducted to Iran, it becomes near impossible to bring him or her back to the United States without the full support and consent of the father. All cases involving marriage, divorce, and custody of children in Iran are governed under the jurisdiction of religious courts, which do not grant custody of children to a parent who lives outside of Iran and who will not raise them within the Islamic faith.

Article 1169 of the Civil Code of Iran states that the mother has custody of a male child until he reaches the age of two, after which, custody goes to the father. As to girls, the mother retains custody of her daughter until she reaches the age of seven, after which the custody goes to the father. If the mother becomes insane or remarries another man during the time that she has custody to the children, the custody will go to the father. If the court determines that the father is unfit to raise the children, their custody may be granted to the paternal grandfather or to the mother, if the mother has not renounced her Iranian citizenship and is resident of Iran. If the court grants custody to the mother, she will need permission from the paternal grandfather or from the court to obtain exit visas for the children, under the age of eighteen, to leave the country.


The Supremacy of Islamic Law in Iran
The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic republic, based on the “Qur’anic justice.” (Article 1 of the Iranian Constitution). The supremacy of Islamic law in Iran is confirmed in various provisions of the 1979 constitution. Article 4 states: “All civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulation must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and fuqaha’ of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter.”

This means that the family law of Iran is based strictly on Islamic Shari’a for the Muslim community in that country. It also means that Islamic Shari’a is superior to any foreign or international law, including international human rights treaties.

Article 21 of the Iranian constitution states: “The government must ensure the right of women in all respect in conformity with Islamic criteria [mawazin-e-eslami]”. This makes Islamic Shari’a superior to the freedom of women that are guaranteed by international treaties.

Under Islamic Shari’a, girls could be married off against their will by male marriage guardians. Women are required to be monogamous, whereas men are allowed to have up to four wives at a time. Wives owed obedience to their husbands, who were entitled to keep them at home and to beat them and to withhold maintenance for disobedience. Husbands could terminate marriages at their discretion simply by stating a divorce formula such as “I divorce you”, or “I divorce my wife”, or “my wife is divorced”, whereas wives needed to overcome difficult hurdle to obtain a divorce over their husband’s objections. Men have superiority over women in the area of guardianship, in which they enjoy great power as guardians over minors.

The government of Iran encourage early marriages for girls by lowering the minimum age for marriage from eighteen to nine. According to the Islamic Republic Civil Code, the legal age of marriage in Iran is thirteen years for girls and fifteen for boys. 

However, the Iranian parliament’s legal affairs committee made several statements arguing that the Islamic Republic is attempting to lower the girl marriage age to nine with a permission from the judge. So, even though the above-mentioned marriage is illegal based on Iran’s civil code, the religious authorities allowed it.

In the area of succession, women got one-half the share of males who inherited in a similar capacity.


Iran Did Not Ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
CEDAW, or Treaty for the Rights of women, was adopted by the United Nations in 1979, and is the most comprehensive international agreement on the basic human rights of women. The treaty provides an international standard for protecting and promoting women’s human rights and is often referred to as a “Bill of Rights” for women. It is the only international instrument that comprehensively addresses women’s rights within political, civil, cultural, economic, and social life.

Article 5 of CEDAW requires modifying social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of the sexes or stereotyped roles for men and women.

As of December 2014, 188 countries ratified CEDAW. So far Iran is not a signatory to the CEDAW due to a resistance from the Guardian Council. In 2003 the Iranian parliament ratified the treaty, but then it was vetoed by the Guardian Council.


Iran Entered Reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
The CRC is aimed at fostering improvement in the situation of children and protecting their interests. Upon signing the CRC, Iran had indicated that it would reserve to CRC articles and provisions “which may be contrary to the Islamic Shariah,” preserving the right to make such particular declaration upon ratification. Upon ratification on July 13, 1994, Iran entered a reservation saying:

“The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws and the international legislation in effect.”

By entering reservations in this manner to CRC, Iran is left free to decide that any or all articles of the CRC should not be applied. The addition of an indication that Iran was reserving to the CRC in cases where it was incompatible with “the international legislation in effect” meant that Iran does not abide by international law but rather the Islamic documents that were put forward by the Organization of Islamic Conference and endorsed by Iran, such as the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, which in essence subordinates international human rights to Islamic Shari’a.



DISCLAIMER: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

Gabriel Sawma is a lawyer with Middle East background, and a recognized authority on Islamic law of marriage, divorce and custody of children, Hindu marital disputes in U.S. courts, and Iran divorce in USA.
·        Professor: Middle East Studies at Fairleigh Dickinson University.
·        Lawyer with Middle East Background; Graduated from the Lebanese University, school of law.
·        Admitted to the Lebanese Bar Association of Beirut.
·        Practiced law in Beirut.
·        Nominated to be a judge in Lebanon, Lebanese Judicial Studies.
·        Supervised contracts in Europe and the Middle East.

·        Travelled extensively to the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates.
·        Worked in Saudi Arabia.

·        Expert consultant on Islamic law.

·        Expert consultant on Islamic divorce in USA.

·        Expert consultant on mahr agreements in Islamic marriage contracts.

·        Expert consultant on Islamic finance.



Professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University


Taught the following courses:
·        Arabic 1001, Fall 2007, Spring 2008
·        Arabic 1002, Spring 2008
·        Arab Culture and Civilization, Fall 2009
·        Arab-Islamic Culture and Civilization, Fall 2011
·        Near East as Source of Western Culture
·        Middle East Constitutional Law – comparative study, including Islamic law of marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance

Lecturer on Islamic Finance at the University of Liverpool:

Course taught at Mercer Community College, West Windsor, New Jersey, Fall 2011.
·        Arabic 101


Professor of Arabic 101 at Princeton Adult School in Princeton, NJ (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)


Lecturer on Islamic Shari’a and its sources. See my lecture at Fairleigh Dickinson University to students and faculty:


Expert Consultant on Muslim family laws of the Middle East, Central and southeast Asia, Africa, and India.


Expert Consultant of Islamic divorce in USA, see our website at:


Featured on the BBC as, “Expert Consultant on Islamic divorce in USA.” The interview is posted on BBC’s website:


Featured on CNN as “Professor and Expert Consultant on Islamic sharia law.” The interview is posted on CNN’s website:


Editor in chief of a blog on International Law, mainly Islamic law of marriage, divorce and custody of children:



Won A Landmark Case In New York Involving Recognition of a Foreign Divorce Judgment including custody, and securing a mahr of $250,000 for the client
In 2012, the Supreme Court of Westchester County handed down a decision in favor of my client. The court recognized a divorce decree obtained from Abu Dhabi (UAE), including custody of children and recognizing a mahr agreement of $250,000. The entire court order is available on this link: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2012/2012-ny-slip-op-51875-u.html

The Appellate Division Affirms
On January 20, 2015, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, issued a ruling, in which the Court affirmed the decision of the lower Court. The decision of the Appellate Division is available on this link: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2016/D47647.pdf


Won A Landmark Case Involving Custody of Children
Saudi Arabia’s Shari’a Court issued a custody order against a U.S. citizen woman who was married to a Saudi husband. The husband obtained a court judgment from Saudi Arabia granting him custody of his two daughters. The Court in Allegheny, Pennsylvanian agreed with our argument that Saudi Arabia does not have jurisdiction, and the custody order violates Pennsylvania public policy and that Saydi Arabia is in violation to international human rights treaties.

The court order is not published yet, but I have a copy at request. Once published, I will post the link online. For more information on Abduction of children or fear of abduction to Muslim majority countries, please see our website at: www.gabrielsawma.blogspot.com

Author of dozens of articles dealing with Islamic divorce in USA and on International Law: Most of these articles can be found on our website at, http://www.gabrielsawma.blogspot.com

Following is a partial list of my articles on Islamic and Hindu Divorces:[1]

·        Iraqi Divorce in U.S. Courts
·        Yemeni Divorce and U.S. Immigration
·        Egyptian Divorce and U.S. Immigration
·        Palestinian Islamic Divorce of West Bank in USA
·        Saudi Divorce in USA
·        Saudi Divorce and U.S. Immigration
·        Saudi Arabian Child Custody Cases in USA
·        Pakistani Divorce and U.S. Immigration
·        Muslim Divorce in Tunisia
·        Muslim Divorce in Bangladesh
·        Marriage of Minors in Islam
·        The Iddat of a Woman in Islam
·        Muslim Men Marrying Non-Muslim Women
·        The Law of Marriage and Divorce in the United Arab Emirates
·        Islamic Syrian Divorce in USA
·        Islamic Yemeni Divorce in USA
·        Islamic Jordanian Divorce in USA
·        Recognition of Hindu Divorces in New York State
·        Islamic Divorce in New York State
·        The Khul’ Divorce in Egypt
·        Islamic Women Divorce Laws in Egypt
·        Muslim Iranian Divorce in USA
·        Pakistani Islamic Divorce in U.S. Courts
·        Islamic Lebanese Divorce in USA
·        Islamic Marriage Over the Phone, an interview with BBC, (see above)
·        Islamic Sharia in Theory and Practice, a Lecture at FDU, (see above)
·        Divorce in Egypt, an interview with CNN, (see above)
·        Annulment of Islamic Marriages
·        The Wali (guardian) in Islamic Marriages According to Hanafi Jurisprudence
·        Islamic Marriage Contracts in the Hanafi Jurisprudence
·        The Jihaz in Islamic Marriages
·        The Nafaqa in Islamic Marriage
·        The Mahr in Islamic Marriage Contracts
·        Indian Divorce in US Courts
·        Application of Islamic Sharia in US Courts
·        Abduction of children to Muslim Majority Countries
·        Abduction of American children to Saudi Arabia
·        Abduction of American Children to Jordan
·        Abduction of American Children to Iran

Wrote extensively on International law in the area of the European Union Law. Following are excerpts:
§  Limitations on the Effectiveness of Trademark Laws in the European Union, Case Study, http://gabrielsawma.blogspot.com/2005/04/limitations-on-effectiveness-of.html
§  Islamic divorce in U.S. courts, http://www.phillyimc.org/en/islamic-divorce-us-courts
§  Prohibition of interest in Islamic banking and finance, http://searchwarp.com/swa615826-Prohibition-Of-Interest-In-Islamic-Banking-And-Finance.htm
§  the Scope of Immunity for Heads of States under International Law, http://searchwarp.com/swa65501.htm
§  The mahr provision in Islamic marriage contract, http://searchwarp.com/swa521011-The-Mahr-Provision-In-Islamic-Marriage-Contracts.htm
§  Application of Islamic shari’a in U.S. courts, http://gabrielsawma.blogspot.com/2008/06/application-of-islamic-sharia-in-us.html
§  Muslim brotherhood and the Middle East Upheaval, http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2011/04/22114.php



Partial List of my Articles on International Law:[2]
·        The Shebaa Farms Under International Law
·        The Nigerian Scam and its Impact on Global Economy
·        Public International Law and Organizations

LANGUAGES
Speak, read and write: Arabic, English, French, Syriac, Biblical and Talmudic Aramaic


BAR ASSOCIATIONS
1.     Admitted to the Lebanese Bar Association of Beirut since 1970
2.     Former Associate Member of the New York Bar Association, 1982
3.     Former Associate Member of the American Bar Association, 2003




CONTACT INFORMATION:

Gabriel M. Sawma

Cell (609) 915-2237

               






[1] These articles are published and can be accessed on this blog.

[2] These articles can be accessed on http://www.gabrielsawma.blogspot.com