## Facts

- Robert J. Muhammad and Debra Muhammad married in 1983, lived in Flint, Michigan, and had one child before relocating in 1987 to a rural Islamic community in Jefferson County, Mississippi known as the “University of Islam.”
- The parties’ second child was born in Mississippi in 1988.
- Living conditions in the community were crowded; multiple families lived in two small houses, with each family occupying a single room.
- Debra testified that community life and the marital relationship were highly controlled by religious rules, including restrictions on movement and communications, strict dietary practices, and a subordinated role for women; she described severe psychological distress.
- Debra’s mother testified that Debra was extremely unhappy and appeared near a nervous breakdown when she sought help to leave.
- In October 1989, Debra left the community at night with both children and returned to Michigan.
- Robert filed for custody in Mississippi; Debra opposed and filed a cross-complaint for divorce on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; Robert later asserted desertion.
- The chancery court granted Debra a divorce, awarded her custody, granted Robert visitation, and ordered child support; Robert’s post-trial motion was denied.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported granting Debra a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
2. Whether the custody award to Debra was constitutionally invalid because it was based on disapproval of Robert’s religious beliefs rather than the children’s best interests.
3. Whether denial of Robert’s motion for a new trial was manifest error or an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree based on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
- The Court affirmed the custody award to Debra, finding the chancellor evaluated child-welfare factors and did not base the decision on theological judgments.
- The Court affirmed denial of a new trial, holding the chancellor’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not manifestly wrong.

## Legal Principles

- Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment includes conduct endangering life, limb, or health; creating reasonable apprehension of danger; or making the marital relationship revolting, and it may be shown without repeated physical assaults when the spouse’s plight is intolerable.
- In custody disputes, the controlling standard is the best interests of the child; appellate review is deferential and reverses only for manifest error or abuse of discretion.
- Courts may not decide custody based on assessments of the truth, validity, or correctness of religious doctrine, but may consider the concrete effects of a living arrangement and household practices on the children’s welfare and stability.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a divorce grounded in severe, ongoing psychological harm and oppressive marital conditions despite limited physical violence, and it sustained a custody award where the chancellor considered only the practical impact of the parents’ living environments on the children, not religious doctrine.


Muhammad v. Muhammad, 622 So. 2d 1239 (Miss. 1993)