On Sharia in American Family Law: Confronting the Dangers of Legal Pluralism

Abstract

Questions of group identity are ubiquitous in today’s globalized world. The determination as to what values should define national identity, in turn, has important legal implications. The law should conserve values which comprise the social fabric, the natural constitution binding society together. The influence of extra-civilizational values and legal norms can be problematic in that context. Family law is a critical component of public order; disruption of a society’s legal norms regulating the family is disruptive to the social fabric as a whole. Islamic legal norms can cause such disruption. The application of Islamic law does occur in the United States and occasionally manifests in family law specifically. This Article argues that Islamic law is largely incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Western legal tradition. Consequently, state legislatures and the judiciary should engage in what the author terms emulsion: the assimilation of migrants from societies outside the compass of Western civilization into the social fabric of the United States through legal measures tailored to accomplish that task. Courts should not recognize agreements or decisions made by Islamic alternative dispute resolution bodies made pursuant to Islamic law when adjudicating family disputes when those agreements or decisions fail secular standards. The incorporation of Islamic law into adjudication of family law disputes or review of decisions of Islamic alternative dispute resolution bodies would otherwise require judges to engage in theological inquiries outside of their competence in violation of the Religious Question Doctrine and the Establishment Clause. This Article calls for scholars to empirically examine the efficacy and equity of Islamic alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. It also recommends that additional scholarship examine the intersection between religious law, the courts, public policy, and the First Amendment.