This is the abstract for an original paper I submitted for consideration in the 2013 SFSU Humanities Symposium Conference.

As the Muslim population in the United States has grown, the need for legal redress consistent with Islamic principles has grown proportionally.  Religious tribunals compliant with shari’a, the Islamic code for living that guides legal proceedings in Muslim communities, are the preferred method for conflict resolution among agreeable parties.  Contrary to the fears raised in some political quarters that shari’a law will supersede criminal and civil law if allowed legal consideration, shari’a tribunals currently provide arbitration services in family, property, and financial disputes among Muslims.  Shari’a-compliant arbitration provides an avenue for resolution that is less expensive, less confrontational, and more flexible and individualized in its decision-making than civil court.  It honors the Muslim preference for mutually acceptable resolution over the win/lose framework of litigation.  There is, however, some tension between U.S. and Islamic ideals of justice.  Shari’a does not provide for men and women equally, particularly in divorce and custody disputes.  Private arbitration is subject to far less oversight and accountability in its practices.  The Federal Arbitration Act and Uniform Arbitration Act exist to maintain standards in arbitration cases, but their scope is curtailed in questions of religion, setting the stage for due process violations.  Using Jabri v. Qaddura to illustrate how a U.S. appellate court upheld the ruling of a shari’a tribunal, this study will explore conflicts between religious liberty and democratic ideals, assessing the effectiveness of possible remedies.