UC Irvine Law Review

This Note navigates the complex relationship between the U.S. legal system and Islamic law, particularly focusing on the challenges faced by U.S. courts. Examining judicial struggles in applying Islamic law, it critiques the limitations of expert witnesses and proposals for reform by legal scholars. Three prominent proposals—Peter W. Beauchamp’s hands-off approach, Eun-Jung Katherine Kim’s tiered system, and Eugene Volokh’s endorsement of existing legal provisions—are analyzed in their efficacy in incorporating Islamic law into U.S. legal proceedings. The Note provides an alternative: the establishment of a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) within the U.S. legal framework. Drawing on successful models like the Beth Din in the Jewish community, it argues that a MAT, staffed by arbiters versed in both U.S. and Islamic law, could provide a nuanced approach to disputes involving Islamic principles. Historical, statutory, and Islamic support for religious tribunals in the U.S. is discussed, dispelling fears of potential conflicts with secular state-run courts. Highlighting the United States as an ideal site for a MAT, this Note emphasizes the diversity and educational resources available for future arbiters. It explores past calls for a MAT and underscores the nation’s unique demographic and cultural context, positioning it as more adaptable than other countries. The benefits of a MAT, including its potential to relieve pressure on civil courts and provide a forum for nuanced religious concerns, are outlined. To address concerns, the Note proposes protective measures for individual liberties within the MAT framework, including the right to appeal, considerations for public policy, and an unconscionability standard. It concludes by underscoring the necessity of a MAT in the United States, asserting its potential to issue judgments while upholding fairness, equality, and justice within a multicultural framework.