Well, if indeed the theory is that the court is not really 
deciding what Sharia law calls for, but just what the testator wanted, then I 
agree there might not be a First Amendment problem – but then I’m not sure that 
the amendment would ban the consideration of such testimony.  On the other 
hand, if the court tries to figure out what the testator wanted by determining 
what Sharia law calls for, then the amendment would bar such a consideration, 
but so would the First Amendment.

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:40 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law"

I agree there is a potential problem with a court interpreting Sharia law and 
he would do better to revise his will, BUT if the question in will 
interpretation is what he intended, I would think his intent is a fact 
question, and there could be testimony regarding what he believed, not what 
Muslims should believe.  That would get around the prohibition on judicial 
determination of religious beliefs.

Marci

In a message dated 11/10/2010 2:38:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
vol...@law.ucla.edu writes:
      The second is the they-can’t-probate-my-will theory; but the problem with 
that, I think, is that a secular court already can’t try to interpret Sharia 
law – or Mosaic law or the Bible or any other religious authority – in 
interpreting a will, deed, or contract.  So again the plaintiff is suffering no 
tangible harm from the existence of the law, it seems to me.


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to