Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 7 - “Islamic Law” in US Courts: Judicial Jihad or Constitutional Imperative?

  • from Part II - The Politics of Islamophobia in the Courts
  • Edited by Cyra Akila Choudhury, Florida International University, Khaled A. Beydoun, University of Arkansas
  • Book:
    Islamophobia and the Law
    Published online:
    29 September 2020
    Print publication:
    13 August 2020, pp 132-150

  • Summary

    One month after the State of Kansas passed Senate Bill 79, banning the use of foreign law,1 a Johnson City district court was faced with the consequences when Elahm Soleimani sought the enforcement of her Islamic marriage contract on divorce.2 Her contract with Farahmarz Soleimani stipulated a mahr payment of 1,354 gold coins, a value of $677,000 at the time, in the event of divorce. From the facts, it appears that Farahmarz was more than happy to agree to the mahr (payment by the groom to the bride, part of an Islamic marriage) amount at the time of the marriage, given that it was his second marriage and she was twenty-four years his junior.3