From Eric Dondero:

Muslim Prof. Abbass Alkhafaji died in 2010. He left a will.

Via the libertarian-leaning blog Volokh:

(4) About my pension, the beneficiaries are all my biological kids and my current wife, ... after reducing all costs associated with the house.... [The] rest of the pension, if any left, should be divided according to Islamic Laws and Sharia....

(9) In case I have additional monetary benefits from my job, such as life insurance, 401K, 403B or any other retirement funds that I am not aware of, Allah as my witness, They should be divided, after costs associated with the payment of those funds according to Islamic Laws and “Sharia.”

And now the stunning ruling by the Court:

“(1) TIAA-CREF Individual and Institutional Services LLC, shall make distribution of the pension accounts of the TIAA-CREF certificates ... to the decedent’s surviving spouse, ... in accordance with decedent’s last will and testament dated July 17, 2007, and to his biological children, ... in accordance of the law of Sharia, mainly [sic], one-eighth share to the surviving spouse, ... and thereafter, the remaining balance to be divided, two shares each to the six male children, and one share each to the [two] female children.”

In other words, a Pennsylvania Court is ordering discrimination in favor of the male beneficiaries over the females.

Blogger and KETM radio talk show host Ben Barrack of Temple, Texas explains why this is inconsistent with libertarian principles, allowing discrimination by private individuals:

This is a prime example and the court's decision sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine if a man leaves a will that says 1/8 of his estate is to go to each of his sons and 1/16 of that estate is to go to each of his daughters. Assuming he was of sound mind when he wrote the will, one would think those wishes should be honored. Though they appear sexist, that's why they call it a 'will.'

Now, suppose a Muslim male simply states in his will that his estate is to be divided among his family according to Sharia Law, which calls for distribution of that estate in the same 1/8 and 1/16 manner. Does the U.S. Constitution allow for a judge to rule in such a way? The short answer is no.