In "What Sharia law actually means," Salon's Justin Elliott offers a basic explanation of what Sharia law is, how it comes into play in U.S. courts, and the myths associated with efforts to ban its use in U.S. courts (including the New York state marital rape case that is becoming the McDonald's-scalding-coffee case of the ban Sharia law movement). Elliott, generally identified as a left-of-center writer, is presenting a high-level view for lay readers, but his bottom line -- that Sharia law necessarily comes into play in U.S. courts (as does Jewish law and canon law, among others) and that the Constitution both prohibits a ban on its use and provides full protection against Sharia law displacing U.S. law -- is not inconsistent with what you'll find on Volokh Conspiracy, a respected blog of the right-of-center legal academy. At Volokh Conspiracy, see "Why American Courts Should Sometimes Consider Islamic Court Rulings and Islamic Law,"and commentary on the recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case on the subject, "Court Rejects Claim that AIG’s Use of Sharia-Compliant Financing Violates the Establishment Clause. (A search of "Sharia" on the Volokh homepage will yield lots more.) And if you're still interested, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick had an interesting piece back in 2004 on Canada's efforts to deal with Sharia law: "How do you solve the problem with Sharia?"