Jury selection was expected to continue today in the trial of two Minnesota women accused of raising money for terrorists, but one of them might have to watch the trial on closed-circuit TV from a holding cell.

Testing the waning patience of Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, defendant Amina Farah Ali refused to stand Monday when court was called to order or recessed during jury selection in her trial with co-defendant Hawo Mohamed Hassan in federal court in Minneapolis.

Ali, 35, of Rochester, claimed that her Muslim teachings – in particular, her interpretation of hadith, collections of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad – made her believe it was wrong to stand when a clerk cried, “All rise.”

“I was told that there’s a freedom of religion in this country,” Ali told the judge at one point. “I don’t think I should be punished or inconvenienced in any way for practicing my religion.”

Davis, unmoved, said it wasn’t a matter of religious freedom but rather court decorum. By the time jury selection ended for the day at 4:30 p.m., he had found her in contempt five times and vowed to keep doing it every time she refused to stand.

He said there was a limit, though. Ali had been free while she awaited trial, and Davis ordered her taken into custody and told her that if she persisted, she would watch the trial via television in a separate room.

Over the lunch hour, court technicians set up and tested the video feed.

Ali’s co-defendant, Hassan, 64, also of Rochester, rose when court was called to order, as did about a dozen Somali women and a handful of men in the gallery. At one point, a female spectator did not rise when the judge entered the courtroom, but a court security officer told her to stand, and she did.

Ali’s attorney, Dan Scott, gave the marshal’s office the name of three imams, or prayer leaders at mosques, who will to counsel Ali about her choice.

The woman’s actions prompted Thomas Kelly, Hassan’s defense attorney, to renew his motion to have a trial separate from Ali. His client faces less serious charges than Ali, and he expressed fears that without Ali in the courtroom, Hassan will be the only defendant jurors see.

The judge denied the motion.

Ali and Hassan were indicted in July 2010 on charges they conspired to provide material support to a terrorist organization, al-Shabaab. The group is part of a coalition fighting in Somalia, and the U.S. government designated it a foreign terrorist group in February 2008, making it illegal to provide aid or support.

Besides conspiracy, Ali faces 12 counts of providing the material support, stemming from $8,608 she allegedly sent to members of al-Shabaab from September 2008 to July 2009.

Hassan also faces three counts of lying to the FBI.

Davis first noted Ali’s refusal to rise in an order he issued Friday. It came a day after a pre-trial hearing in which Ali had remained seated when court was called to order, and the judge’s order warned that “any party failing to comply with the rules of decorum will be sanctioned by the court.”

In a later order Monday, the judge said the requirement to stand “is to mark the beginning and the end of the court sessions, to show respect for the court system, to assist judges in maintaining order, and to remind all that attention should be paid to the court proceedings.”

But when court was called to order and Davis entered the courtroom at 9:11 a.m., all stood but Ali. The judge asked Scott if his client was aware of the order.

Scott replied that she was but countered that there was no uniform federal court requirement for a defendant to rise when court was called into session.

Ali, who Scott has admitted was a tireless fundraiser for humanitarian causes in her native Somalia, based her decision on her interpretation of hadith, collections of the sayings, acts or unspoken or implied approvals of the Prophet Muhammad. They are considered a supplement to the Quran in guiding how a Muslim should behave.

The meanings of hadith can also be a source of debate and contention among Islamic scholars and Muslims.

Scott said Ali was relying on her interpretation of a hadith in which the prophet told followers who had risen to greet him to remain sitting.

The defense lawyer argued that if Ali believed she would not have had to stand for the prophet who founded her religion, then she should not have to stand when a judge strode into a courtroom.

Davis didn’t buy it and ordered the woman taken into custody. He gave Scott time to speak with her, but when court reconvened less than an hour later and Davis walked in, the same thing happened.

“So it’s clear to you, ma’am, I’m not asking you to rise for me. It is the decorum of the court system,” the judge told her, his tolerance thinning. “You do not have a First Amendment right to not stand, and that is the case law.”

Davis told her he’d been a judge for 28 years and had presided over trials with all manner of malcontents and anti-government types, some of whom questioned the very legitimacy of the court they were being tried in.

“I ask nothing more of you than I’ve asked of individuals who have been in front of me for the past 28 years,” he said.

Ali, speaking quietly with her words translated by an interpreter, said she didn’t mean to offend.

“I’ve tried to observe my religious beliefs,” she said. She also claimed she’d been in court before and “never had an issue like this.”

The judge told her “the freedom of religion does not keep you from standing in court.” He asked her if she was going to follow his order.

“I’m not going to stand up for anyone except Allah,” she replied.

David Hanners can be reached at 612-338-6516.