Mmmm, Wikipedia:

Muslims in the United Kingdom are believed to number 1.8 million.

The population of the UK is around 61 million (also according to Wikipedia).

...WTF?

I don't see what the big deal is.  How is this any worse than hiring someone to perform an arbitration, other than that Sharia has actual rules governing it?

Dmtdust wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

I don't see what the big deal is.  How is this any worse than hiring someone to perform an arbitration, other than that Sharia has actual rules governing it?

It is a slippery slope.  Next the Tinkers will want to settle their problems by legalized knife fights in the Commons... meaning, the law should be for all, not for religious groups to decide on their own....

D

There's no slippery slope here.  Arbitration has nothing to do with crime, and Arbiters can't legalize anything.  Arbitration is about signing a document that says, "I agree to abide by whatever the Arbiter decides in order to resolve my dispute with Person Y."  Once both parties have decided to use arbitration rather than go through the courts, it's nobody's business how the arbiter makes their decision unless the decision process itself involves breaking the law. 

This is the good and bad thing about arbitration.  After all, why would you allow arbitration to even exist and then require that they make their decisions based on civil law?  You don't want the arbiters acting like they have the authority of the courts.   On the other hand, with no hard rules about how an Arbiter is required to make their decision, you can't ask for an appeal if they decide something batshit crazy.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

No, the problem comes when the battered wife rejects Sharia law, but her mullah holds her to it in the case of divorce, leaving her without a farthing.

That's not possible while the court is acting as an arbiter.  Both sides have to agree to arbitration for it to be binding.