alexist

Maybe because I'm Jewish, I really don't see what's so controversial about what the Archbishop of Canterbury actually said. It all seems to be about Islamophobia to me. I don't think he said that sharia would replace civil law for Muslims--only work in parallel to it.

Some of the news outlets correctly mentioned the existing system of Batei Din in the UK. (Grammar note: For various historical reasons related to Hebrew pronunciation, it's often spelt Beth Din. However, it's pronounced beit or beis din, and Batei Din is the correct plural. A lot of news outlets unsurprisingly got this wrong.) The Beit Din rules on all Jewish religious matters, including divorce. A Jewish divorce, or get does not replace a civil divorce as Jews are normally married under both halacha and civil law (depending on one's synagogue, the rabbi may do the legalities, or a registrar will). To help reduce the number of agunot (women denied a Jewish divorce) it is now the law in England that any religious divorces must be completed before the decree absolute is granted.

Similarly, under the binding arbitration laws, Jews may choose to take their disputes to Beit Din and have them adjudicated under halacha. You cannot be compelled to use one. They'll summon you but there's no recourse if you don't reply--the only other step is civil court. There can be some complications involving intersections of civil and religious law; as I understand it, in such cases, if a decision is appealed in secular court, civil law would prevail.

Muslims actually have a disadvantage in this area. Most mosques are not licensed to perform civil marriages, and so Muslims may be married under sharia, but not under civil law, which can have negative ramifications for the wife.

I don't see why Muslims shouldn't have a system of sharia courts to settle religious matters (as well as divorces, there's halal food and Islamic finance issues) or for anyone who prefers to have their business affairs handled under sharia. Who else is going to decide religious matters, anyway? If you have a religious wedding, you need a religious divorce; civil and religious marriage are separate issues IMO. No one is talking about administering criminal punishments.

The Batei Din are, by Western standards, unfair and discriminatory. Women can't give evidence, can't initiate divorce and can't serve as dayanim. Yet you don't see an outcry about the horrible Jewish system. I really do think that the only explanation is Islamophobia and automatically thinking of Saudi-style criminal punishments when people hear "sharia". Sharia, like halacha, covers all areas of life. If two believers wish to settle a dispute (which does not involve non-Muslim parties, or have wider ramifications) under sharia or any other system, that should be up to them.