The issue arose in 2008, when the former
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams 'suggested it was "inevitable" that elements of Sharia would be incorporated in British law.' Since then, "Sharia courts" have "never been far from tabloid headlines", according to Myriam Francois-Cerrah.
[23] As of 2014, there were reported to be around 85 "shariah courts" in the UK,
[23][25] operated by two rival services –
Islamic Sharia Council and the newer, smaller, less strict
Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.
[23][26] The councils/tribunals provide arbitration that is voluntary but legally binding, are "officially mandated" and set up outside the court system
[26] like another non-secular arbitration institution, the longstanding rabbinical tribunals.
[27]
The council/tribunals are defended as providing an essential service for pious Muslims who would simply work with non-government mandated Sharia councils if the government abolished the mandated ones.
[23] But they are also criticized for taking the man's side in rulings,
[23] for example advising women to forfeit their
mahr (marriage dower) in exchange for a divorce.
[27][28] According to legal historian
Sadakat Kadri, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has "no jurisdiction over criminal matters or cases involving children." A UK-trained lawyer sits "on all its panels, and every decision" is subject to judicial review – "meaning that it was subject to reversal if it disclosed unfair procedures, human rights violations, or any other step that ordinary court considered contrary to the public interest."
[20] According to Kadri, British Muslims neither know nor care about the criminal penalties of Sharia law (
tazir and
hudud)
[20] but seek much less controversial services.
