Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said that sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals under a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
The disclosures come after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sparked a national debate and calls for his resignation for saying that the establishment of sharia in the future "seems unavoidable" in Britain.
In July, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice agreed that Muslims in Britain should be able to live according to Islamic law to decide financial and marital disputes.
Sharia law courts operating in Britain - Telegraph
Basically what this means is that Muslims, WHO AGREE TO DO SO, can take their
civil legal conflicts and put the case through ARBITRATION
if BOTH PARTIES AGREE to do so.
In some cases, I can see such a situation being viable. America uses "arbitration" as well including in divorce proceedings.
Americans could choose to have a pastor "arbitrate" a situation if they wanted ...
However, IF this includes CRIMINAL proceedings, then that is right out of the question.
CRIMINAL law is an issue of the government.
EDIT: Ahh. Screw the "IF" in the above sentence starting with "However, IF..."
The article goes on with that issue as well...
Mr Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of "smaller" criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
This should be out of the question.