[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Itse

Freedom of religion. People have the right to subjugate themselves to all sorts of things, including religious rulings, as long as those are not in conflict with actual legal courts. In other words, as long as the court isn't ordering anyone to break laws, it's not that easy to crack down on them legally even if there is moral reasons to do so. Mostly there isn't.

Shariah "courts" is often a somewhat misleading term, at least in many western countries. It's not like it's an actual court, just people asking for guidance or arbitration from a spiritual leader, no more and no less. (Personally I find it a terrible idea, but then again I'm an atheist so what do I know.)

Voluntary courts in general are not that uncommon in the West. Any system where two sides agree to obey the rulings of a third party arbitrator is essentially a court. Sports has all sorts of courts which can pass judgments on things such as who can work where and how much money someone should get. Many Christian churches have some kind of an internal court system to pass judgment on their own staff.

I'm not saying that sharia courts can't be a highly problematic phenomenon, and I strongly agree that they should be examined and supervised. I'm just saying it's not a simple issue.

So it's basically like the Peoples Court...
What you are witnessing is real. The participants are not actors. They are actual litigants with a case pending in a California municipal court. Both parties have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their disputes settled here, in our forum: The People's Court.