Surprisingly, I don't have a problem with this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml

As the subject reads, I don't really have a problem with the above link. Personally, I agree with the Apostle Paul who was apalled to find out that Christians were sueing eachother in Roman courts. I believe that whenever possible, two committed Christians attending the same church ought to settle disputes under the authority of the church, or find a Christian arbitter that can settle a dispute. Of course, if a suitable compromise cannot be found, then either party has every right to take the matter to a civil court. There obviously ought to be certain limitations to this, but I think it's totally acceptable under many instances. So long as these courts are otherwise following the law (ie, no one is chopping off any limbs), then I'm all for it. What I'm not "all for" is giving legal authority to these courts. They should not in any way be compulsory. If you are a young Somali male and someone steals your boombox, you ought to be able to take the thief to Scotland Yard. If you are a young Somali woman and you are found guilty of dressing inappopriately and you don't want to accept the recommended punishment of the court, you should have every right to tell the court to go to hell.

Again, there will be exceptions to this. But there is nothing illegal about what they are doing, and I don't see any reason for this to be a concern so long as no legal authority is granted to the courts.