We need to be careful here before someone starts shunning the entirety of Shariah Law and the application of said law. Not every country applies Shariah Law as strictly as this. In fact, many have criminal laws as secular as our own, with some countries having civil matters taken care of in a separate Shariah Court for all those who opt for it. Most Muslim countries don't even apply Shariah Law to their court system.
I'm going to use wiki to further explain my point:
There is tremendous variety in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic Law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives; Islamic feminism brings multiple points of view to the discussion. Some of the largest Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic Law provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular. India and the Philippines are the only countries in the world which have separate Muslim civil laws, wholly based on Sharia. In India, Muslim civil laws are framed by the Muslim Personal Law board while in the Philippines, it is framed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. However, the criminal laws in both the countries are uniform.
According to Wiki, only India and the Philippines have separate Shariah civil law systems that are singularly based on Sharia. Also, some of the largest Muslim countries don't even have Shariah Law but for a few instances of family law.
In September 2008, certain newspapers in the United Kingdom sensationally alleged that the government had "quietly sanctioned" the recognition of Sharia courts. However, this is not really a submission to Sharia law but applies to situations where both sides in a legal dispute freely choose a Sharia court as a binding arbitrator rather than taking a matter before the official courts. The decision does not break new ground. The decisions of similar Jewish beth din court arbitations have been recognized in England for over 100 years. Neither party can be forced into arbitration by a Sharia or a Jewish court.
This just shows that even the United Kingdom yields recognition to Shariah and Jewish Beth Din courts if both parties opt to go that route. Obviously Shariah Law isn't that barbaric, or the UK would not be recognizing such a system.
Most countries of the Middle East and North Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence, and the Mutaween (religious police) assert social compliance. Laws derived from sharia are also applied in Afghanistan, Libya and Sudan. Sharia law is officially recognised by the justice system in Israel in matters of personal status of Muslims (e.g. marriage, divorce, guardianship.) Judges' salaries are paid by the state. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts. In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the re-introduction of harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony. The punishments include amputation of one/both hands for theft and stoning for adultery and apostasy.
Hell. Even Israel recognizes Muslim law in personal, non-criminal matters. Also, most Middle Eastern and African Muslim countries offer a dual system, as I noted before. Only a few go overboard with the strict interpretation you see in the above case, such as Nigeria.
Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that this shouldn't lead to a universal hatred of Shariah Law. Many countries apply it effectively to family or civil matters when the people involve wish. I'm just wishing to stop anyone posting about how crazy Muslim Law is before it starts. A preemptive attempt, if you will.
As far as what happened with this lady...that's where things can go wrong. When countries have a judicial system entirely rooted in traditional Shariah Law things such as this can and will happen. It's a prime example of when the judges interpreting the law either need to gain a more contemporary understanding of the law, or the country needs to adopt a separate criminal law system. What happened here would be no different than if a judge tried to apply ancient Old Testament law in the American courts and went overboard because a woman wore a low-cut dress. It's sad, but this will continue to happen until countries update to a new level of laws.
