If you want sharia law, go and live in Saudi

Sameer,
Thank you for the comment.
I admire your sentiments and your clear thinking. I am one with you on the need for a Uniform Civil Code.

…india is a secular contry…vryone has the rght to preach practise his/her religion….enforcement of UCC is totally against freedom of religion and expression which are assets of indian constitution….enforcing UCC is nthng but dividing india on political grounds…from ages muslims n hindus have lived peacefully practising their own laws….this type of enforcement and tyranny will never be accepted in any modern contry….

Excerpts from Islam, Shari’ah Courts, Islamization and the Far-Right

http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=237 by Rashad Ali

…
At the heart of the fear whipped up by the far-right is the Islamists demand for a separate and parallel legal system based upon “Shari’ah”…

…This demand has reinforced existing fears that Muslims cannot exist within non-Muslim legal traditions and political systems, and instead of accommodating themselves, must either have separate legal systems, or change existing legal and political frameworks.

…In this article I would like to look at some of the arguments surrounding Shari’ah courts and provide a mainstream Islamic perspective, explaining why they are not necessary…

Arbitration by Shari’ah: The basic argument

Arbitration by Shari’ah is necessary for matters pertaining to marriage, divorce and conflict resolution, or so it is argued by proponents of Shari’ah courts.

…These arguments are based on a series of flawed assumptions.

…
3. ‘Without Shari’ah, Muslims can’t get an Islamic divorce’

This is a particularly problematic aspect. Muslim women are informed that they cannot get a divorce, and so remain religiously tied to their husbands, until they have either received a divorce from their husbands or from a Shari’ah court. This has left women at the mercy of courts that are not authorized through any legal recognition [16], do not operate according to any explicit standards, and are unregulated.

…And yet the truth is that Muslim scholars have traditionally advised Muslims to seek divorces from courts within the legal system that they live in, and that these would be legitimate divorces both on religious grounds and according to the law of the land. Pre-modern scholars have long advocated this for Muslims living in areas which have a majority non-Muslim population or even in fact where non-Muslims were judges in Muslim-majority countries. [17]

…
4. ‘British Law is not binding on Muslims according to mainstream religious edicts, so we Muslims need a parallel legal system’

In fact, the opposite is true. Most Muslim scholars explicitly cite religious edicts making it binding upon Muslims, from a religious as well as a moral and legal perspective, that they should adopt the prevailing legal norms and standards within their own contractual undertakings. Sheikh Abdullah Bin Mahfudh Bin Bayyah, a leading contemporary authority on Shari’ah, explained this from a Shari’ah maxim which states ‘a well known custom is considered similar to a stipulated condition.’ In other words, Muslims in all of their undertakings come within the framework of British law, or the law of whichever country they happen to reside in, and therefore the laws of that country are the rules they should abide by. He explicitly states that you are married and divorced according to the laws of those countries. [18] He also cites the concept of Maslaha or public benefit, and that this also necessitates Muslims adopting the laws of the country they reside in.

…In our case it would mean that UK law and courts would be binding from a Shari’ah perspective. This should remove the call for a parallel legal system and quash the hysterical idea that ‘Muslims’ are seeking to Islamize the UK. Seeking to Islamize the law is not an inherent aspect of the Islamic faith to do so. [19] As I have shown, quite the opposite is the case.