Raheem Kassam

And then since then, we've allowed Muslim courts, of which there are 85.

In America, it's slightly different.

My understanding is that you've got the Federal Arbitration Act of 1924 or 1925.

And that allows Christian, Jewish, and Muslim courts

Now, I would argue, why do you need religious courts in a country?

Because then you've got competing different laws.

That is where the opening happened to allow this.

So for 100 years, this has been happening, but you haven't had mass immigration, you haven't had Muslim entities.

Now you do.

Now you have this huge growth, and therefore this is a problem.

So they're using that legislation.

Now, of course...

That legislation says these bodies function as private arbitration tribunals.

They're not official courts.

But it does seem to say that it gives force of law to the judgments.

Therefore, they do seem to be legally binding.

Now, it says they're only legally binding if it doesn't conflict with federal or state laws.

But you tell me, which court or police officer is going to go into an Islamic area and demand access to those rulings and then to begin to enforce or unenforce them?

That doesn't happen.

Of course, these courts, it's wonderful because it's not in English.