A German television report and an Austrian court ruling have sparked renewed debate in Europe over the role of Sharia law and fears of “parallel justice” systems operating alongside national legal frameworks.
In Germany, a report broadcast by ARD in its programme “KLAR” examined attitudes among young men in Berlin-Neukölln regarding Sharia and German law. In street interviews, some respondents said they would prioritise Sharia over state law, with one stating “Sharia, of course” when asked which should apply.
From here, the broadcast becomes even more extreme. The interviewer asks what should happen if a friend’s sister is living with her boyfriend without being married. One of the men first responds, “That’s wrong.” When asked what punishment would apply, another says:
Adulterers are stoned to death. Unmarried people are whipped.
Another man initially mentions “900 whippings,” then corrects himself to “99”—while another adds: “But I’ll do another one on it.” The most serious moment follows shortly afterwards. When asked what should happen to the woman, one respondent says: “Her brother would have to kill her.” The interviewer then asks: “Why should he kill her? We are in Germany.”
The answer is:
She would dishonour the whole Ummah (Islamic community). This is haram (prohibited). I’ll kill them.
The broadcast further explored concerns about social pressure in schools, religious influence in some communities, and the spread of Islamist ideology online. Educators and experts featured in the programme warned that radicalisation can begin with non-violent expressions of intolerance and may develop over time. The report also highlighted cases where students reportedly pressured others during religious practices, such as Ramadan fasting.
In Austria, meanwhile, a Vienna court ruling has drawn criticism after it upheld the validity of a financial decision made under an Islamic arbitration panel applying Sharia principles. The dispute arose after two Muslim men agreed to settle potential conflicts through a religious tribunal, which later ordered one party to pay €320,000.
The losing party challenged the decision, arguing that Sharia-based rulings are incompatible with Austrian constitutional values. However, the court ruled that Austrian law permits arbitration agreements in civil matters, provided the outcome does not violate fundamental legal principles.
