Islamist legal expert Faisal Kutty argues that the West should make room in its own secular adoption laws for Islam's kafala laws. Kafala doesn't allow for adoption per se, since Islam forbids that sort of arrangement. Rather, it's a form of legal guardianship, sort of, a deal that's sealed only if and when the infant is breastfed by his non-mom within the first two years of its life. Kutty claims it is to the West's advantage to work around/make accommodation for kafala, which he says was instituted was back when because it "violates Islamic rules which emphasize lineage," but which in fact has more to do with Islam's founder coveting his adopted son's hot wife (whom sonny-boy divorced so "dad" could marry her; funny how Faisal omits that bit of history). Such a move would involve the incorporation of sharia law into our jurisprudence, something that no one save a calculating Islamist (which Mr. Kutty most definitely is) could possibly see as a positive development. And you can be sure that, were this "accommodation" given the go-ahead, there would be ever more and ever new ways that sharia would try to insinuate itself into our laws and way of life, a la sharia banking.
Which is rather the point/subtext of Kutty's argument, even if it's couched in the most reasonable-sounding legalese.