I don't think you get it. When you draw up a prenup (regardless of what you put in it), both parties have to agree to it to make it valid. In fact, both parties have to sign it and nobody can be forced to do so. If the UK decides to allow Sharia law, who are the signatories? Sharia favours men over women and the women will have little if any say in whether or not they want to 'sign up'. Pretty much if their husbands or fathers want to go to Sharia arbitration (and why would they not) the women can easily be coerced into agreeing. Their religion will demand it and, being being raised to be subservient, they will likely find little courage to do otherwise.

It's a really bad idea.

>Al,
>
>As far as I know, in a prenup you can put whatever you want, there are no restrictions (those clauses that violate rights or the law of the country will be challenged in court anyways), so, let's say I write the whole Sharia law in the contract without calling it that name then the contract would be valid, wouldn't it? If you can do that, it might be just simpler to agree to abide the Sharia law
>
>>Huge difference. A prenup is entered into presumably by 2 adults on an equal footing. It's an ordinary legal contract based on contract law. Either party can refuse or agree. Sharia is pretty much always weighted against the female. And she is usually on far less than an equal footing. In Sharia, males are ascendent. It is also based on religious law rather than contract law. How does this resemble a prenup in any way?