>So, we both agree that the agreement must be mutual and written etc. the other fears you (and I!!) have are that women might be coerced into signing, and my argument is that it can still happen the same without the Sharia even mentioned by means of a prenup agreement. You seem to think it is a bad idea to have the Sharia law and... I happen to think the same but see little difference with a prenup. In short, as we would say in Argentina, "es la misma cagada con distinto olor" (same sheet with different olour) and as long as prenups are allowed (and in the case of England there is even a precedent with the Beth Din) I can not see why would we accept one without accepting others and not call that hypocrisy just because we happen to really dislike one (and I want to be clear I really dislike Sharia, and If I knew about Beth Din I most likely will hate it the same, after all they are religious) and have no idea of the others (as I said, prenups apparently can say whatever they agree to do
>and we will not know how are they slanted and I have no idea of what the Beth Din says)
>
>MMMhhh, to many parenthesis and crap, not sure if what I wrote is understandable

What you wrote IS understandable. What I can't understand is why would anybody ever agree to have decisions about their lives handed to priests - which is the actual root of this thread. One judge saying that they can do so if they are so bent, well, once a provision was made for one religion, then any other can claim to do so. Next you know you'll have Jedi councils and Flying Spaghetti Monster arbitrations.