Well, at least we agree on a couple of things. Sharia is a bad idea, and so it Beth Din. Rather than introducing Sharia, they should consider dumping Beth Din.

We seem not to agree on the similarities between a prenup and Sharia. It is much more difficult to coerce someone into signing a prenup than it is to coerce someone already brainwashed from birth into accepting Sharia. There is a huge difference. Also a prenup is contract law while Sharia is religious law. Prenups fit (if rather stupidly) into normal legal systems. Sharia does not. Countries should stay far, far away from trying to meld religious and non-religious legal systems, regardless of pretending that one will have precedence over the other.

>Alan,
>
>Where did I (or the Judge of the original article) say that the agreement must be enforced without the consent of both parties?
>
>From the original article: "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."
>
>From the comparative article posted by Nicholas: "Both sides in a dispute must be Jewish, obviously, and must have agreed to have their case heard by the Beth Din. Once that has happened, its eventual decision is binding. English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din."
>
>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
>
>>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.