>>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.
>
>Actually, if there's no proof that the sides in the dispute have freely agreed to arbitration (be it by a religious body, a professional body - a bar or chamber of sorts, or whatever institution they choose), the decisions made in the arbitration are legally nil, period. At least that's how I think it should be.

It doesn't matter much that the decisions are legally nil. One side has to have the courage to defy the decision. I still don't feel that women brought up in that system and brainwashed since birth will necessarily have that courage.

They may even be subject to that system regardless of any acceptance by the government or not, but it's my belief that the government should not give explicit credence to religiously applied "legal" arbitration systems.