Not at all Richard. It's only the same as agreeing to binding arbitration by any other arbiter. It's already done by Jews- voluntarily. If someone doesn't like the outcome, their remedy is the same as any other arbitration- the civil courts. Criminal cases are not covered, and anyway no one is forced to take part if they don't want to.

The problem is people being forced to participate- that can't happen in the case of the Beth Din, and would be illegal. If people refuse the authority of the Beth Din, the community can retaliate by cutting off relationships with the offender, but nothing more. A quick google leads to the conclusion that in such cases, nothing much happens, and (in the case of divorce) cases can drag on, pointlessly, for years. Any comments Rabbbi Sol?

Sharia law conducted under such a regime would be unobjectionable- it would also help to curb some of the wilder excesses, in that the courts would have sufficient status to come under public scrutiny.

There's nothing to stop the Pastafarians setting up their own Canneloni Courts if they want to.

But as for sharia law being legally recognised in any wider sense, that's a non- starter. If the AB of C meant that, he's an idiot, and if he meant the voluntary courts, he can't express himself. Either way, it's disturbing that he has a free seat in the Lords.