Respectfully, ChristianKl, the issue there is with the assumed fairness of the forum that the parties selected, not with the contract itself. See my comment immediately below –

if that means he/she can’t give testimony, or that the weight of the testimony is so discounted as to deprive him/her of a reasonable hearing on his/her grievances – then the courts can step in. I see (perhaps wrongly) a significant difference between objecting to a forum because one has changed one’s beliefs, and objecting to the forum because the belief system has formally excluded you.

If you assume the Imam will be pronouncing a death penalty for the now-Atheist’s Apostasy, I think we can all agree that’s an inappropriate forum for resolving a simple contractual matter. The outlier case, for which exceptions are already contemplated, seems hardly a reason to reject the general rule.

Of course if that is an easy way out of a validly contracted arbitration clause then you have to deal with the possibility that the second Muslim did not become an atheist, but is only claiming to have done so to get out of the arbitration clause.

Imagine two Muslims make a contract under Sharia law. On of them becomes an atheist.
Then the first Muslim goes to the local Imam and says that the atheist broke the contract.

Do you want to give the Imam the chance to rule on the matter and punish the atheist for being an atheist?

1)

I agree, the case of the 20-year old gay man is problematic on many fronts. I would think that a court mandating a specific faith based rehab program would be problematic on many fronts, particularly both the free exercise and establishment clauses of the first amendment.

I am baffled how a third party suing in their own right for wrongful-death could be bound by an arbitration agreement.

2)
the appropriateness of an excommunicated person participating meaningfully in a religious ceremony of the faith from which he/she is now excluded – if that means he/she can’t give testimony, or that the weight of the testimony is so discounted as to deprive him/her of a reasonable hearing on his/her grievances – then the courts can step in. I see (perhaps wrongly) a significant difference between objecting to a forum because one has changed one’s beliefs, and objecting to the forum because the belief system has formally excluded you. Note that I would apply the same test to someone who had, for instance, agreed to contract with “Socialists of America” and was later ejected from the group for close contact with Cato…

At most, I think this is a fair warning as to the importance of drafting a solid contract in the first place. If you are concerned, for instance, that the faith may move in ways you don’t like, ensure the contract states that it is to be interpreted based on the religious laws and understandings as of the time of contract formation.

If two parties freely and voluntarily (and there may be various factors that make the decision less voluntary than it may appear) choose at the time of a dispute to leave court and settle it through their religion, there’s a fair argument that to deny them this choice would deny them moral agency. But if that decision is made in advance as part of a non-negotiable contract and is later used to force someone into religious arbitration possibly years later, that’s a very different situation. Religious beliefs can change, and it’s particularly concerning that the state would hold someone to her prior beliefs in the name of upholding a contract.