Rather feeble, inimalist.
To your first point- if you and bardock both agreed to have an anarchist arbitrate for you, then yes, that would be fine, as it would also be fine if you both agreed to be arbitreated by some new religious representative. Why wouldn't that be fine? This really is a very simple thing. The process of arbitration involves choosing someone to arbitrate for you, and his view is always going to come from some belief system or another.
Secondly. read the gist of the argument. To complain about this is to say it should not be allowed, which has been the effective thrust of things. There is not the slightest strawmanning at all- and, incidentally, 'showing concern' is something I would equally criticise on exactly the same logic as I have already presented.
Your point really has nothing to do with hearing voices in the community at all, that si a total aside you have made up. Like I say, if you want to engage in community re-structure, educaiton, change, whatevertm, that's just fine. But that's irrelevant to this current argument, where all must have the same right of access to either being an arbitrator or to arbitration. If you want to make a thread on the threat you think is coming from Muslim community thinking then fine- but that's not this thread.
Hence your point about having the right to break things down is completely irrelevant as well.
It is NOT religion that is making decisions. It is PEOPLE. People make decisions based on the logic that forms the way they view the world. That may be religion or it many not, but that, again, is irreelvant; at base there is no difference in principle in the process. People have different value systems, religious or otherwise. When you choose an arbitrator, it is because you have appreciation of the value system you think that arbitrator uses.
Now, you may not like the value systems some people would use to make decisions on. But you might also dislike the value systems used by someone who is not religious at all. In fact, if we polled 100 mmebers of this forum about a typical divorce case I reckon we would probably get at least fifty different viewpoints. The fact that someone's views on such matters may be religious in nature is, pretty much, irrelevant to the matter.
In these cases, some people make decisions based on their interpretation of Muslim values. Some other people are desirous of having their problems settled by such a person. That is their right, and to question that right is of FAR more concern to me than any concern about spreading sharia law.
And once more, your thing about the Saudis putting money into anyhting... doesn't make a damn difference.
I really do feel you are talking about a completely different subject. The fact that Muslims are using their right to be arbitrators is not really interesting news. And what lobbying? Your use of the word 'lobbying' again makes me think you aere talking about something completely different and do not understand this subject at all. There hasn't been any lobbying, just the use of an already existing right. So again, this thread had nothing to do with such a worry.
Ultimately, any objection to this process is simple discrimination against Muslim beliefs. No-one is FORCED to accept arbitration. If you do want your matter arbitrated, it is your own business who you turn to to do that. So long as both parties agree, and so long as the process stays within UK law, frankly no-one else has any business in the matter.