A couple of responses: first, your situation seems unlikely, given our experience in the United States on contracting for substantive law outside a jurisdiction.
Second, so what? Shouldn't I have the right to contract for whatever I darn well please? Isn't an unfettered right to contract at the heart of liberty?
No, you shouldn’t, if recourse for breaking the contract is out of the bounds of state/national jurisprudence.
You and I don’t have the legal authority or right to enter into a contract that would allow me to imprison you if you break the contract. That exceeds the purview of contracts and jurisprudence.
When an English judge says that citizens can enter into contracts not based on English law, he is in essence saying that private contracts are not under the purview of their national law. If such is the case, the next-most-likely case that the Islamofascists will make — based on their efforts in other nations such as France and Sweden — is that they should be able to have their own courts with their own proceedings, their own laws and their own punishment for breaking those laws. Yes, France and Sweden are beginning to give in to these demands.
A nation such as England — and America, if this is your point — should never allow such a balkanization of jurisprudence. Our collective stance should be: you have a right to enter into private contracts, but those contracts must be drawn and voluntarily agreed to within the bounds of our laws. For example, if you enter into a marriage agreement, if your wife is found talking on the street with another man, you do not have the right to beat her. Sharia law is demented. It should never be accepted as an acceptable alternative basis of jurisprudence in a civilized nation.
Yes, as long as it does not violate the large body of federal and state contract law.