Well, remember this is a binding arbitration case. The judge isn't reviewing the decision of the arbiter (hence the words "binding arbitration"), he's reviewing whether or not the contract itself is enforceable. He found that it was indeed enforceable. In this regard, the FL Circuit judge doesn't need to understand anything about Sharia law, just like he wouldn't need to understand anything about German law, if it was a case about binding German arbitration.
Got it, I think. Let me try a question. If the contract in question did require a penalty of hand removal then that part would not be enforceable I assume. So whatever the question of what part was enforceable in this case probably had to meet some test to determine if such a provision was legal in the US?