Parallel Law: The Rise of Sharia Councils in the UK

If the barbarism of Sharia law is accepted in any official capacity in the UK it's the end of over a millennium of the civilised rule of law.

From The European Conservative

By Susanna Lukacs

Sharia councils claim they help Muslim women attain religious divorce, but this may leave them vulnerable and without any legal protection.

Sharia (translated as ‘the correct path’) is the divine law that a Muslim must follow to lead a moral life. It is derived from the Quran and hadith—thousands of sayings attributed to Prophet Mohammad. It is applied to both the public and private spheres. It was interpreted by jurists in the classical period of Islam, wherein four major schools were established. To this day, many Muslim societies still abide, at least in part, by its rule. 

Parallel legal systems

However, there are groups that are trying to expand sharia to non-Muslim states. Since the 1980s, sharia councils, frequently mislabelled as sharia courts, in the UK have existed in order to provide guidance for believers. These council’s have been primarily concerned with enabling divorces for women who need an elder’s help when a husband won’t consent. Since cuts to legal aid have made divorces more expensive, the number of married couples turning to these councils are on the rise, posing a serious threat to Muslim women. 

These organisations are accused of operating a parallel legal system in the UK. While their rulings have no legal validity, they have a decision-making capacity. Currently, there is no reliable statistic on the number of sharia councils in England and Wales, estimates vary between 80-85 and they are growing in number.

The growth in this parallel legal system contributes to serious concerns about the cultural and religious practices in Muslim communities throughout the UK. The “independent review into the application of sharia in England and Wales” issued by Britain’s Home Department in February of 2018 was published because of concerns that sharia councils were “discriminating against women.” The report also noted that “the rise of extremism is seen as evidence of a lack of social and political integration within many parts of the UK.”

The report found that there are many religio-cultural elements within some Muslim societies in the UK that obstruct individual freedom and rights, especially for women. Their freedoms are frequently “overlooked” and “denied.” A key finding  of the review was that a significant number of Muslim couples do not civilly register their religious marriages and as a result some Muslim women cannot obtain a civil divorce. This puts them at the mercy of extra-judicial councils, which exhibit patterns of ruling unfairly against women.

In response to this discrimination, then Home Secretary Theresa May launched an independent review in May of 2016 as part of the government’s counter-extremism strategy. The report notes that there are many observant Muslims in England and Wales who could benefit from these councils. However, similar to the finding of Britain’s home department, the strategy also noted that there is evidence that some sharia councils legitimize forced marriage and issue divorces that are “unfair” to women.

Theresa May rightly noted, based on the review’s observations and findings,  

a number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by sharia councils, and that is a significant concern. There is only one rule of law in [Britain], which provides rights and security for every citizen.

In addition to this, the Casey Review, initiated by Dame Louise Casey, made similar claims, stating that sharia councils “supported the values of extremists, condoned wife-beating, ignored marital rape, and allowed forced marriages.”  

Prior to this, Baroness Cox, crossbench member of the British House of Lords, introduced the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill to the House of Lords on 10 May, 2012. The bill was meant to prevent Muslim women  from being hoodwinked into thinking that sharia councils have jurisdiction, enabling a British court to ignore a negotiated agreement if there was evidence that one party’s consent was not veritable. The bill would have allowed a decision from the sharia council to be retracted if the woman was pressured into using the council. The bill sought to put a stop to providers of arbitration from doing anything that amounts to discrimination, harassment, or victimization on the basis of sex. It would give courts the option to ignore any order based on a mediation settlement agreement, or a negotiation settlement, if the court is certain that one of the party’s consent was not genuine. Most importantly, the bill sought to remedy women’s lack of protection relative to unregistered marriages “by placing a duty on public bodies in ensuring that women are not mislead as regards the legal status of their marriage.”

Failed campaign

Baroness Cox’s six-year campaign in pioneering for British Muslim women drew to a close in 2016. Her private member’s bill was scheduled to receive its first debate in the House of Commons, after failing to pass through the House of Lords four times  since its introduction in 2011. Cox’s bill failed five times to enter the statute book. Government obstruction became apparent in 2012 when the bill received its first debate in the House of Lords. Lord Gardiner spoke as a representative of the government, highlighting the bill’s honorable objectives in supporting women’s rights. Nonetheless, he noted that the government believed that the bill was “not the best way forward” in addressing the problems concerning British Muslim women. Additionally, because the bill prohibited arbitration “according to religious principles,” it violated the Arbitration Act of 1996, which allows parties to agree how certain civil disputes, often financial, should be resolved, including according to the law of another legal system.

Grave concerns about sharia councils persist. In May 2019, John Howell, a conservative MP, stated in parliament:

[I]t is likely that a large number of cases concerning the position of Muslim women under Islamic law never come before the ordinary courts or the European Court of Human Rights because women are under enormous pressure from their families and their communities to comply with the demands of the informal religious courts.

He further added that a huge number of Muslims do not have marriages recognized under British Law. As a result, Muslim women cannot obtain civil divorce. Those women who do manage to get a civil divorce, but not a religious divorce find it difficult to remarry. Reviews and reports cite numerous examples of how Muslim women are pressured into mediation, where greater weight is given to a husband’s accounts. Sometimes women are required to pay back their dowry. 

The home department’s review provided some recommendations to counter this growing issue. This includes a legislative change to the Marriage Act of 1949 to bring Islamic marriage in line with Christian and Jewish marriage in the eyes of the law. It should also be a legal requirement that Muslim unions are registered under British civil law. Another effective response would be to actively work towards the gradual reduction of the use and need for sharia councils. This may perhaps only be achieved through education and more government involvement in the lives of minority religious groups.