Muslim wives legally invisible

[ShowMeTheHunny]

Perhaps this should be in the feminism chat, but I’ve just found out something shocking: 60% of British Muslim women are in Nikah only marriages.

Nikah is a religious marriage ceremony. Unlike Jewish or Christian marriages, there is no automatic civil registration.

This means that under British law a Muslim woman with a Nikah marriage is in fact not married at all. If the relationship ends (through separation, divorce, or death), she has: no right to spousal maintenance, no claim to property or pensions, no inheritance rights and no access to the protections of the UK Family Court.

This has been raised in parliament. This has been raised by judges. The 2018 government review found that many Muslim women believed their Nikah marriage had legal standing.

Anything done about it? Nope.

I wondered if this is covered in schools. There is a statutory relationships and sex education guidance that the DfE published which schools must follow. It does require teaching about marriage, but NOTHING in the statutory wording prompts schools to explain the difference between a religious-only ceremony and a civilly recognised marriage.

So, many/most of you might be thinking, ‘So what? It’s none of our business to interfere with others’ religious or cultural practices! Surely it’s the same situation in other countries?’

Nope. The following countries ensure, through legislation, that Islamic marriage ceremonies happen after or alongside civil registration:

France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Finland, Sweden….basically all the European countries….except Britain.

Anyway, anyone else shocked?

The law is the same in Scotland as in England. Unless the imam is a legally registered officiant l, the marriage is legally classed as a ‘non-marriage’ - a separate civil ceremony is required.

The UK government doesn't have a legal requirement to ensure all animals are stunned before slaughter.

Around 88% of animals slaughtered in the UK for Halal are stunned first.
All animals slaughtered under the Shechita (for Kosher) are non-stunned.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter

Bet he knew full well! Advised by his lawyers.

Nowadays a lot of mosques won’t conduct a Nikkah ceremony until the couple have had their civil ceremony.

I think this is a greater issue in the older generation as all my friends and family (I’m in my 30s) had their civil marriage ceremony as their ‘white wedding’ (as in dress in a traditional white wedding dress, matching bridesmaids etc) and the Nikkah would be when you would wear your traditional cultural clothes

Hmm maybe, the thing is though if you have a religious marriage from outside the UK it will be recognised if it was legal in the country of origin. It still doesn’t explain the difference between different groups. I can imagine that if you were a new immigrant to the UK you may not have been aware that a religious ceremony didn’t suffice if it never came up as a problem.

I am glad to hear more mosques are enforcing it. Hopefully women who are looking to get married are also being reminded by family and friends that it’s in their best interest to get their civil wedding done.

“Sharia Law is recognised for domestic issues. This includes marriage and divorce”

What does that mean? Recognised by whom for what purpose?

I never said that all halal are non-stun i said that is was a mix as confirmed by your link. Your orgianl post said all was stun.

The only non-stun kill legal in the UK is for religious reasons, it is an exemption Under the legal requriement for animals to be stunned before slaughter. Part of the reason for the exemption is the concerns over religious groups setting up 'underground' abattoirs, something which would be far worsening animal welfare and potentially but

This isn't the thread for this really but kosher slaughter makes up such a small number that fewer non-stun kosher kills happen than non-stun halal.

On the consumer side- if given a choice the vast majority of Muslims would choose non-stun halal over stun halal if given a choice, hence why it isn't labelled on the packet if stun or non-stun.

Personally I would say going the way of NZ would be best where all has to be stunned but they run special education days to help religious leaders understand the stun doesnt kill the animal and therefore is allowable under the religious rules. The key supporting people gain knowledge, coming bsck to the thread, i guess similar to the marriages, supporting people in gaining knowledge.

88% vs 0%.

I may have misconstrued Sharia Law. I’ can’t link but have screenshot BBC upcoming programme which might be informative.
I still think many Muslim women are poorly treated in domestic affairs but am open to other opinions/knowledge.

Sad thing is that potentially the new Islamophobia law may mean mumsnet would have to censor or take down this thread.

Sharia law isn’t recognised as law anywhere in the uk. It is a medication / dispute resolution service, and the outcomes of that mediation service maybe the basis for divorce settlements agreed in uk courts if they are fair and reasonable, as that would be considered a amicable way to reach an agreement.

i could hire a mediator from google today and the family courts would consider their outcomes in the same way. It has nothing to do with sharia law or religion.

Your article doesn’t state anything about recognition of sharia law.

sharia law may treat women unfavourably. But it is in no way legally enforceable. It’s no more important than me and you getting in a room and deciding we are going to treat a third party badly.

It doesn't suprise me that noone is aware. Most women still think a common law wofe exists. Then when they have children and the relationship breaks down they are not protected because they assume the rights of marriage.
It should be taught to girls in school for sure.
I hate the fact that I married my ex and had chikdren with him but im so glad I at least had some protection from the court such ad being able to get a large chunk of our family home.

I don’t know where your research has come from but the question that smacks me in the face is how do those other nations force Muslims to go through a civil marriage if they don’t wish to?

On fave value yes. But 3.9 million Muslims verses 0.3 million Jews.

Muslims make up 6% of the UK population yet eat 20% of the fresh meat consumed in the UK. Added in that halal meat is often served in hospitals, schools and restaurants so some non stun halal is being consumed by non-musilms.

Unfortunately you can't look at 1 fact or percentage in isolation if you want to gain the full picture.

To be honest personally I dont like non-stun kill. I've seen both, and stood on the kill line for both. But I also don't like to see facts mis-represented, or 1 culture demonised when neither, in this case, has the moral high ground over animal welfare at point of kill.

to add to that- under uk law -which has recently changed, a divorce is also filling out a form online which your spouse is then informed of. There is no right to contest or stop a divorce on either side.

A divorced man would not be expected to help their ex wife navigate the benefits system or similar.

Some mosques now require a civil marriage certificate before they perform a nikah. It is both to protect the mosques and individuals from sham marriages.

The simple answer is that in most countries, the state doesn’t really give people an option. A religious wedding on its own just isn’t recognised, so if a couple want their marriage to count in law, they have to do the civil bit. That’s how people are pushed into registering without it feeling like they are being forced personally.
In France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, the only legal marriage is the one at the town hall. Imams and priests can still do religious ceremonies, but only AFTER the civil one, and they can be fined or prosecuted if they perform a wedding first. In the Nordic countries, some imams are licensed as registrars. If they aren’t, then the nikah has no effect and couples go to the registrar anyway, because otherwise they aren’t legally married.
In Muslim-majority countries like Morocco or Tunisia, a nikah is only valid if it is registered with the state court. Imams are part of that official process, so they can’t marry people outside it. In some Gulf states, you even need a medical or genetic certificate before the state will issue the marriage contract.
So it isn’t about dragging people to the registrar against their will. It’s about setting up the law so that if you skip the civil marriage, you simply aren’t married at all in the eyes of the state. Since most couples want the rights and protections of marriage, nearly everyone complies.

This is what I think is missing from the post- how effective is this in other countries? What stops anyone having a unrecognised marriage ceremony? I could do one in my garden right now.

All this suggests is if you intended a legal marriage, we will ensure it is one. It doesn’t stop other ceremonies.

and indeed, to the freedom point, and maybe why the government shouldn’t interfere- do we want to stop people having the ability to hold non legal marriage ceremonies if they want to?

Majority of the Muslims i know all have civil marriages either before or after the nikah (Islamic marriage)

It was whoever I quoted who only spoke only of one culture. Anyone who wanted to raise the issues in religious slaughter would have mentioned at least these two religious practices.

If that's the rules they want to live by that's their business.

If you decided to have an oddball ceremony, at least you’d know you weren’t legally married. My original point was that such a huge proportion of Muslim women have a Nikah only marriage and think they are legally married.

Not shocked but quite horrified. It’s a misogynistic religion.

I was shocked however to learn that:

a) first cousin marriage was not illegal in the UK. I discovered this when the government recently voted down a bill to make it illegal. The government works closely with the Muslim Council of Britain and appears to want to curry favour.

b) 75% of marriages of Pakistani marriages (and a lower but still unbelievable rate of other Muslim origins) are first cousin marriages. This creates a terribly high number of infant deaths (12%) and a high number if serious disabilities. I have heard that in some high Muslim population areas NHS staff have been banned from highlighting this.

https://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/articles/the-truth-about-first-cousin-marriages-in-pakistan

wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islamic_Law

Yes. They may not get much say in the matter.

“In France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, the only legal marriage is the one at the town hall. Imams and priests can still do religious ceremonies, but only AFTER the civil one, and they can be fined or prosecuted if they perform a wedding first”

I don’t get the point of this post then, have I misunderstood? What happens in the wonderful France Germany Belgium is the same as here currently (although we recognise marriages outside of a town hall of course of legally performed)