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?

Your final statement… if you skip the civil marriage you aren’t married in the eyes of the state… just brings us back to where we are right now, doesn’t it?
And I may be wrong, but if a Muslim man/couple only care about the religious wedding ( a bit like the catholic example given by a PP), they still won’t bother? I can’t imagine the bride or her family insisting upon it?

typo

I thought you said in France Germany Belgium Nikahs were recognised as legal marriages thus offering women automatic protection?

but your post above says they’re not legally recognised.

Why would they think this? Why would anyone think that an unregistered marriage is legal?

Marriage is just a piece of paper” is really not true when the shit hits the fan

This 💯

‘It’s only a piece of paper’ until your DP is in hospital and you have no legal rights over his care etc or funeral. Fine if you have a good relationship with his legal NOK but if not then they could stop you going to the hospital or having any involvement in the funeral. That’s just the start, the financial implications are even more significant.

Yes sorry, OP you didn’t say they legally recognised a nikah you said they had legislation to ensure a civil ceremony came alongside. But this doesn’t really appear to solve the problem

I think there are more than just Muslim women who may believe themselves to be married but not be. Women of other religions and none.

Remember Jerry Hall and Mick Jagger? Jerry believed they were married but the High Court disagreed. They had a Hindu ceremony in Bali.

The same reason that many women think a common law marriage is valid.
And then realise that 20 years living with a man and bringing up his kids means nothing without a piece of paper.

Lots of marriages aren't recognised in UK law, handfastings aren't.

No it’s not the same here. There’s no law requiring civil registration before, during or after a religious ceremony. UK is unusually lax.

I don’t think we should be legislating for stupidity. Sorry.

But the law is pointless, surely? Unless you’re suggesting people should be thrown into prison for not having a civil wedding?!

But because it doesn’t appear effective in France Germany Belgium it doesn’t seem worthwhile changing the law for here?

If they can only do the religious marriage ceremony once already legally married and there a penalties for a celebrant performing a marriage ceremony without the correct legal recognition then that protects women.

The problem with the current set up in the UK is that a man who holds more wealth and power can get the respectability of a legal marriage without granting his wife the protection of a legal marriage.

Many of these women won't know that they aren't legally married or will believe that the religious part is the important part. They won't have the bargaining power to insist and then they will suffer if their husband abandons them or dies.

I might be sheltered but I have never heard of anyone thinking common law marriage is a real thing. It was something women who wanted to be married to their long term partners used to say back in the 80s to cover the embarrassment. In 2025?!? I haven’t even heard anyone say the words for about 20 years.

I think education has absolutely worked on that one.

I wouldn’t recognise this version in law, nor legislate that they had to do a civil version. Maybe some education on what marriage means here legally.

But on the other side it would prevent me having a pagan ceremony in my garden at entirely my own choice?

Agreed- I think the reasonable solution seems to be that people who perform religious ceremonies are legally obliged to tell they people they are marrying that it’s not legally binding.

I don't think people really use the term common law spouse any more, but the ignorance ahout the legal position of cohabitants is absolutely still a thing. There have been sooooo many threads on here from women who sleepwalked into unprotected positions, who either didn't know or didn't think it mattered that they were legally in quite a different position from spouses, then got an unpleasant dose of reality when the relationship ended.

Wanting to prohibit a religious ceremony does not stand out as a good idea to me.
If people really don’t understand that a marriage has to be registered to be legal, then education is the key - not banning things.

Sadly, the culture around Islam is severely misogynistic. Muslim mothers and fathers need to do more to protect their daughters and understand the precarious space they are allowing their child to enter without a legal thread to their marriage. Sadly, many won’t, and I don’t think it’s on the state to enforce that. Only to educate.

Those threads aren’t from people who mistakenly thought they had married rights - they’re from women who stupidly didn’t think it mattered. There is already education around marriage rights. Again, you can’t legislate for stupid.

Not shocked but I do thing there should be some changes around religious only marriages.

It’s only CofE and Jewish marriages that are automatically registered I think - Catholic marriages aren’t automatically registered, you have to have a registrar there too. But in practice everyone does.

Some people, I guess, might want a religious only marriage for a good reason, like protecting the children of an earlier marriage (although of course they could just make a will very quickly).

I’m sure it is possible to legislate to make it the presumption at least that religious marriages will be legally registered- but the exact terms of that would be for someone with more expertise!

There is also an element of being vulnerable, weak or poor and having little choice in life.

When you’re in the owned house having the bills paid it’s easy to not think about having it all taken away. It doesn’t mean these women didn’t understand they had few legal rights, there are all sort of more likely emotion based explanations IMO.

Yes I agree with you

It’s true catholic marriages aren’t automatically registered but catholic priests are very commonly authorised celebrants, the way rabbis are. Only CofE priests have authorisation “with the job”

It's a mixture. There have absolutely been posts from people who thought they had more rights than they did.

Whether or not one can legislate for stupid is a different point. I'm personally very reticent to change a law that would interfere with some people's rights (for example the right to cohabit without the legal status of marriage, to engage in a religious ritual without needing to involve the state) to try and help a different group, when options to try and educate instead exist.