Sharia Law and divorce

[ArabellaScott]

' Religious law in the UK is a vexed question for secularists. In principle, it could be argued that as long as it has no legal force there is no conflict. However, the reality is more complex and there are no easy answers. And with apparent growth in demand for religious 'courts' among other religious groups, it is essential that the issues be discussed frankly and that deference to religion should not obstruct discussion of its shortcomings.'

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2024/05/we-must-stop-ignoring-the-elephant-in-the-religious-court-room

The article discusses Orthodox Jewish and Islamic sharia courts, both of which lend more weight to the rights of men than women when it comes to divorce.

it is essential that the issues be discussed frankly and that deference to religion should not obstruct discussion of its shortcomings.'

Too bloody right.

I imagine religious courts would come i to direct conflict with equalities legislation or even human rights law. I believe obtaining a divorce can be really difficult if the man doesn’t want one.

The idea that any religious court of any stripe could be recognised in law would be horrible for women.

This is the BBC programme referred to:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001z3bg

See also this development:

https://southallblacksisters.org.uk/news/joint-statement-on-the-the-sikh-court/

So, basically, if women are brown, it's ok for them to have fewer rights, because....culture?

'SBS have made evidence-based submissions to government and to The Law Society. These submissions cite a range of case examples (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish) on the discriminatory practices of religious arbitration bodies which effectively institute parallel legal systems over families within minoritised communities. Despite attempting to distance itself from the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal and Shariah Councils because of widespread critique of these bodies, The Sikh Court is no different in its objectives.'

Food for thought: it is in many cases easier for a woman to get a divorce from a mosque (the ones which follow the correct Islamic rules like the big London ones) than from an English court. In a few cases that I know, mosques have issued a divorce to the woman very easily and it comes into force quickly. There is no nonsense like separating (being forced to remain married) for two or five years first if the other party doesn’t agree. Easier divorce is one of the reasons why Muslim women often prefer to do just niqah than register the marriage under British legislation, too. Yes, it is quicker for a man to divorce when he doesn’t need to involve a third party, but involving the mosque is hardly an issue, plus divorce is one of the most dangerous times in a woman’s life (statistically) so it does add a bit more security for her. I don’t appreciate the nonsense about women being weaker minded etc that’s cultural. A lot of men are angry so they’re the emotional ones. Speaking as a Muslim woman here.

Is there an equivilant Christian entity with a legal "right" to make rulings that take precedence over the accepted law in the UK?

That's just living together in a way that is sanctioned by your religion. I don't mean that critically - I think everyone should have the choice to do this, whatever their faith. But it isn't marriage in a legal sense, so the woman has no rights through the process, other than those that the husband chooses to grant her (again, not meaning that as a criticism of Islam - it would be the same, whatever their faith). The mosque may exert social/religious pressure but ultimately the woman has the same rights as anyone else not legally married, i.e. virtually none.

The Catholic Church had its fingers into Irish law and government (the health and other) procedures.

And Bishops in the Lords of course.

Religious courts are in direct conflict with the UK law.

Men & women are equal for starters.

Divorce law is different in E&W, here in Scotland we don't have the same waiting period. I agree it should be easier to divorce!

Otherwise, I assume a niqah marriage doesn't confer the same legal protections/obligations as a civil/legal UK marriage?

I'm a bit unclear on how divorces made overseas get translated into UK law.

https://www.shariahcouncil.org/frequently-asked-questions/

The article says rulings from a religious court don't take legal precedence.

The article says rulings from a religious court don't take legal precedence.

They might not but in terms of actual lives too often they do.

That is why i cant understand them being as it were, semi legitimised.

Or put it another way, that despite saying the law takes precedence, some communities can ignore the law, and prioritise the conventions of predominately patriarchal conventions, that the UK as a country celebrated losing those chains of convention decades ago.

From English/Wales legislation point of view just niqah means the couple is a cohabiting non-married couple. That however doesn’t bother me or other Muslim couples, as we are married in the eyes of God and religious sense. My marriage is very real to me.

It really depends on the woman’s situation if this is a good arrangement or not. There are women who are vulnerable in a divorce if they’ve been housewives for 20 years and have no rights to the house etc. If the woman is less wealthy, registering the marriage under UK law is recommended in addition to the Niqah.

For women like me, just niqah with no registration works better as I’m the wealthier party. Also women who haven’t lived with the man before marriage, just niqah works better as UK courts don’t accept divorce applications before a year has passed from the wedding. Islamically divorce can happen straightaway. Niqah can also include whatever conditions that the woman wants to include to the niqah contract, and the husband breaking them is a ground for divorce. Continuing working after marriage, for example.

islamically in both situations (registration or not) a woman is entitled to husbands salary and property, and she does not need to spend a penny on living costs. I however choose to contribute because otherwise it would be very expensive for him.

Forgot to say that if a niqah was done in Indonesia or Saudis where it is the legal system, then that counts as a legal marriage if the couple then moved to the UK. However if the same people arrived unmarried and only did niqah but no registration in the UK, then they remain unmarried according to the British law. If they combine niqah + registration then they are married in British legal sense. So the same niqah has two implications depending on which country it was done.

I personally prefer having more choice in the UK. If divorce in the UK was easy, I wouldn’t mind if the niqah automatically meant legal marriage. However given how difficult it is to get a divorce in the UK, especially before the no fault came into effect, I certainly didnt want to be legally tied more than I have to.

@BurrosTail Thanks for post your posts - but how confusing !

I wonder how many UK officials understand it.

But good to hear that it works for you.

https://www.jwa.org.uk/get-refusal-forced-marriage

Also https://www.gettout.uk/

islamically in both situations (registration or not) a woman is entitled to husbands salary and property

So niqah doesn't have the same obligations. It also won't have the same protections as legal marriage confers: Medical rights, power of attorney, inheritance, etc also won't be covered. Or tax relief.

And I'd say those are important elements in marriage contracts, probably more so as people get older.

Thanks.

'Get refusal is abusive in and of itself, and sometimes it can be used by domestic abuse perpetrators to attempt to extort money from their ex-wife’s family in exchange for a Get'

I'm glad JWA is there to help.

These religious "marriages" and "divorces" don't count for a fig under UK law. And that's as it should be.

Pragna Patel on the UK's first Sikh court:

'The court presents itself as a professional, quasi-legal body, willing to adhere to formal legal rules of engagement. But so far, spokespeople justifying its existence have indicated a much more worrying agenda.
...
The court says it will address cases involving “low-level domestic violence”, as well as issues of “anger management, gambling and substance misuse” through mediation first and foremost. If mediation is unsuccessful and the parties agree, a case can be brought in front of a judge of the Sikh court, who can give a legally binding judgment under the Arbitration Act 1996. Our concern is how women’s consent will be obtained, and who defines “low-level” domestic violence.
When many minority women seek to escape abuse, they are subjected to pressure and coercion to stay silent, and tolerate the abuse for the sake of keeping their family unit intact. Their profoundly unequal status, coupled with an unequal power distribution over knowledge of legal rights, will make it even more difficult to reject attempts at mediation, or to complain when decisions are made against their interests. The formal UK legal system allows women to obtain legal advice and representation in compliance with the rule of law and principles of fairness. However imperfect, that is a stark contrast to religious courts.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/31/the-world-is-getting-its-first-sikh-court-in-london-but-this-is-why-we-need-to-pay-close-attention-to-it

As far as I understand, religious courts (other than C of E eccelsiastical courts, which have legal status) are legally a form of arbitration in the UK. They cannot breach UK law, and are not an alternative legal system under UK law. If they come into conflict with UK law, UK law wins. This should mean, I guess, that even if a religious court makes a "legally binding decision" on the basis of coerced consent to arbitration, that decision would cease to be legally binding as it was illegally obtained, in breach of the Arbitration act.

So it seems to me that the issue is not one of banning such courts, but making sure they stick to the Arbitration act.

Edit: Arbitration does not cover criminal issues, so I don't see how a religious court could rule on "low level domestiuc violence".

I wonder how this will stack up against the proposed cohabitation laws?