England's Divorce and Sharia Council Problem

[Incorruptible]

In England many Islamic marriages take place without a civil marriage and without the civil marriage the marriage isn't legally recognized. In the case of divorce the women has no rights and must apply to a sharia council in order to get the divorce while the man can just say he wants a divorce.

Campaigners are trying to change the law so that all religions have to register their marriages.

Due to this current system British Muslim women have fewer rights than women in Islamic countries.

The law needs to be changed and every religion has to register the marriage. This also brings up the issue of why are there sharia councils in England, they shouldn't be allowed to operate.

It is this belief and the lack of protection for these women under the country’s law that has led to sharia councils springing up in the UK. According to the thinktank Civitas, there are about 85 in existence. Some are informal gatherings of “authoritative figures”; others are formal setups attached to mosques.

Aina Khan, Head of the Islamic Department at the law firm Duncan Lewis and a campaigner for better protection for women, believes she has the answer. She launched her campaign “Register Our Marriage” in 2014 to lobby for a change in the law, and to spread awareness of lack of rights.

“The Marriage Act 1949 must be updated to require all faiths to register their marriages. This would mean Muslims must register religious ceremonies under civil law, just like they do in every Muslim country,” she says.

“This change in our law will give British Muslim women the right to a civil divorce and a share of matrimonial finances. This civil divorce can be simply mirrored by an Islamic divorce from a sharia council within a few weeks and at low cost. This is already being done by my Islamic Department, which does not charge a client for an Islamic divorce if they have already obtained a civil one, and the fee of the Sharia Council is £100.

Should all religions be required to register their marriages?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...tries-religious-rulings-quran-a8064796.htmlEn

 

[Greenman]

It's the UK, a great nation in the act of committing cultural suicide.

 

[theeedude]

Is this where we solve Europe's problems while our own country is falling apart from total corruption?
Church "wedding" and state recognized marriage are two different things. Same with "divorce." Don't like a religion's rules on this or that, don't be a Muslim/Catholic/Orthodox Jew/whatever.

 

[Bitek]

What's the big problem? Sounds like some people are being stupid by not officially registering their marriage.

I didn't do a church wedding, but we filled out the necessary paperwork and signed it all the same on our own.

Didn't just do the party and walk away.

 

[blackangst1]

Although there isnt a requirement to have a civil marriage alongside a religious one, it comes with consequences. See page 26. This isnt exclusively a Muslim problem. It applies to ANY religious marriage.

https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/religious-ceremonies

 

[Paratus]

Whoa whoa whoa there partner. It sounds like you think religion needs to follow the laws of the government.

We’ve got conservatives in this very forum who believe religious organizations have every right to pick and choose which laws they follow.

I’m sure they’ll be here any minute to defend the position of the Muslims. Any minute now.

 

[dank69]

Your concern for brown women is noted.

 

[Indus]

Hey OP.. isn't that good for the women?

They are actually free to marry!

Go ahead get engaged or marry one, help her escape the douchebags by bringing her here!

Ofcourse if she thinks you're a douchebag.. well then.. lol!

 

[UglyCasanova]

I could see the problem with the courts not dividing the assets and such when divorcing. Throughout their life together they accumulate a lot of assets and debts, it would be unfair that upon separation one party get all of it.

 

[UNCjigga]

I'd be curious to know how many British Muslims do not register a civil marriage. Is that like, 90% of Muslim marriages? 9%? 0.9%?? Are we talking a handful of newly arrived immigrants and refugees? Needs more context. OP sounds like someone afraid of Sharia councils making like Eddie Murphy and coming to America.

 

[Darwin333]

Wait, so people didn't get married in the eyes of the government and the issue is they have to answer to some Sharia council that has zero legal authority over them? What exactly is the problem, either fill out the paperwork if you want to get legally married or don't, if whatever religious council you adhere to tries to make you do some bullshit you don't want to do then tell them to fuck off.

 

[OutHouse]

some Sharia council that has zero legal authority over them?

apparently in Allah land, they do have legal authority.

 

[zerocool84]

Wait, so people didn't get married in the eyes of the government and the issue is they have to answer to some Sharia council that has zero legal authority over them? What exactly is the problem, either fill out the paperwork if you want to get legally married or don't, if whatever religious council you adhere to tries to make you do some bullshit you don't want to do then tell them to fuck off.

If it was that easy obviously it wouldn't be a problem. It turns into a government problem as well.

 

[Darwin333]

apparently in Allah land, they do have legal authority.

Yeah but they are in the UK so they can just say "peace out bitches", right? Or are you talking about Allah land as in when they die they go to whatever their version of hell is because they didn't properly fellatiate the people on some council?

 

[Darwin333]

If it was that easy obviously it wouldn't be a problem. It turns into a government problem as well.

I'm asking why isn't it that easy? It seems like it would be that easy, it sounds like it would be that easy and I have seen nor read anything that says that it isn't that easy. I'm not outright saying that it is that easy, I am honestly asking, why isn't it that easy?

 

[woolfe9998]

Wait, so people didn't get married in the eyes of the government and the issue is they have to answer to some Sharia council that has zero legal authority over them? What exactly is the problem, either fill out the paperwork if you want to get legally married or don't, if whatever religious council you adhere to tries to make you do some bullshit you don't want to do then tell them to fuck off.

Yes, exactly. Sharia Council has no legal authority whatsoever. Individuals can submit their legal matters to them and abide by their ruling if they so choose. It's exactly the same thing as voluntary secular arbitration, except the arbitrator's rules come from religion. I honestly cannot understand this furor over Muslims voluntarily agreeing to abide by the rulings of a religious council.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council

 

[Darwin333]

Yes, exactly. Sharia Council has no legal authority whatsoever. Individuals can submit their legal matters to them and abide by their ruling if they so choose. It's exactly the same thing as voluntary secular arbitration, except the arbitrator's rules come from religion. I honestly cannot understand this furor over Muslims voluntarily agreeing to abide by the rulings of a religious council.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council

More importantly is how will it anything change? If they are already voluntarily agreeing to some dumbfuck council I don't see how making the marriage legit in the eyes of the law is going to change that.

 

[pmv]

Yes, exactly. Sharia Council has no legal authority whatsoever. Individuals can submit their legal matters to them and abide by their ruling if they so choose. It's exactly the same thing as voluntary secular arbitration, except the arbitrator's rules come from religion. I honestly cannot understand this furor over Muslims voluntarily agreeing to abide by the rulings of a religious council.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council

It's purely voluntary arbitration with no legal force at all.

However, it does involve a great deal of _social_ pressure, from the community and the local religious authorities (sometimes influenced by Saudi money, ultimately). So there is a genuine problem, but it doesn't seem like a simple one for the state to address. It's about the power of culture and social norms and the need to fit in. (Plus that wretched Saudi influence. But then we supply arms and occasionally go to war to defend that Saudi influence, so...)

Perhaps the proposal in the article makes sense. Though surely, to say that 'religions' have to register marriages with the state, would require the state to officially recognize and auhorise religious bodies? Who decides what is an official 'religion' and an official religious marriage? I'm not entirely sure the state should be getting involved in that. Insofar as it is is already involved, with the C of E, I think it should get out of it (disestablishment now!).

I suspect a big part of it is the tendency of many men in the British Muslim community to import a more malleable wife from 'back home' rather than marry a British-raised Muslim woman. The women coming from places like Pakistan often just don't know anything about how the system works or what their rights are. (Though, then again, I would have thought that if there wasn't a state-recognised marriage, immigration law wouldn't let them stay anyway).

 

[Ventanni]

Or, could just do it the way the United States does. Officiants have to register with the state, and they are free to be a part of any religion (or no religion) as they choose.

I'm not British, but I see these Sharia courts creating a much bigger problem than they're solving. If Sharia courts operate outside the rule of law of the land, then you get messes like this where neither marriages aren't even recognized. But if you suddenly allow them to become a legally recognized court, then you have legally enforced laws and judgements being passed that aren't in accordance with the rest of the country. In other words, you might as well have a brand new country, because what's the point of politicians? Lawmakers? Judges? Prime Ministers?

The entire point of a nation is to have a rule of law that everyone agrees on and lives by. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot see British and Sharia Law being able to co-exist. Different laws, different country.

 

[Jhhnn]

The answer is easier than people think. Here in CO, any written declaration of marriage, even just mutual assent, means you're married with all the legal rights & obligations attached by law. Lengthy cohabitation establishes the same thing. Both parties have the same rights in civil court.

Having to register a marriage to obtain the same legal status just allows for weaseldom.

 

[pmv]

The answer is easier than people think. Here in CO, any written declaration of marriage, even just mutual assent, means you're married with all the legal rights & obligations attached by law. Lengthy cohabitation establishes the same thing. Both parties have the same rights in civil court.

Having to register a marriage to obtain the same legal status just allows for weaseldom.

Interesting. Maybe that would indeed be the solution. A substantial number of people mistakenly think that's already how it is (when it actually isn't, there being no such thing as a 'common-law marriage'). But does that not create other problems? How is 'lengthy cohabitation' defined, and how is it decided, if a couple separate acrimoniously, whether it was such a cohabitation or not? Bearing in mind, as well, the existence of same-sex marriages. One party says it was cohabitation, the other says they were just sharing a house! Does that never become a dispute there?

 

[Nashemon]

Interesting. Maybe that would indeed be the solution. A substantial number of people mistakenly think that's already how it is (when it actually isn't, there being no such thing as a 'common-law marriage'). But does that not create other problems? How is 'lengthy cohabitation' defined, and how is it decided, if a couple separate acrimoniously, whether it was such a cohabitation or not? Bearing in mind, as well, the existence of same-sex marriages. One party says it was cohabitation, the other says they were just sharing a house! Does that never become a dispute there?

Oh it absolutely does! Especially after same-sex marriage became lawful. Lots of straight men are now married to each other.

Just kidding. Both parties have to mutually agree to be married.

https://www.colorado-family-law.com...colorado-common-law-marriage-requirements.htm

 

[pmv]

Oh it absolutely does! Especially after same-sex marriage became lawful. Lots of straight men are now married to each other.

Just kidding. Both parties have to mutually agree to be married.

https://www.colorado-family-law.com...colorado-common-law-marriage-requirements.htm

Well, if Colorado is an example of a place where the law is actually that way round and it works out OK without lots of acrimonious disputes, then that's genuinely interesting to know.

Because it gets proposed every now-and-then but never goes anywhere, because people get upset at the idea of the state unilaterally 'marrying' them to each other. It's not unreasonable for people to think if they wanted to be treated as married they would actually get married. But I personally think it's a trade-off between different sets of potential problems, so it's significant to see what problems actually arise in practice.

 

[deathBOB]

There is a Court of Jewish law in the US that some Jews adhere to that is similar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Din_of_America

I’m sure other religious groups have similar arbitrators.

Ultimately they’re voluntary, but the effect can be binding if your deeply enmeshed in a religious community. I don’t see how it’s any different than the other kinds of controls that religious communities can exert on individuals.

 

[zinfamous]

What does this have to do with toaster/human marriages? You know, the only kind that I recognize.