As I’ve pointed out before, Sharia marriage is not recognised in UK law

Getting married should be one of the happiest times in a woman’s life, but for some Muslim brides the fairytale can suddenly come to a shocking end.
Rukhsana Noor and Habiba Jaan both found themselves homeless and hundreds of thousands of pounds in debt after they learning that their Sharia marriages were not recognised under UK law.
Both women’s stories are told in a new Channel 4 documentary, The Truth About Muslim Marriage, which exposes the plight of women who discover they have no legal rights after their ‘marriage’ falls apart.
Habiba, a mother of four, found out that she was never legally married to her husband because they’d never registered the marriage. When she begged him for a civil ceremony she discovered that he was actually legally married to someone else.

And thus, obviously, nor is polygamy.

This isn’t, either, some mark of the oppression of Muslims or anything. It is the civil marriage which is the legal part, not the religious one. The standard CoE wedding, when the five (? priest, couple, two witnesses) go off stage for 5 minutes is when the marriage, in the law, actually takes place. The rest is whatever we want to call it but it ain’t the legal part of it all.

I’m actually quite keen on the Portuguese system. Any ceremony you like, anywhere, why the hell not. But if you want the legal protections and rights of a legal marriage then you have to, without exception, rock up to the civil registrar and go through the same process as absolutely everyone else. The advantage being that everyone really does therefore know what’s a legal marriage.

I’m even happy with the idea of no legal recognition of marriage at all on absurdly libertarian grounds but agree that’s just not ever going to happen.

37 comments on “As I’ve pointed out before, Sharia marriage is not recognised in UK law

  1. I can see how this story is going to go without even reading it. Brown-ish Muslim men are horrible to brown-ish Muslim women. And yet it is all White Christian Britain’s fault.

    One of the many joys of immigration is being lectured by our Guests on why everything is our fault.

  2. Surely these Muslim women have been instructed in Sharia law? Why then do they not simply accept it’s provisions?
    They can’t have both the protections Sharia offers and the protection of the common law. They need to choose.

  3. Fvck em, our gaff our rules (at least for the moment). And if they did not lead entirely unintegrated and separate lives they would know what the rules were.

  4. Its not like it is even a complex requirement, you either need the marriage registered by a CofE Vicar or a registrar. In Baptist churches and other denominations the registrar will come along to the service and do the deed there, in fact some ministers will go the extra step and be a licensed registrar as well. Presumably it need be no different with marriages in Muslim mosques.

  5. Totally agree with Tim: it makes sense for two co-habiting people to make a contract which is recognised in law and provides certain entitlements (in particular in relation to inheritance), in return for the well-known fact that the mutual support provided reduces some burden on the state.

    This contract should be registered by some suitable state functionary and have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It is then up to the contrahents to have their union blessed by whomever they choose.

    And furthermore, the legal contract should be available to any two co-habiting partners, straight or gay, or even siblings – it should not be based on sex. It’s just a recognition of a long-term supportive partnership. The churches can then be free to bless whomever they feel entitled to be blessed and do not have to be press-ganged into “marrying” people they don’t think can be married.

    Would solve a lot of problems, if you ask me…

  6. Caveat uxor
    Here in France I’ve seen a few randy little bastards try to get away with it, but generally the bride’s Dad insists on the registration.
    If he’s too thick, illiterate, extremist then tough.

  7. the plight of women who discover they have no legal rights after their ‘marriage’ falls apart.

    They have the right to piss off back to Cousinfuckistan.

  8. @Pat “They can’t have both the protections Sharia offers ” – whats that then – beatings , treated as a breeding sow and can be divorced by the triple talaq. Some protection.

  9. The Scottish system appears to be almost similar to the Portuguese system, except that clergy (which presumably includes Imams, no idea what the Shia do?) can be, and in the case of the Church of Scotland are automatically, “authorised celebrants”.

    You still have to fill out all the forms etc, but just don’t have to front up to the registrar after the wedding.

  10. I’ve just checked the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 and Islamic celebrants are entitled to solemnise legal marriages:

    a minister, clergyman, pastor, or priest of a religious body prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, or who, not being one of the foregoing, is recognised by a religious body so prescribed as entitled to solemnise marriages on its behalf;

    National Records of Scotland note that temporary authorisation can be obtained for a range of belief (ie not just religious) systems and the Humanist Society Scotland*, for example, has a number of authorised celebrants.

    * As does the Humanist Fellowship of Scotland. I know it is part and parcel of Scottish “religious” tradition, but it’s nice to see that the Humanists have splitters too 🙂

  11. Sharia marriages are not exactly biased in the favour of protecting the female parties to the arrangements.

    “I divorce you” said n times is enough to break it off, after all…

  12. “Islamic celebrants are entitled to solemnise legal marriages”: thank God a spellchecker didn’t misbehave there.

  13. ‘Both women’s stories are told in a new Channel 4 documentary, The Truth About Muslim Marriage, which exposes the plight of women who discover they have no legal rights after their ‘marriage’ falls apart.’

    Of course they have legal rights. Leaving one to wonder what Channel 4 is trying to sell. Are they trying to prove they are ignorant, or, more likely, Western Civilization is bad?

  14. From wiki re UK.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_Kingdom

    “Polygamous marriages legally performed in another country where the law allows it are legally recognised for the purposes of welfare benefits, but not for pension, immigration or citizenship purposes.[1][2] It is unofficially believed that there are up to 20,000 polygamous marriages in the Muslim community of the U.K.[3] There are also social media platform for polyagamous match-making such as SecondWife.[4]”

  15. “The advantage being that everyone really does therefore know what’s a legal marriage.”

    If she was begging for the civil bit, sounds as though she knew fine well she was on rocky ground.

  16. Sneezer,

    So poor fucking Brits can be done for bigamy, whereas out ‘Guests’ don’t?

    Are they allowed to rape kuffars too?

  17. Wichie,

    It sounds like you will be ok if you marry multiple women in a country that recognises polygamy, but doing it here would be a bad idea.

    Can you imagine what having more than one wife would be like?

  18. “having more than one wife”: come, come; the classic joke refers to having more than one mother-in-law.

  19. The Daily Wail is descending to Grauniad levels with this article. The Child Maintenance Service – the replacement for the nearly-useless Child Support Agency – is there to force the non-husbands to pay their ex-“wives” enough money to feed and clothe the children.

  20. I’d also be happy for “marriage” to be completely abolished as a state contract, if people wish to sign up to legal protections and responsibilites they can sign themselves into a contract, just as the Quakers used to do before Quakers were allowed to solomise marriages.

    People forget that “marriage” is just that, a state-backed civil contract between two parties that many other contractual arrangements passport into other arrangements. If you’re one of these people that bang on about wanting the protections of marriage without getting married, then yes, go ahead, you can do everything “marriage” gives you the DIY way by signing up a joint tenancy/mortgage, writing up joint wills, entering into joint contracts, buying joint pensions, buying insurance with specified beneficiaries, recording with your doctor a designated next of kin, everything. It’s just “marriage” does it all in one go for you, and it only costs thirty quid and five minutes time.

  21. Can you imagine what having more than one wife would be like?

    Especially when their special lady-times synchronise.

  22. “and it only costs thirty quid and five minutes time”

    [Spits coffee on monitor]

    Cost me far, far more . . . approaching infinity.

  23. “Especially when their special lady-times synchronise.”

    That’s when your man cave becomes a purdah.

  24. Sharia marriages should be recognised in UK law and they get just the one. Any more and they are arrested and rapidly deported for bigamy.

    Any arriving here with more than one women in tow would be informed that if allowed into the UK they will be arrested for bigamy so they should save everybody time and trouble by going elsewhere right off.

  25. Surely individuals wanting to be ‘married’ should be able to wherever and however they choose. A witnessed contract should be all you need.

    What interest has the state with ratifying personal relationships?

  26. Gamecock
    I have a horrible feeling the end result they are hoping for is a foothold for Sharia in English law.
    With politicians of the calibre, backbone and concern for British culture as Theresa May in charge then expect a complete capitulation by a week next Wednesday.

  27. BiB–If they are supporting their spouses/kids that’s one thing. If they are signing on to a subsidised breeding program to replace white folk then they can fuck off. Not even with one wife let alone four.

  28. ‘is that an oblique reference to Bill Hicks’ “Doublemint” routine?’

    Whose what? It was a reference to the possibility that there might not be a one-to-one relationship betweens one’s wives and one’s MILs.

  29. Not sure how it works back in the UK but over here there is legally recognition of “de facto marriages”; basically if you live together as if you are married then the law will treat you as if you are married.

    There isn’t a set time limit for your relationship to become de facto but, generally speaking, if you have been living together as a couple for three years, or are living together as a couple and have kids, then you are in a de facto marriage. As yes, if you break up, then the courts can demand a legal split of jointly created assets and even income support.

    One of my cousins was lucky that my grandparents didn’t trust his girlfriend and so kept his education trust going after he had graduated … when they split up she wanted access to some of his income but he actually earned less than she did with large, discretionary, top ups coming from the trust. I told him that he should try and get a share of her income so that she learnt her lesson but he didn’t want anything to do with her!

  30. “BiB–If they are supporting their spouses/kids that’s one thing. If they are signing on to a subsidised breeding program to replace white folk then they can fuck off. Not even with one wife let alone four”

    Mr Ecks, but it still shouldn’t be the state’s business. AFAIK there isn’t a ‘subsidised breeding program [sic] to replace white folk’. There are people having babies but that’s what people do. Would you like the state to have control over how many children is allowable?

    Sure, the state can provide border controls, but sanctioning people over what’s marriage and what isn’t is a peculiar throwback.

  31. Not sure how it works back in the UK but over here there is legally recognition of “de facto marriages”; basically if you live together as if you are married then the law will treat you as if you are married.

    You seem to have kept our recognition of what used to be “common law marriage”. I’m not sure whether it was the tax man, the introduction of immigration controls, the welfare state, or societal prod-noserey that did that in, but the lack of recognition in statute law has now become a total lack of recognition in practice.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.