Sharia: The Quiet Erosion of Britain’s Rule of Law

Britain’s ascent to global prominence was no accident of geography or sheer martial prowess. Its rise was shaped by a unique confluence of factors: the Industrial Revolution, fueled by a culture of innovation; a naval dominance that secured global trade routes; and a political stability rooted in constitutional monarchy. Above all, however, it was the rule of law that provided the framework within which these forces operated effectively, ensuring fairness, predictability, and trust that became synonymous with British success. It rested upon an unyielding commitment to the rule of law—the idea that all individuals, regardless of rank, race, or creed, were equal before a neutral and predictable judiciary. This steadfast adherence made Britain the global gold standard for commerce, attracting entrepreneurs and innovators from across the globe. Yet today, this principle faces an unprecedented threat from within: the proliferation of Sharia Councils. These quasi-legal religious bodies, though ostensibly advisory, sow the seeds of legal pluralism, undermining the very bedrock of British success.

The Rule of Law: Britain’s Bedrock of Power

Britain’s embrace of the rule of law established a singular legal system that promoted trust, stability, and fairness. Rooted in the Magna Carta of 1215 and refined through centuries of legal tradition, the principle of legal equality helped unify a fractious kingdom and facilitated its transformation into the world’s most influential empire. Business flourished because traders and industrialists could operate in an environment of clear rules and impartial arbitration. As Lord Denning, one of Britain’s most renowned jurists, remarked, "The rule of law stands for the supremacy of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power." Britain’s legal impartiality offered that freedom—and its global reach was a testament to its success.

Contrast this tradition with systems based on personal status or religious law, where outcomes hinge upon one’s faith or gender rather than justice. Such fragmentation breeds distrust, inefficiency, and inequality—a far cry from the clarity that made Britain the workshop of the world.

Sharia Councils: A Parallel System Emerges

Since the establishment of Britain’s first Sharia Council in 1982, their presence has grown to at least 85 across the UK. Operating outside the formal judicial framework, these councils primarily address family matters, including marriage, divorce, and inheritance, within the Muslim community. While proponents argue they provide culturally sensitive advice, critics see a growing parallel legal system that threatens Britain’s cohesive rule of law.

Consider the troubling inequities inherent in Sharia proceedings, where studies indicate that over 80% of cases in some councils involve women seeking divorce, often facing barriers such as required payments to obtain an Islamic divorce or being pressured to reconcile with abusive partners. Testimonies from affected women reveal systemic bias, with one reporting she was asked to provide evidence of her husband’s infidelity even after enduring years of domestic violence. These accounts highlight the pervasive inequalities within such systems. A Muslim man may divorce his wife unilaterally by declaring “Talaq” three times, while a woman must navigate a labyrinth of male-dominated tribunals for the same outcome. Prominent figures like Haitham al-Haddad have drawn scrutiny for espousing views that institutionalize gender inequality. Women seeking redress often find themselves at the mercy of councils that prioritize tradition over fairness, using religious doctrine to justify discriminatory rulings.

Several egregious cases highlight the severe consequences of such systems. In Pakistan, a nine-year-old girl was forcibly married to her rapist under a Sharia ruling, a decision that sparked global outrage but was upheld locally due to religious justification. In another horrifying case, a man who raped another man’s sister was punished by being allowed to rape the sister of the original rapist, a decision handed down by a local Sharia council that drew international condemnation for its barbarity and inherent injustice. Similarly, in Nigeria, a woman facing domestic abuse was denied a divorce because her husband refused to grant his consent, despite overwhelming evidence of violence. Even in the UK, women have reported being pressured into accepting custody arrangements that severely limit their rights, with some councils citing outdated interpretations of religious texts to justify these outcomes. Such cases underscore the systemic flaws and the potential for abuse inherent in parallel legal systems.

Moreover, these councils’ lack of formal oversight allows inconsistencies and abuses to persist. While technically advisory, their decisions hold significant sway in Muslim communities. A ruling from a Sharia Council may not be enforceable under UK law, but its social power can be coercive, discouraging vulnerable individuals from asserting their rights in British courts.

Legal Fragmentation: A Threat to Equality

The existence of separate legal mechanisms, even informal ones, undermines the core British principle of “one law for all.” Such fragmentation weakens societal cohesion by creating divisions among citizens who perceive unequal treatment based on religion or culture. It also risks economic instability, as businesses rely on a predictable and unified legal framework to operate effectively. When confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the legal system erodes, trust diminishes—both among individuals and within the marketplace—thereby threatening the social and economic fabric of the nation. By allowing faith-based councils to operate, Britain risks fragmenting its legal system and diluting the equal protections guaranteed by law. When individuals perceive that different rules apply based on religion or culture, trust in the legal system erodes.

Historical examples underscore the dangers of legal pluralism. In the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire’s millet system allowed religious minorities to govern themselves under their own laws. While initially a means of accommodation, it ultimately fostered division and weakened the empire’s cohesion. A similar fate could await Britain if it permits parallel legal systems to flourish unchecked.

Efforts to regulate Sharia Councils have faced stiff resistance. A 2018 review commissioned by then-Prime Minister Theresa May called for greater oversight, but critics warned that regulation would grant legitimacy to an inherently unequal system. Similarly, Baroness Cox’s private members’ bill sought to ensure that Sharia rulings comply with UK law, but its progress stalled amid fierce opposition from multiculturalist factions.

Reform or Reaffirmation of the Rule of Law?

Proposals to improve Sharia Councils, such as the Muslim Women’s Network’s voluntary code of conduct set to debut in 2025, aim to standardize practices and ensure compliance with equality laws. However, experiences from countries like Germany and Canada, where efforts to integrate religious tribunals into the legal framework have been met with significant challenges, highlight the limitations of such reforms. In Germany, attempts to mediate family disputes through Sharia-compliant arbitration have faced criticism for perpetuating gender inequalities, while in Canada, a public backlash led to the outright rejection of Sharia-based arbitration in Ontario in 2005. These examples demonstrate that while reforms may bring incremental improvements, they often fail to address the core issue of ensuring equality within a unified legal system. However, these initiatives fall short of addressing the fundamental problem: the existence of a separate adjudicatory system based on religion.

The British government must reaffirm its commitment to a singular, impartial legal system. This means enforcing existing laws requiring all marriages to be registered with civil authorities, ensuring that women seeking divorce have full access to British courts, and unequivocally declaring that no religious tribunal can supersede the authority of the state.

As Winston Churchill observed, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” A fragmented legal system may serve the interests of specific groups in the short term, but it corrodes the shared legal framework that underpins a unified and prosperous society.

Conclusion

Britain’s global ascendancy was built upon the rock-solid foundation of the rule of law—a principle that ensured fairness, predictability, and equality for all. Yet the rise of Sharia Councils threatens to chip away at this cornerstone by introducing religiously-based inequities and undermining public confidence in the legal system. If Britain is to remain a beacon of justice and commerce, it must resist the encroachments of legal pluralism and reaffirm the timeless ideal that made it great: one nation, under one law, with justice for all.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.