The Sharia Inquiry: Background and Context

The migration, settlement and integration of minority ethnic com­munities into western state democracies have led to fierce debates over the nature of public legal policies that aim to accommodate and recognize different forms of minority ethnic pluralism(s) and socio-legal practice.³ One feature of this is the emergence of the ‘multicultural family’, one that is shaped by multiple cultural and legal frameworks, overlapping with the complexities of hybrid and contested identities based upon cultural, religious and ethnic affili­ations.

It was under this context in November 2016 the then Home Secre­tary Theresa May MP announced the Sharia Inquiry to be headed by Professor Mona Siddiqui. The focus of the Inquiry was to examine whether sharia law is being misused or applied in a way that is in­compatible with the domestic law in England and Wales. More spe­cifically, it raised questions on the potential discriminatory practices experienced by Muslim women as primary users of sharia councils. Examples of abuse, the experience of ‘limping marriage,’ Muslim di­vorce and legal regulation therefore lay at the heart of the Inquiry.

Prior to its investigation and the subsequent publication of the In­quiry report, it is important to note the tensions and divergence of objectives that became evident between women’s rights groups. The announcement of the Inquiry led to some of the most forceful cri­tiques from prominent feminist, religious and secular women’s human rights groups. Several feminist and secular women’s human rights groups openly criticized the Inquiry for the composition of the panel members, the lack of appointment of women’s rights advocates and legal experts (with the expertise in national and international laws) and serious concerns over the impartiality and transparency of the Inquiry which led to some groups boycotting the Inquiry.

An open letter by Pragna Patel and Gita Sagal to the Home Secre­tary Theresa May MP opposing the terms of reference stated,

By making these religious appointments, the government has lost a vital opportunity to examine the discriminatory nature of not only Sharia councils but all forms of religious arbitration fora including the Batei Din. Our fear is that in these circumstances, many vulnerable women simply will not want to give their testi­mony before theologians who legitimate and justify the very idea of Sharia laws on the grounds that it is integral to their ‘Muslim identity’. Indeed, the panel is set up much like the Sharia ‘courts’ themselves.⁵

Opposition to the Inquiry therefore focused on the rise of sharia coun­cils as a direct attack on access to justice for women and an erosion of their citizenship rights. Women’s rights advocates however presented a complicated picture. The publication of the open letter prompted concern from Muslim women’s groups that any opposition to the In­quiry would deny Muslim women the opportunity to draw upon their experience as primary users of sharia councils. The Muslim Wom­en’s Network organization therefore issued a counter letter. Shaista Gohir, Chair of Muslim Women’s Network UK, stated,

Muslim women are fed up of being used as political football and being treated like children.

Further adding,

Anyone advocating for the immediate shutting down of Shariah Councils are using women’s rights as a guise to further their anti faith agendas and do not represent the best interests of Muslim women. Abolishing Shariah Councils would result in Muslim women being trapped in abusive marriages and drive divorce ser­vices underground, leading to even less transparency and more discrimination.⁶

While taking such differences into account, the diversity of women in cautioning against any recognition of religious tribunals was universal and raises important questions as to whether religious legal pluralism constrains or enables women’s autonomy and creates gender-equitable outcomes. This is a theme that comes up in each of the chapters in this volume.