Today the City Circle will host the launch of a new Muslim marriage contract negotiated by leading Islamic organisations and clerics in Britain.
Muslim couples will now have greater equality under this new contract, which provides written proof of the spouses' marriage and their agreed terms and conditions.
Previously, upon divorce, for example, in the absence of written proof, women have faced difficulties in securing financial rights guaranteed to them under Shariah (Islamic) law.
Currently Muslims in Britain have an informal marriage ceremony called the nikah. However, written proof of the terms and conditions of the marriage is absent and the nikah is not legally binding in British law. Thus women are not afforded the rights and security guaranteed both by Shariah and English law.
The new Muslim marriage contract, therefore, guarantees more rights for women and is a move towards equality relevant to the role of Muslim women in British society. Now the husband will have to waive his right to have more than one wife. Previously, the husband could informally enjoy having up to four wives under Shariah law.
Furthermore, the contract does not require a wali for the bride - a male guardian as required by some Islamic schools of thought. The new contract also allows the wife an automatic right to initiate divorce, talaq-i-tafweed, and retain all her financial rights guaranteed under the contract. However, this does not affect the existing right of the husband to seek divorce, talaq. Lastly, the marriage contract will not need to have two Muslim male witnesses present, as has traditionally occurred. Instead any 'two adult witnesses of good character', whether they be Muslim or not, will suffice.
Along with preparing the new contract, the Muslim Institute is encouraging mosques to become places where marriages are registered under the 1948 Marriage Act, so that they are recognised under English law, thus allowing Muslim couples access to British courts.
Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, Director of the Muslim Institute and author of the contract, said:
"It will challenge various sharia councils who don't believe in gender equality but the world has changed and Islamic law has to be renegotiated...Many Muslims in this country have a 'village' background, with Muslims from Sylhet in Bangladesh or in Pakistan where the local Imam performs a nikah, without proper registration or properly recording that such a ceremony has taken place. But in Britain, more marriages are breaking down and young people have said that we need to update things."
"This contract is revolutionary and will lead the way in addressing problems that exist under sharia law. Although it is only the tip of the iceberg, it is a revolutionary step, nothing like this has happened in 100 years. "
Dr Usama Hasan, director of the City Circle, said:
"Too many fathers have abused their right of wilayah (guardianship) over their daughters and too many husbands have abused their right of initiating divorce for us to continue with law rooted in patriarchal societies. It is high time that Muslim women enjoy the same rights and freedoms under Islamic law as they do under present legal systems in the UK."
Anything to do with shariah should be outlawed in this society. There is enough evidence for vigelantism and threats of violence in the Muslim community against those who breach it, for it to constitute a challenge to the writ of common law. The idea of it being a purely voluntary arrangement is a fiction. There is so much totally unacceptable material in this un-reformable complete system (or set of schools) of law that the use of any part of it in a liberal democracy should not even be considered.
The hype surrounding this 'new' Muslim marriage contract ('aqd un-nikaah) strikes me as deliberately misleading; brimming as it is with histrionics and hyperbole. A number of the reports on this have referred to a 'new' contract: there is nothing new in the document in terms of Islamic jurisprudence. Articles are couched in familiar progressive terms such as 'equality' and 'revolutionary' whilst nothing could be further from the truth.
The all too familiar names and organisations behind this 'initiative' are presented as crusading modern Muslims, who have secured some sort of coup by 'reinterpreting' the edicts of monolithic Islamic law. Supporters would have gullible readers believe that they have engaged in some sort of fictional dynamic fiqh, wresting control of the most primitve and objectionable aspects of Islamic contract law from the claws of 'Islamists'; thumbing their noses at primitivists such as Imam al-Ghazali and Ibn Hazm as they 'risk' extremist sanction in a bid to pry open the gates of ijtihad.
Much is made of the possibilty of involving non-Muslims as witnesses, when in reality, unless Muslim couples are 'desperate' and the ceremony takes place in a registry office, non-Muslims are unlikely to take part or be invited. I would be interested to see the juridical documents and scholarly texts used to obtain such a dispensation. Nonetheless, I can't help but theorise that Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs, not to mention atheists, would be excluded from undertaking such a duty.
Also rather spurious is the zealous spin cast on the purported abrogation of the Quranic right to polygyny for those signing the document. Such a practice is illegal under common law and to advertise its supposed withdrawal as a right for Muslim males smacks of clutching at straws. Not only does the document allow for such a stipulation to be 'renegotiated' by way of an amendment, it steers clear of the (for Muslims) minefield of abrogating a 'divinely'-ordered male right.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this 'new' contract's circulation in the media, is the fact that its advocacy for the pre-eminent role of 'UK-based Shari‘ah panel/body/council(s)' in the marriage and resolution process has been passed over without comment. We note in the the contracts T/Cs:
Those involved in drawing up the contract make plain their desire to see 'more mosques registered for civil marriage'. No doubt a contract such as this is one of the 'carrots' that will be used to lobby for more civil marriage registration in mosques.
But the most tragic part of such a piece of legislation is that it will further exacerbate the already frightening gulf between UK Muslims and non-Muslims. Orthodox Jews already live, and have for some time, lived parallel lives in the UK, possessing little outside contact with the 'natives'. Their relatively small numbers have ensured that issues of social cohesion have remained a minor issue.
The same is not the case with the Muslim community, with ever-increasing populations centred disproportionately amongst a few major cities. Surely, any such initiative that seeks to 'modernise' the experience of UK Muslims in society should not be predicated on 'exclusivity'. Such contracts and their underlying motivations only serve to increase a sense of 'difference' antithetical to good community relations. Furthermore, with organisations such as the MCB and individuals such as Ghayasuddin Siddiqui involved, non-Muslim citizens can be forgiven for thinking that 'social cohesion' was an afterthought in the drafting process.
Until marriage between non-Muslim men and Muslim women is endorsed and even promoted by organisations such as the MCB and the Muslim Parliament, we will continue to sustain and nurture religious bigotry and undermine any chance we might have of developing a patriotic and cohesive modern society.
When John Smiths are allowed to marry Ruksana Begums (and Meeta Patels - Hinduism is just as bigoted) without running the risk of violent repercussion for not changing their religion, then we can cherish a truly multifaith, multicultural society. As we stand, with more thinly-veiled attempts to recognise relgious bigotry in law like this, the UK as the native home to indigenous Christian Britons looks like a distinctly unappetising prsopect in the 21st century.