Advance UK’s Vision for the UK: Restoring Legal Sovereignty

Advance UK is a new political party led by Ben Habib, a prominent figure in UK politics and former MEP. The party’s campaign is largely built on a platform of restoring national sovereignty and drastically reducing the influence of foreign laws and bureaucracy. The party is known for its firm stance on Brexit and its determination to reverse the constitutional damage to the United Kingdom by supranational bodies.

Advance UK’s Campaign for One Law: The Question of Faith and Civil Society

In a diverse United Kingdom, religious and civil law frequently coexist in tension. Many communities manage family and moral issues through faith-based systems such as Sharia councils, Jewish Beth Dins, and church tribunals. While these systems provide spiritual guidance, conflicts arise when they touch on universal human rights, particularly over equality, marriage, and freedom of belief. The public must be made aware that these religious proceedings offer no legal safeguards outside a civil registered marriage.

The cornerstone of the Advance UK campaign, beyond the immediate issues of the Northern Ireland Protocol, is a firm commitment to the principle of ‘one law’ across the entire United Kingdom. The party contends that the only legitimate legal system in the country should be British common law, derived from parliamentary sovereignty.

The existence and role of Sharia councils in Britain, are the subject of contentious debates. Advance UK are opening up conversation to the question of ‘Faith and Civil Society’. Many view Sharia Councils as creating a damaging parallel legal system. This is the focus. This article is focused on the legal protections afforded with a state registered marriage and the lack of legal protection of a spiritual marriage that is not registered with the state. The issue of Islam in a Constitutional Christian, democratic, political, or legal framework is not discussed.

Nuances in Terminology: Sharia, Council, and Law

To look for solutions to any problem in life, one must look with understanding, to where agreement and contention exist. With that in mind, we are compelled to examine and understand Sharia. It is important to distinguish between three common terms used in the UK, as their different meanings heavily influence public debate:

Sharia (The Concept): This term refers to the divine, overarching moral and ethical guidance derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad). It represents the broad, aspirational path to a righteous life for Muslims. This conceptual meaning is generally accepted across the Muslim community but carries no legal weight in the formal, legal, and institutional framework of the state.

Sharia Council (The Institution): Sometimes incorrectly referred to as Sharia courts. A Sharia Council refers to people not a physical building. Islamic scholars are the operational advisory body or tribunal established within the UK Muslim community. The Islamic scholars authority is based on community-recognised religious credentials. Their function is to provide spiritual and religious guidance and advice, primarily family matters like the religious marriage (Nikah) and religious divorce (Talaq). Explicitly, they operate outside the UK judicial system and have no state-backed enforcement powers. This unregulated status means individuals who rely on their rulings for marriage or divorce have no access to the legal protections, financial safeguards, or child arrangement jurisdiction of the UK courts.

Sharia Council (Location and Regulation): These Councils typically operate from a Mosque or Islamic Centre. The spiritual and community role of Sharia Councils is freely exercised under the UK’s principles of religious liberty, but any activity that moves from faith-based advice into legally recognised or professional domains brings it within the scope of UK regulatory oversight.

Sharia Law (The Application): This term (law) is often used to describe the specific legal rulings or principles applied by the Sharia Councils. In public debate, this term (law) frequently conflates the advisory religious principles with the power of an actual judicial system, leading to the confusion that a separate, operational legal code is functioning alongside British law. From a theological standpoint, there is nothing in Islamic jurisprudence that prevents Sharia councils from applying for the necessary civil registration to perform wedding ceremonies that are simultaneously recognised as legally binding UK marriages.

Whilst the terms refer to the same overarching religious framework, understanding the distinction between the spiritual idea (Sharia) and the actual, operational organisation (Sharia Council) is vital for the public debate. And the actual legal meaning is also crucial for productive dialogue. The public debate about Sharia, needs to be factual and able to distinguish between the spiritual function and the state obligations to comply with UK law.

The Divine Authority: Sharia as the Path to Righteous Life

Sharia is a body of religious law and moral guidance derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad). Sharia is understood as the divine path to living a righteous life, defining justice, social welfare, and personal conduct. For devout believers, rulings based on Islamic jurisprudence are considered the authoritative application of Islamic law and divine obligation that must be obeyed. This foundational belief establishes a system of religious law that is derived from spiritual command, not parliamentary statute. 

The Reality of Authority: The Mufti’s Interpretive Role

In traditional Islamic jurisprudence, the religious scholar provides expert advice, giving an official religious ruling on difficult questions concerning Islamic family rules and personal conduct. This role is advisory and educational. Sharia councils, in their actual function, mirror this Mufti role: they rely on Islamic religious legal principles to provide guidance on family and religious status. Their authority is strictly religious and moral, seeking a faith-compliant resolution, but they do not possess state power to enforce their judgments.

The Missing Judicial Power: The Qadi’s Role in Traditional Islamic Governance

The fundamental difference in how law is administered is defined by the Qadi. Historically, the Qadi was the state-appointed judge in an Islamic country, whose rulings were binding and enforced by the governing state authority. The Qadi is the true equivalent of a British judge, as they possess official, state-backed power to administer the law. Crucially, the office of the Qadi, and the state power it holds, does not exist in the United Kingdom. This is why the Sharia Councils, which offer only religious advice, inherently lack the judicial power necessary to create a truly parallel legal system.

The Perception Gap: Confusion of Traditional Terminology

The perception that Sharia councils represent a parallel legal system is often fuelled through traditional Islamic terminology. Terms like “court,” “judge,” or “tribunal” may be used internally by the community and sometimes by media to describe the proceedings. This usage is rooted in the powerful historical role of the Qadi court. However, when applied to a modern British Sharia council, this language immediately conveys an institutional status and legal power that does not exist. However, it still causes public confusion about their true limitations.

Marriage and Divorce: The Core Domain of Religious Custom

The primary jurisdiction of Sharia councils involves personal status law, specifically religious marriage (Nikah) and religious divorce (Talaq or Khula).

It is essential to understand the difference between the two forms of marriage and divorce:

UK Civil marriage, is a state-registered marriage and has legal protection for both parties and children from that union.

A religious marriage (Nikah) has no legal protection for either party or children.

UK Civil Divorce is the legal process concluded by a UK court, which grants a decree absolute and simultaneously resolves all financial and property matters, offering mandatory legal protection to both spouses.

Talaq  (literally divorce) is a religious procedure—a pronouncement by the husband (Talaq often followed by a mandatory religious waiting period known as Iddah, typically three menstrual cycles) or a religious ruling by the Sharia Council—that dissolves the religious and spiritual bond (Nikah). It is entirely separate from UK law and carries zero legal weight. A Talaq does not provide access to the UK family court’s powers to divide assets, manage child arrangements, or ensure spousal maintenance. It does, however, provide a power imbalance because this is reserved for men only, 

The Legal Remedy: Why Civil Registration is Essential

If a couple has only a religious marriage (Nikah)—whether performed in the UK or overseas—they are legally classed as cohabiting partners. As cohabitants, they are denied access to the fundamental financial and property protections guaranteed by UK family law.

For such a couple, the only reliable legal remedy available in the UK is to hold a separate, official civil marriage ceremony at a registry office or licensed venue.

This act of civil registration creates the necessary legal contract, which immediately unlocks the full jurisdiction of the UK Family Court. Without this civil contract, the court cannot order the division of marital assets, shared pensions, or spousal maintenance, even if the religious relationship is dissolved by a Talaq or Khula. The civil marriage is the essential step required to guarantee legal equality and financial security for both parties.

Key Areas of Legal Conflict

There are two major areas where the advice from Sharia councils is routinely criticised for directly conflicting with the core principles of UK civil law, particularly the Equality Act 2010.

1. Gender Equality in Financial Matters: UK family law dictates that financial and property settlements upon divorce must be fair and equitable, ensuring both parties are protected regardless of their gender. Sharia principles regarding inheritance and divorce settlements, however, often mandate unequal distribution in favour of the male spouse. The Sharia counsel can leave women exposed, with no legal recourse when they rely solely on the council’s religious ruling and no financial safeguards guaranteed by UK law.
2. Polygamy and Welfare Abuse: The UK recognises only monogamous marriage, and bigamy is a criminal offence under British law. While a Nikah ceremony may permit a man to take a second wife religiously, this union has zero legal standing in British law. However, the reality is that the state often turns a blind eye: government bodies, particularly the welfare and benefits system, frequently acknowledged these non-registered polygamous arrangements when calculating housing and other support for individuals. This creates a costly contradiction where the state effectively subsidises unions it deems illegal and unenforceable. The second wife (and any children from that union) are denied the essential legal protections, succession rights, and financial security provided by a civil marriage contract. Sharia Councils that facilitate or advise on these non-registered unions effectively direct individuals toward a path that contradicts the law, leaving women legally vulnerable while simultaneously straining the public purse.

The Established Model: Church of England (C of E)

The legal status of a wedding conducted by a Church of England or Church in Wales minister is fundamentally different because of its historical position as the established church of the state. A marriage performed by C of E clergy is automatically a legally binding civil ceremony. The minister is state-recognised and licensed under the Marriage Act 1949 to act as a Registrar the moment they sign the official civil documentation. The religious rite and the civil contract are completed by the same person, at the same time, in the same location. Then legally obliged to deliver or send the signed register to the local Superintendent Registrar to ensure the marriage is officially recorded in the state’s civil records.

This integrated model ensures the religious and civil obligations of marriage are immediately compliant with British law, providing full legal protection to both parties from the conclusion of the ceremony. 

The General Model: Non-Established and Non-Christian Faiths (Sikh, Hindu, Muslim)

For all religious groups that are not the established Church of England or Church in Wales, which includes all other Christian denominations and every non-Christian faith, the path to legal marriage recognition is strictly regulated by civil law, specifically the Marriage Act 1949. This means that a Sikh Anand Karaj or a Hindu Vivah is not legally binding under UK law unless specific civil requirements are met.

1. Registered Buildings: The religious building (mosque, gurdwara, temple, non-conformist church, etc.) must first be officially certified and registered with the local authority as a place where legal marriages can be formally conducted.
2. Authorised Person: The religious ceremony must be conducted in the presence of either a local Superintendent Registrar or a member of the clergy/priest/granthi/Imam who has been specifically authorised and registered by the state to act as a civil registrar for that building.
3. Registration and Submission: Crucially, the signed legal register must be completed at the time of the religious ceremony by the Authorised Person. This person is then legally obliged to deliver or send the signed register to the local Superintendent Registrar to ensure the marriage is officially recorded in the state’s civil records.

If these steps are followed, the marriage is legally binding and the religious rite coexists seamlessly with civil law. If they are not, the couple is legally treated as cohabiting partners. Legally, the UK only recognises a marriage if it has been registered, regardless of the ceremony’s name or religious origin, which ensures the union is protected by law.

The Historical Exceptions: Two faiths enjoy a unique historical exemption that allows their religious ceremonies (Jewish and Quaker) to be conducted without being restricted to a registered building, but they must still be registered by an authorised person for the marriage to be legally valid in the UK. This demonstrates that even these exceptions are firmly rooted in and accountable to British civil registration requirements.

The Constitutional Conflict: Legal Supremacy and Parallel Systems

The existence of religious bodies operating within the UK that issue rulings based on a separate religious legal code inevitably leads to a constitutional conflict with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The debate centres not on the right to religious practice, but on whether any religious structure should be seen to rival or compromise the universal protection offered by British civil law.

The Superiority of UK Law: A Constitutional Analogy

The UK system operates on a clear legal hierarchy, where the Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial authority, and all lower courts must defer to the rulings of the higher courts. This hierarchy establishes the absolute supremacy of British law. Religious councils, including Sharia councils, must operate strictly subordinate to this legal structure. Their decisions can never override, contradict, or substitute for a ruling made by a UK court. If a Sharia council’s advice conflicts with the Equality Act 2010 or family law, the British law always prevails.

The Constitutional Breach: Marriage Registration as the Flashpoint

The most significant constitutional challenge relates to civil registration. Many Muslim marriages are not simultaneously registered as legal marriages under UK law. These couples are cohabiting. This means that if a woman is married only religiously, she has no legal standing in a UK family court. In the event of a divorce or domestic dispute, she is left reliant solely on the Sharia council for resolution. This is allowing practices that funnel vulnerable women away from civil protection, the UK system is considered tacitly endorsing a parallel structure where one does not constitutionally or legally exist, creating discriminatory outcomes regarding financial settlements and child arrangements.

The Arbitration Act 1996: Choice, Not Ambiguity

The legal status of Sharia councils is often misunderstood. They are sometimes compared to the framework of the Arbitration Act 1996, which allows private bodies, such as the Jewish Beth Din, to resolve disputes. The Beth Din chooses to follow the Act’s procedural safeguards, enabling their arbitration rulings to be enforced by the UK High Court.

In contrast, Sharia councils generally choose not to comply with the mandatory procedural rules of the 1996 Act. Academics and community leaders argue that Sharia council rulings should be viewed as non-binding religious mediation. Crucially, the impediment to legal recognition is not complexity, but the choice by these bodies to remain unregulated. This lack of compliance allows the councils to prioritise religious autonomy over the state’s legal safeguards, resulting in their advice having no legal force and directly underscoring the divergence between state law and religious custom.

The State’s Constitutional Abdication

The failure of successive governments to address this issue decisively is a clear case of constitutional abdication. The state’s primary duty is to ensure the universal application of British law and its guarantees of equality for all citizens, regardless of religious background. By permitting religious bodies to operate unchecked in the critical domain of family law, and by failing to mandate co-registration of religious marriages, the state has effectively allowed religious autonomy to compromise fundamental legal rights. This passive non-intervention creates a legal vacuum where vulnerable individuals—primarily women who rely on religious-only rulings—are systematically denied the financial safeguards and judicial redress guaranteed by the UK legal system. The abdication lies in tolerating a situation where access to justice depends on actively opting in to the civil system, rather than having legal protection as the immediate and universal default. This directly undermines the singularity and supremacy of British law, which Advance UK seeks to restore.

Religious Services: Towards a Co-existing Pathway

The key to eliminating the perception of a ‘parallel legal system’ is to establish a co-existing pathway that ensures deeply meaningful religious rites and services operate strictly within the framework of British law. The Jewish Beth Din offers religious services, such as overseeing the Get (Jewish religious divorce), and facilitates civil arbitration under the UK’s Arbitration Act 1996. Crucially, Jewish marriages in the UK are typically required to be registered civilly alongside the religious ceremony. This model demonstrates how religious practice can co-exist with the state, ensuring that all parties retain full access to the financial protections and legal remedies of the UK courts.

The Potential Advance UK Solution: Mandated Civil Registration (Opt-Out)

The most effective way to resolve the constitutional conflict and ensure equality under British law is to mandate that a legal register or official document be completed at the time of the religious ceremony. This document would be designed to treat the religious marriage (the Nikah, Anand Karaj, or Vivah) as automatically including the civil registration, making legal protection the default status.

Under this proposed system, the religious authority would be required to facilitate the completion of a civil registration form during the ceremony. The couple would be required to sign this form, formally recording their choice. They would have the option to opt out of the civil registration by signing a specific declaration on the form, but this action would be a conscious and recorded legal decision. This ensures the couple’s choice is on record and makes the failure to gain civil rights a clear, documented decision by the marrying parties, rather than the current scenario where couples must actively opt in to gain civil rights. This proposal is crucial because the current practice of only performing the religious rite results in couples being legally classified as cohabiting partners, carrying serious legal consequences.

This solution, which was also recommended by the 2018 government review on Sharia law, involves:

1. Mandate Civil Registration: Legally requiring Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu couples to register their marriage civilly at the same time as their religious ceremony (e.g., Nikah, Anand Karaj, or Vivah ceremony), unless a formal opt-out is recorded.

Potential Outcome: This simple change would immediately extend the full protection of UK civil law—including access to legal aid, judicial review of assets, and safeguards against domestic violence—to thousands of women currently only married religiously. By legally anchoring these marriages in British law, religious councils would be effectively elevated to a compliant religious function, making the perception of a threatening “parallel legal system” largely redundant.

Advance UK’s focus is on an agenda of restoring legal integrity and securing fundamental British sovereignty. The central policy solution to this, as detailed here, is the mandated civil registration (Opt-Out) for all religious marriages. The core of this agenda is a firm commitment to ensuring British law remains the sole legal authority across the nation, alongside a significant cutback on state bureaucracy.