One Law for All? The Clash Between Sharia Law and British Democracy

The Fight to Ensure Britain Defends Laws That Protects Everyone Equally

Sharia law, meaning “the path” in Arabic, is the system of rules derived from Islam’s sacred texts: the Qur’an, the Hadith (the recorded sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad), and centuries of legal interpretation by Islamic jurists. It governs every aspect of life: prayer, diet, personal conduct, business, inheritance, marriage, and criminal punishment.

In Islam, sharia is not seen as man-made but as divine law. It is unchangeable and binding on believers for all time. Because of this belief in its divine origin, the system does not evolve through democratic reform or public consent. Its authority comes from God, not from the people.

That distinction is crucial, because it makes sharia fundamentally different from the legal systems of secular democracies, which are created, amended, and repealed by elected representatives.

In Britain, the law changes as society changes. Parliament has reformed marriage laws, extended the vote, decriminalised homosexuality, recognised same-sex marriage, legalised abortion, and protected women’s rights in the workplace. Courts have also overturned ancient injustices, such as the rule that once made it legal for a husband to rape his wife, a protection finally established as recently as in 1991.

Each of these reforms happened because citizens campaigned, argued, and won democratic consent. The principle is simple: the people are sovereign, and no text or ideology is above scrutiny.

Sharia operates on the opposite premise. Its rules are considered eternal and not subject to public debate or legislative amendment. That is why, in countries where sharia is enforced as state law, women cannot claim equal status in marriage or inheritance, homosexuality remains a criminal offence, and abortion is tightly restricted or prohibited. The law is bound to religious interpretation rather than to the will of the people.

Throughout history, Islamic scholars developed various schools of jurisprudence, but all align on key principles that result in gender inequality, fixed punishments for moral or religious offences, and legal distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Today, sharia law forms the legal foundation of states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, and influences parts of the legal systems in Pakistan, Sudan, and northern Nigeria. In these jurisdictions, sharia courts have genuine judicial power. They can sentence people to flogging, amputation, or execution. They can dissolve marriages, deny custody, or restrict speech and worship. Their authority overrides any secular statute.

That matters in Britain.

Here, sharia has no official legal standing. Yet a network of self-described “sharia councils” or “Islamic tribunals” operates in parallel to British family law. These bodies present themselves as religious courts, issue rulings on marriage, divorce, and inheritance, and claim moral authority over their communities. They are not legally binding, but in practice, their influence can be coercive. Many women, particularly in close-knit or conservative communities, feel pressured to accept their rulings to avoid social shame or exclusion.

In 2018, the government’s own Independent Review into Sharia Law in England and Wales confirmed what campaigners had been saying for years. It found widespread inequality, discrimination against women, and confusion about the legal status of religious marriages.

The panel made three clear recommendations.

1. Change the law so that Islamic marriages must be registered as civil marriages. That simple reform would ensure women have the same legal protections as any other wife in Britain.
2. Launch national awareness campaigns inside Muslim communities so couples understand their rights — and the risks — when marriages aren’t registered under UK law.
3. Create a statutory body to regulate sharia councils under a binding code of practice, monitored by legal and women’s rights experts, to prevent discrimination and protect users.

None of these recommendations were ever implemented.

There is still no requirement for Islamic marriages to be registered. There is no national education campaign. And there is no statutory regulator. The result is a patchwork of self-appointed religious bodies operating outside the state’s oversight, answering to no one, applying rules that contradict the principles of equality before the law.

It’s not ignorance. It’s neglect. The government knew exactly what needed to be done. It simply chose not to act. This creates a dangerous illusion that there can be two systems of justice running side by side. One governed by equality before the law, the other by religious rules that subordinate women and silence dissent.

I'm not here to question is not whether individuals should be free to follow their faith. They should. My question is whether a democratic country can allow any parallel system to operate in ways that contradict the law of the land?

To answer that, we must be honest about what sharia law actually prescribes, how it operates where it holds power, and why its enforcement cannot be reconciled with the principles that underpin British democracy.

What follows are five core areas of conflict, from gender and family inequality to freedom, punishment, and citizenship, showing precisely why sharia law is incompatible with the United Kingdom’s legal order and moral foundation.

1. Gender and Family Inequality under Sharia

Sharia’s approach to gender runs through every area of personal and family law. It assumes unequal roles between men and women, granting authority to one and conditional rights to the other.

a. Marriage and Divorce

A husband can end a marriage by unilateral repudiation, talaq, without appearing before a court. A wife must seek consent or petition for divorce under narrow conditions, often surrendering her financial rights. In some jurisdictions, a woman who leaves the marital home can lose maintenance or custody.

In Britain: Divorce is a legal process open equally to both spouses, decided by independent courts, with financial settlements based on fairness and not gender.

b. Polygamy

Sharia allows a man to marry up to four wives if he can “treat them equally.” Women, however, may not have more than one husband.

Historical context:
In seventh-century Arabia, frequent tribal warfare left many women widowed or without male protection in a society with no welfare system or inheritance equality. Allowing men to take multiple wives was intended as a social stabiliser. It was a way to provide security for women and children when the survival of the tribe depended on it. Even then, the Qur’anic text added a warning: “if you fear you cannot deal justly, then marry only one.”

What might once have been a pragmatic measure for survival becomes, in a modern democracy, a mechanism of inequality. In a society where women have full legal rights, property ownership, and social protection, polygamy is no longer compassionate. It is unjust.

In Britain:
Bigamy is a criminal offence. Marriage is a legal partnership between two equal adults. The rights it confers - to property, pensions, and parental responsibility - depend on that equality. Multiple concurrent marriages would destroy the very idea of fairness on which family law rests.

c. Male Guardianship

In many countries that apply sharia, a woman cannot marry, travel, or work without a male guardian’s approval.

In Britain: Adult women are full legal citizens with complete autonomy over their choices. No one may legally act as their guardian.

d. Inheritance

Under sharia, a son inherits twice the share of a daughter, and a widow less than a widower.

In Britain: Gender has no bearing on inheritance. The law treats men and women identically.

e. Testimony in Court

In some Sharia interpretations, the testimony of two women equals that of one man in financial cases.

In Britain: Every witness stands equal before the court; truth is measured by evidence, not by sex.

f. Dress Codes and “Morality” Laws

In places such as Iran and Afghanistan, women face fines, lashes, or imprisonment for appearing in public without mandated clothing or a male escort.

In Britain: Freedom of dress and expression are protected rights. The state cannot dictate morality or impose modesty codes.

Across marriage, divorce, inheritance, testimony, and personal freedom, the principle is consistent: sharia assigns men authority and women dependence. Such hierarchy has no place in a society built on equal citizenship. Does it?

2. Freedom of Belief and Expression

In sharia-based systems, apostasy, as in leaving or renouncing Islam, can be punished by imprisonment or death. Blasphemy laws criminalise criticism or satire of religion.

In Britain: Freedom of conscience and speech are absolute rights under the Human Rights Act. Citizens may believe, doubt, or disbelieve without fear of reprisal. The abolition of blasphemy laws in 2008 reaffirmed that no idea is above criticism.

3. Corporal and Capital Punishments

Sharia criminal law includes hudud penalties. These are fixed punishments for specific crimes such as theft, adultery, or apostasy. These include amputation for theft, flogging for drinking alcohol, and stoning for adultery by married offenders.

Historical context:
These punishments arose in a seventh-century tribal society without central government, police, or prisons. Justice was immediate, physical, and public, serving as deterrence in a world where exile often meant death. In that context, hudud represented the only enforceable form of order.

But modern societies have long moved beyond such systems. We have police forces, courts, due process, and prisons designed for rehabilitation. In today’s world, corporal punishment is not justice, it is considered as cruelty.

In Britain:
Article 3 of the Human Rights Act forbids torture or inhuman punishment. Our justice system is built on proportionality and the belief that even offenders retain human dignity. The world that produced hudud is gone; enforcing it today shows how irreconcilable sharia’s legal framework is with modern British values.

4. Religious Hierarchy and Citizenship

Under sharia, non-Muslims historically occupied a protected but inferior status, paying a special tax (jizya) and barred from certain offices. Some modern states that base their law on sharia still restrict non-Muslims’ political participation or worship.

In Britain: Citizenship is equal and secular. The law does not ask about belief, and the ballot box is open to everyone.

5. Human Freedom and Personal Dignity

Sharia jurisprudence regulated slavery rather than abolishing it, treating ownership of persons as lawful.

In Britain: Slavery and servitude are absolutely prohibited under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and Article 4 of the ECHR. Every human being is born free and cannot be owned or exploited.

One Law, One Nation: Why Britain Must Choose Equality Over Theocracy

In Britain, every citizen enjoys the same freedom: to believe, to worship, and to live according to conscience. Those freedoms exist because the law is secular, impartial, and accountable to everyone. The state cannot enforce a religious code, and no community can claim a separate justice system.

This principle protects Muslims, Christians, atheists, and everyone else alike. It allows each of us to live by conscience and worship freely, while ensuring that the law which governs our shared life is accountable to all.

History shows what happens when that balance breaks. The moment religion becomes a source of legal authority, disagreement turns into heresy and criticism becomes blasphemy. The law stops being a shield for every citizen and becomes a weapon for the few who claim to speak for God.

Democracy offers a different promise. It says that public life will be governed by rules made through debate, consent, and equality. Rules written by the people, for the people. That is what makes the freedoms we enjoy today possible. Private belief must remain private, and public justice must remain public. Only then can every citizen stand equal before the same law.

That is the choice before us. We either defend a single system of law that treats every person equally, or we allow parallel systems that divide citizens by faith and erode the freedoms we all depend on.

Sharia law is incompatible with British values and democracy.

It cannot coexist with a system built on equality before the law, freedom of conscience, and government by consent. The two are fundamentally opposed. One demands obedience to religious authority, the other depends on accountability to the people.

Britain’s strength lies in choosing the latter. We must never apologise for defending it. And we should do everything possible to protect it.

The next time a Muslim attempts to build a case for any form of Sharia Law to be applied in the UK, ask them a simple question. Just what sort of United Kingdom do they really want to live in? Let me know how they respond.

I am Raja Miah. It is now seven years since I first started to expose how politicians protected the rape gangs.

If my words have ever helped you make sense of a broken system, if they’ve ever made you feel seen, heard, or hopeful, please don’t scroll past.

🔴 Support my work. This fight is far from over.

There are no paywalls to access any of my work. I share all of my content for free.

As well as sharing my work on social media and running online workshops, each month, I travel across the country to meet with ordinary people. I charge no speaker fees. Nor do I claim a single penny in expenses.

All I ask in return, for that those that can afford to do so, to support me from just £3/month or £30/year. That’s 75p a week. Pennies to most - everything to help keep me going.

🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution?
👉 http://BuyMeACoffee.com/recusantnine
👉 http://paypal.me/RecusantNine

This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another.

- Raja 🙏