What did the 2018 Home Office review recommend about sharia councils and women's rights?
Executive summary
The 2018 independent Home Office review concluded that Sharia councils in England and Wales are not courts and have no legal jurisdiction, but that some councils practise in ways that disadvantage women and therefore stronger safeguards were needed to protect their rights [1] [2] UKPRINT.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3]. Its core recommendations focused on encouraging civil registration of marriages, running awareness and education campaigns for women about legal rights and remedies, and developing regulatory or oversight measures (including a code of practice or self‑regulatory body) to prevent discriminatory practice—while stopping short of state regulation that would present councils as an alternative legal system [4] [5] [6].
1. The findings: women are the overwhelming users and some councils harm them
The review found that the overwhelming majority of people using Sharia councils are women, that most attend seeking an Islamic divorce, and that a “significant number” of Muslim couples have not registered civil marriages—leaving some women unable to obtain a civil divorce or access family‑law remedies under English law [3] [2] [4]. The report recorded evidence of concerning practices: some councils pressured women to make concessions to secure a divorce, had inadequate safeguarding policies, and failed to signpost women to civil legal remedies [2] [7].
2. Primary recommendations: civil marriage, education and signposting to legal remedies
To reduce women’s vulnerability the review recommended that religious (nikah) marriages should be linked to civil registration—advocating legislation or statutory measures to ensure civil marriage occurs before or at the same time as a nikah—so more women would have access to civil divorce and family‑law protections [7] [5]. It also urged awareness campaigns and educational programmes to teach women about their rights, responsibilities and the availability of legal aid, with the explicit aim of lessening reliance on Sharia councils for matters that require civil law protections [4] [6].
3. Regulation and oversight: code of practice versus state regulation
The review proposed measures to ensure Sharia councils operate within the law and adopt non‑discriminatory processes, including the creation of a code of practice and a proposed self‑regulatory body combining council members and family‑law specialists to implement best practice and safeguarding [5] [6]. However, the Home Office response made clear it would not pursue statutory regulation of Sharia councils—arguing that formal regulation could risk presenting them as an alternative to UK law—though it said it would consider the remaining recommendations [8].
4. Legal framing and limits: no parallel legal system, but state justified to intervene in bad practice
The review repeatedly emphasised that Sharia councils have no official legal or constitutional role and their decisions are not legally binding under English law, warning that mislabelling them as “courts” fuels public misconceptions about a parallel legal order [1] [3]. Nonetheless the panel concluded the state would be justified in intervening where council practices disadvantage women, and recommended measures to bring councils into compliance with civil law and human‑rights protections [1] [3].
5. Diverging perspectives, political context and limitations of the review
Critics argued the review under‑specified the scale of the problem and worried its terms, membership and framing risked reinforcing hostile narratives about Muslim communities [9] [7]. Supporters of stronger action pointed to anecdotal accounts of women being pressured into staying in abusive marriages or denied fair divorce outcomes [10] [2]. The Home Office’s refusal to legislate for formal regulation reflected political caution about religious freedom and integration messaging [8], and the review itself acknowledged gaps in evidence and variability between councils, meaning it relied heavily on stakeholder testimony rather than systematic population‑level data [9].
6. Bottom line: practical safeguards, not abolition, as the recommended path to protect women
The 2018 review recommended pragmatic, targeted steps—promote civil marriage registration, educate and signpost women to civil legal remedies, and establish codes of practice and oversight mechanisms—to reduce the risk that Sharia council practice will leave women without legal protection, while stopping short of outlawing or fully statutorily regulating councils [4] [5] [8]. The recommendations were explicitly framed as measures to protect vulnerable women rather than to suppress religious dispute‑resolution in Muslim communities, even as debate continued over adequacy and implementation [1] [6].