London in spotlight as Sharia councils fuel debate over Islam in the UK

London is at the center of a global debate over whether religious tribunals influence life in Britain’s largest city. Formed in 1982, the Islamic Sharia Council in East London is one of at least five Sharia councils in the capital that issue rulings on personal disputes such as marriage, divorce and financial arrangements. Critics say these councils amount to a parallel civil legal system that can clash with English law and, they argue, sometimes privilege men in family matters. The controversy has spilled into international headlines after Donald Trump, in a speech to the United Nations, accused London of moving toward Sharia law under Mayor Sadiq Khan, a charge Khan has dismissed as unfounded.

The 2017 Home Office review identified about 85 Sharia councils operating across the United Kingdom, with London, Birmingham, Bradford and Dewsbury described as hubs. Many operate out of or alongside mosques, and some counts rely on informal networks rather than formal registries. Supporters insist the councils handle civil matters only and preserve space for Muslims who prefer to settle disputes without engaging secular courts, though critics say the lack of full legal status can lead to tensions with the country’s secular framework and may affect women’s rights in some cases.

The issue has also spilled into courtrooms. A 2020 briefing from the House of Commons Library cited cases in which some councils were accused of discriminatory practices toward women, including instances where wives were asked to pay their husbands to obtain a divorce. Advocates for reform say such findings highlight the risks of a system that operates outside the statutory framework. Defenders stress that Sharia councils have no legal status in England and Wales, and any rulings are advisory rather than binding on state courts.

The debate intensified when a fatwa from an Islamic Sharia Council was cited by a High Court judge in the Tafida Raqeeb case, involving a critically ill child. The judge noted the fatwa as part of the parents’ arguments but described it as a restatement of the sanctity of life, not a decisive factor in the decision to allow further treatment. Secular campaigners argued the episode showed how religious considerations could gain legitimacy in English law, even as the court emphasized that the fatwa did not drive the ruling.

The wider landscape includes other religious tribunals with jurisdiction over different matters. The Church of England operates tribunals for issues such as church property and clergy conduct, while Jewish Beth Din and Catholic tribunals handle spiritual issues and marriages within their communities. Proponents say pluralism is a feature of a diverse society; opponents warn of creeping parallelism that may sideline secular protections.

Public exchanges on the issue have become highly political. In Britain, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage sought to downplay the significance on talk radio, arguing that Sharia is not an imminent or comprehensive program in London and that the mayor has not linked himself to it. Khan has repeatedly rejected Trump’s characterization. After Trump’s remarks, Khan called the president racist, sexist and Islamophobic, saying the allegations reflected the speaker’s views rather than reality and urging audiences to evaluate them critically. The exchange comes amid broader debates about free expression and religious sensitivities, including a separate case in which a protester who burned a Koran was prosecuted for a public order offense, drawing criticism from free-speech advocates who argued the move risked blasphemy-type restrictions in practice. In the same period, a knife attack in a related incident led to calls for restraint and a renewed focus on how religious tensions are handled within a diverse city.

Beyond London, the sharia question has shaped conversations about how Britain accommodates faith-based dispute resolution. While lawmakers and judges emphasize that Sharia councils operate outside the formal legal framework, the persistence of parallel dispute-resolution networks continues to fuel political and legal scrutiny. The government has signaled an interest in transparency and oversight, alongside advocates who say engagement with communities is essential to resolving disputes while upholding secular protections. The evolving narrative underscores the tension between pluralism and the primacy of civil law in a multicultural society.