High Court’s use of fatwa sparks debate on sharia courts

A High Court judge’s decision to rely on a religious ruling from a British sharia council in a life-or-death case has sparked heated debate about the role of sharia courts in the UK. Critics argue that incorporating fatwas into civil court rulings risks undermining the principles of secular democracy, reported the Times.

The controversy stems from a 2019 case involving Tafida Raqeeb, a five-year-old girl suffering severe brain damage with no prospect of recovery. Facing the withdrawal of life support by Barts Health NHS Trust in London, her Bangladeshi parents sought advice from the Islamic Council, founded by preacher Haitham al-Haddad.

The council issued a fatwa declaring it “absolutely impermissible” to consent to ending Tafida’s life support, calling such an act a grave sin.

In his ruling, Justice Macdonald cited the fatwa, acknowledging that continuing life support aligned with the family's Islamic beliefs. Tafida was subsequently moved to a Vatican hospital in Italy, where she remains under care.

The National Secular Society expressed alarm over the use of fatwas in English courts. Its chief executive, Stephen Evans, warned that granting legitimacy to such religious rulings could jeopardise the UK’s legal framework and secular values.

Haitham al-Haddad defended the Islamic Council’s involvement, describing the case as a “landmark” for its guidance on ethical and religious matters. He stressed that the fatwa upheld the sanctity of life while respecting the family’s wishes, consistent with Islamic principles.

The case has reignited broader concerns about the influence of sharia councils in Britain. These councils, often referred to as sharia courts, typically handle cases such as Islamic divorces but have been criticised for their handling of women’s rights and controversial practices.

Fiyaz Mughal, founder of the anti-hate group Tell Mama, called for the abolition of sharia councils, describing them as outdated and dismissive of modern safeguarding standards. “These councils belong in medieval times,” Mughal said, arguing that their interpretations of Islamic law often disadvantage women.

The Times investigation highlighted other contentious practices linked to sharia councils, including polygamy and the “triple talaq” divorce, where men can end marriages instantly. Dr Paul Stott of the Policy Exchange think tank criticised the UK’s failure to enforce laws against polygamy, calling for urgent reforms.

Haddad’s council has also drawn scrutiny for initiatives such as a sharia-compliant will-writing app, which includes a dropdown menu for men to declare up to four wives. Haddad himself has faced backlash for visiting the Taliban in Afghanistan last year, a trip he described as a fact-finding mission to promote peace.

The use of a fatwa in a High Court decision has left many questioning the boundaries between religious and secular law in the UK. While some see it as a compassionate recognition of cultural values, others argue it risks eroding the country’s commitment to equality and liberal democracy.