"Two thirds of Muslim marriages in the UK are unregistered"

I was just reading and one comment in there stood out in there to me:

There is nothing which prevents Muslim Marriages being registered under the Marriage Act 1949 but in practice only 120 Mosques are registered under the Act and unofficial estimates I have been given suggest that only around one third of the Muslim Marriage ceremonies (Nikah) performed in Britain are registered under the Marriage Act. The remaining unregistered wedding ceremonies are in fact illegal under s75(2)(ii) of the Marriage Act and the Imams involved could face up to 5 years imprisonment but it is a crime the Police seem to simply ignore.

Why are they not registered?

and isn't this just a situation that is ripe for abuse?

I know of someone who got married and never registered the marriage at first - and his wife did feel insecure that she may be abandoned by him.

He did so a few months later when he found out the tax rules would be more favourable to him if he was registered married.

How many polygamous marriages do you know?

Would they really be the majority?

Besides, it is even possible to get them all registered legally - as long as the ceremonies for the later ones were not carried out in the UK but some other country that allows polygamy - marriage is something that all countried AFAIK are legally obliged to honour.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
How many polygamous marriages do you know?

1

We delayed getting our marriage registered - that was cos our Islamic marriage was more than enough recognition of our union and also we couldnt be bothered going through a 'second' wedding when the first one was so full one...it's also expensive.

We only made ourself get around to do it because we were leaving to live and work abroad and quickly learnt that our islamic marriage certificate would not be recognised overseas.

You wrote:
Why are they not registered?

and isn't this just a situation that is ripe for abuse?

I know of someone who got married and never registered the marriage at first - and his wife did feel insecure that she may be abandoned by him.

Maybe because people feel they will get no justice if they register their marriages and have to resort to the courts which will not judge by sharia but statue/common law...

The alternative is open to abuse - it appears to be a problem of being between a rock and a hard place...

Registering a marriage does not prevent a husband abandoning a woman - he can simply state talaq and go - marriage is over.

That is not the only form of abuse - a more common situation is where he will go but will not give talaaq and will argue that the marriage is valid, ruining her life for an extended period of time.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
That is not the only form of abuse - a more common situation is where he will go but will not give talaaq and will argue that the marriage is valid, ruining her life for an extended period of time.

That is not the only form of abuse?

A husband giving talaq and leaving is abuse? The logic being...?

bad choice of words.

Now get lost.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
bad choice of words.

Now get lost.

LOL not sure if you have heard of a word called sabr - it is a good thing to practice - preferable to abuse.

When you compare the people returned to Makkah under the treaty of Hudaybiyah with adultery and its punishment, I have no sabr.

I have not come across another Muslim who would dare talk about those people in the same terms - not even the shia who would wait and say they went wrong (na'udhubillah) after the passing of the prophet (saw).

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
When you compare the people returned to Makkah under the treaty of Hudaybiyah with adultery and its punishment, I have no sabr.

I have not come across another Muslim who would dare talk about those people in the same terms - not even the shia who would wait and say they went wrong (na'udhubillah) after the passing of the prophet (saw).

One is not comparing the people of mecca with those who committed adultery. You are.

I am comparing the example of people being returned to mecca and what can be drawn from it in terms of bonds - nothing.
Likewise, those stoned to death in medina were companions - the prophet(saw) even criticised a companion for using a term of abuse of one woman who was so stoned saying she is now pure! - and what can be determined from the incident in relation to bonds? Nothing.

Your citation of an extreme case of Muslims being returned to mecca is less extreme than killing someone with that very bond - but the prophet(saw) ordered it.

This is the argument. You appear always to seek to respond to points not being made - and not respond to points actually being made. No argument can progress if one does not address the point being made in an argument - and no doubt it contributes to your frustration which it should not. You should exercise sabr. Especially as any debate or discussion will result in misunderstanding or points being missed by either side - unintentionally no doubt. That is why people debate - to get the other side's point and then respond to it why they think the reasoning or evidence has been wrongly utilised or otherwise agree with it.

"extreme case"? The treaty of Hudaybiyyah is now an extreme case and not something that ran for years?

The treaty recognised the bond of Makkans being Makkans - even if they were Muslims.

Now you can choose to not recognise that, your choice. But why are you still bringing up adultery and stoning into it? How is that relevant to them, other than as a comparison?

It is not hard to say "I was mistaken to use the two as a comparison" is it? Especially if you do not believe the two compare?

Are you one person or multiple people pretending to by Anon1 or hmd?

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.