Journal of Muslim Affairs, Vol. 24, No.

1, April 2004

Marriage Solemnization among Turks in Britain: The

Emergence of a Hybrid Anglo-Muslim Turkish Law

IHSAN YILMAZ

Abstract
This study explains the development of a hybrid form of marriage solemnization practised
among Anglo-Turkish Muslims in London. In doing so it traces the background of most Turks
who have lived under, or are aware of, a legal system in Turkey, which has been transformed
by attempts at secularization within a Muslim social context. Thus, Turkish Muslims have
already had some historical experiences of combining an officially secular legal system with the
demands of their unofficial laws. Therefore, at least five patterns of marriage making can be
discerned among Muslims in Turkey. In Britain, these patterns have altered again to lead to
the creation of further hybrid forms of marriage solemnization. These various forms and the
reasons for their maintenance are explored in this paper. It is argued through these observations
that, far from abandoning their concern with religious and customary law coexisting with an
avowedly secular official system, Turkish Muslims have been successfully re-creating their own
version of what has been termed angrezi shariat—an English/British Muslim law.

Introduction
In classical Islamic theory, law is the revealed will of God, a divinely ordained system
preceding and not preceded by the Muslim state, controlling and not controlled by
Muslim society. Muslim definition of jurisprudence is knowledge of the practical rules
of religion. Islam is a system of state, society, law, thought, and art—a civilization with
religion as its unifying and eventually dominating factor. In particular, family law issues
have always been, to the Muslim mind, mental maps, cognitive frameworks and legal
consciousness even more closely associated with religion than other legal matters, and
therefore controlled by Islamic law.
Thus, many Muslims in Muslim and in non-Muslim countries relate themselves to
the Muslim law rather than to legislation of particular countries, especially in respect of
laws pertaining to marriage, divorce, inheritance and other matters of property and
business transactions. Some Muslim scholars have put much emphasis on family and
daily life, and not just on situations of dispute since to them ‘absorption usually comes
through mixed marriages, abandoning Muslim names, adopting permissive habits and
mental acceptance of non-Muslim laws and philosophy’.1 As Silbey points out, in the
post-modern age, ‘control of land or political organization or nation-state is less
important than power over consciousness’.2 Thus, it is important to understand the
norms and values which influence Muslim consciousness, conscience, and mind; and it
is well known that shari’ah is one of the most crucial sources of influence on Muslim
consciousness.

ISSN 1360-2004 print/ISSN 1469-9591 online/04/010057-10  2004 Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs
DOI: 10.1080/1360200042000212232
58 Ihsan Yilmaz

In this paper we will focus on the Turkish community in Britain and examine how
they deal with various aspects of civil and religious laws pertaining to marriage. The
settlement patterns of the Turks in Britain will be reviewed and marriage patterns will
be examined in the light of Islamic shari’ah, the English law and the hybrid current
practice.

Turks in Britain
Most of the research on British Muslims has focused on South Asians while the Turkish
community in Britain is under-researched. Due to the nature of data sources available
in Britain, it is not possible to verify the estimates precisely because the census data
seem to have failed to measure the Turkish population in Britain accurately. Thus,
there are a number of estimates ranging between 65,000 and 300,000 people of Turkish
origin in Britain.3 Britain was one of the first countries to accommodate a large number
of immigrant workers. Stemming from the colonial history, these immigrants were
coming largely from the Commonwealth. Turkey was not a main source in this regard.
Even though a number of Western European countries such as Germany made bilateral
arrangements regarding Turkish immigrant workers, there was no such arrangement
undertaken between Turkey and Britain.
In the late 1950s and 1960s a large-scale labour migration had taken place from
Turkey to Western Europe. Although many of the immigrant Turks went to Germany,
other receiving countries included France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and
Britain. Yet Turkish migration to Britain could be traced back a little further. The
British Empire annexed Cyprus in 1914 and the residents of Cyprus became subjects
of the Crown and a migration from Cyprus to Britain started in the early 1920s. By the
1930s, there were almost 1000 Cypriots in the country, even though most of them were
Greek-Cypriots; a few of them were Turks.4 During 1950s, Turkish-Cypriots began to
immigrate to Britain for economic reasons.5 By 1958, the number of Turkish-Cypriots
in the country was 8500.6 Their numbers increased each year as rumours about
immigration restrictions appeared in the media.7 After the independence of Cyprus, the
country joined the Commonwealth and until the Immigration Act of 1962, significant
numbers of Cypriots migrated to Britain. This Act affected the migration of Turkish-
Cypriots as when there were problems and unrest on the island they were allowed to
come to Britain. By 1964, the estimated number of Cypriots in the country was
78,846.8 Economic underdevelopment, communal hostilities and political uncertainties
resulted in emigration from the island in substantial numbers.9 The political unrest in
Cyprus after 1964 with violence, curfews and psychological frustration caused a sharp
increase in the number of immigrants to Britain. After the 1962 Act, smaller numbers
of migrants continued to come to Britain. Following the war in 1974, several thousand
Cypriots entered Britain.10 The number of Cypriots in early 1980s was estimated at
160,000 and 20–25% were estimated to be Turkish.11 The existence of Turkish-
Cypriots was instrumental in establishing links with the Turks living on the mainland.
Some of the early Turkish immigrants to Britain in the 1960s and 1970s were recruited
as workers and chefs in restaurant businesses of already established Turkish-Cypriots.
As Turks were not required to have visas until 1989, many of them came to
Britain freely.12 The majority of Turks initially subscribed to the idea of return but
only a handful of them could actually do so. The migration of Turks to Britain
took place mostly on an individual basis, not as families. Almost all of the early
generation came to London as single men, either unmarried or leaving their wives and
 Marriage Solemnization among Turks 59

children behind. The intention of returning and the feeling of insecurity prevented
immigrants from bringing their wives and children with them. Intentions to return were
strengthened by sending money home and investing there. Yet at later stages as the
myth of return began vanishing, family re-unification started. Several developments
such as changes in the country of origin, changes in the host society and internal
changes either to the individual or to the immigrant community acted as forces for
migrants to reconsider their position abroad. Eventually the idea of return lost its
salience by the increasing number of family unions that led to permanent settlement
abroad.13 Now what happens is that other than having properties in Britain they also
own properties in Turkey and every year spend their summer holidays there. This
suggests that they are here to stay without jettisoning, if adapting, their cultural
background.
The 1991 census seems to have failed to measure the Turkish population in Britain
accurately, as is the case with the Cypriot population.14 The growing number of new
Turkish-owned businesses in various fields, the increasing number of social, welfare
and religious organizations addressing a larger clientele and the growth in the popu-
lation of school-age children and asylum-seekers in recent years suggest that the
number of Turks is now somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000.
However, Turkish community is not evenly distributed across the country. As a
result of the process of ‘chain migration’, a reconstruction of their traditional milieus
in Britain became possible. Ladbury earlier found that there was a willingness to
stay here among the Turks.15 The use of social networks, kinship relations and
patronage has perpetuated the concentration of the Turks in the same quarters of the
city.16
Now almost all Turks live in Greater London and in surrounding districts of London,
and there are many Turks from the same village or district of a particular city. A kind
of village transplantation has taken place. An earlier research on Turks found that 54%
of the Turkish respondents preferred living with Turkish neighbours.17
Turks in London live mostly in northeast London. Today, the Turkish community
is visible in certain areas of north and northeast London such as Barnet, Enfield,
Edmonton, Wood Green, Palmers Green, Islington, Stoke Newington, Haringey,
Hackney and Tottenham. In south London, they live in Elephant Castle, Lewisham
and Peckham. Some others have settled in Lewisham, Southwark, the city of Westmin-
ster, Barnet, Kensington and Chelsea.
In sum, Turks are not evenly distributed across the country but concentrated in
certain areas to the effect of reconstructing Turkish mahallas or neighbourhoods. On
the other hand, diversity among these Turks along the lines of ethnicity, ideology,
culture, identity and religion is another obvious characteristic. As a direct result, the
traditional homeland Turkish culture, identity and diversity are, to a great extent,
reproduced and reconstructed in the British context as well, which paved the way for
the emergence of the Anglo-Turkish Muslim law.

Muslim Identity and the Shari’ah in the English Context

Religious groupings, particularly in the post-modern age, have emerged almost every-
where as a basis for denial of and resistance to assimilation. Religious and ethnic
minorities have been developing a variety of avoidance and resistance strategies.
Moreover, as a reaction, they reassert their identities. A reconstruction of forms of
community life has become a reality. As a result, a very diverse ‘post-modern’ picture
60 Ihsan Yilmaz

has emerged. In that picture one can easily identify the active resistance of these groups
to the assimilative ambitions of the legal system. This post-modern phenomenon is very
much observable for British Muslims. Instead of assimilation or adaptation along
expected lines, they have reordered their lives on their own terms.
In the English context, conflicts between the official laws and ‘unofficial’ Muslim law
have usually been seen as temporary and it has been believed that ethnic minorities
would soon learn and follow the law of the land. Indeed, some changes have come into
existence in the Muslim socio-legal sphere: the processes of urbanization and modern-
ization, in a long interaction process, have affected British Muslims’ lives and identities.
However, even after many years, assimilationist assumptions about their demise have
not turned into social reality. And at any rate these laws and customs have frequently
been a major basis for Muslims’ claim to distinctiveness, cohesion and differential legal
treatment.18 The English legal system has already recognized some partial rules and
regulations prevailing in ethnic minority communities.
The assumed ‘legal assimilation process’ of the Muslim ethnic minority could occur
in three stages. In the first stage, Muslims might be ignorant of particular legal
requirements and customary practices would continue. At the second stage, they would
learn to follow certain rules and requirements of the lex loci. At the third stage, it might
be argued that they would completely abandon their Muslim law and, in a rational
progression, would use only the English law. However, evidence does not suggest that
this third stage has come into existence. Laws and customs of Muslims, among those
of others, are still alive.

Marriages: Civil or Religious?

Islamic law does not distinguish between civil and religious marriages. However, the
state in the UK wishes to supervise the actual process of civil marriage in order to
prevent fraud and abuse. Should a religious ceremony take place in England without
fulfilling the preliminary civil requirements, the official law will not recognize this
marriage as legally valid. If a civil ceremony in an English registry office is followed by
a religious ceremony in an unregistered building, the religious ceremony does not
supersede or invalidate the civil ceremony and is not registered as a marriage in any
marriage register book. In other words, the civil ceremony is the only marriage which
English law recognizes. An unregistered Muslim marriage will be void even if the
parties knowingly and wilfully contracted the marriage.
Until 1990 Muslims could marry merely in a register office or a registered building.
A registered building needed to be a separate building certified under the Places of
Worship Registration Act 1855 as a place for worship only. Thus, although Christians
could use churches according to this rule, most Muslims could not have their marriages
officially solemnized in a mosque or community centre, since most mosques are not
separate buildings but are cultural centres used for different purposes such as com-
munity events and public meetings. As a result, in 1991 only 74 mosques were
registered buildings out of a total 452 registered as a place of worship according to the
1855 Act. However, an adjustment was then made in easing the requirement that there
must be a separate building in order for a place of worship to be qualified as a registered
building. The Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Act 1990 and the Marriage Act
1994 are two recent amendments to the Marriage Act 1949 that allow buildings to
become registered as ‘approved premises’ where a valid registration can take place.
Some mosques, rather than having present an official of the local registry office at the
 Marriage Solemnization among Turks 61

ceremony, have sought recognition of one of their own officials to act on behalf of the
registry. In such cases, a fully legalized marriage can be performed by a Muslim official
according to both Muslim law and English law, which is an interesting feature of plural
legality.
With the official registration of the marriage, the prospective husband is legally tied
down to the obligations of the marriage, but the couple are then still not socially and
religiously married. The spouses might be married under the official law, yet will not
be counted as married in the eyes of the community and they will abstain from sexual
intercourse until they get married religiously as well. Only after religious marriage will
they be able to consummate their marriage. Otherwise, their marriage would be
regarded as sinful and illegitimate from a religious and cultural perspective. This
indicates that it is the religious marriage that determines the nature of the relationship;
the official one is only seen as mere formality which is imposed by the state.
Solemnization of marriages according to Muslim law has been observed among
Muslims in Britain since the 1950s. Research in the late 1950s showed that Muslims
in Britain had three types of marriages: a legalized British marriage, a Muslim form of
marriage, and the un-Islamic relationship known as common-law marriage. At that
time, many couples started to observe both English and Muslim laws, for two reasons.
First, some Muslim couples, formerly married by a registrar, later submitted to a
religious nikah as well. Second, spouses who had a nikah only might ask that the union
be ratified by an official marriage as well, so as to safeguard the family’s and prospective
children’s status. After an initial period of insecurity, when some Asian marriages in
Britain might not have been registered, communities quickly learned the lex loci and
constructed their new rules in these matters. Virtually all Muslims have learnt the law
and register their marriages in accordance with English law.19
Most Muslims in England register their marriage first because of concerns of izzat,
knowing the couple are not actually fully married until the completion of nikah. In that
way, they prevent the groom’s possible abuse of the socio-legal situation of the Muslim
minority by just walking away after the first night or after a short while. As a result
Muslims, like other South Asians, developed innovative methods to counter these
problems. The total picture is that, if a Muslim couple want to marry, they will actually
marry twice. By doing so, they meet the requirements of both Muslim and English law.
In addition, they fortify the strength of nikah by incorporating official legal rules into
their unofficial laws.20

The Construction of the Turkish Muslim Law

Although secularization of law in Turkey had started since the Ottoman times, legal
provisions based on the Muslim law were, more or less, still in effect. In the field of
family law, all earlier reforms, however extensive they seemed, had not affected the
traditional Muslim law, which governed family life. The laws of marriage, divorce,
inheritance, and custody of children for Muslim families continued as before.
The new Turkish Republic under the reins of the Kemalist elite assumed that
cultural change could be imposed from above through the force of law. One of the
major expected changes was the secularization of society. However, it is now recognized
that the place and influence of Islam in Turkish social life have not changed a great
deal. Even though Islam has been officially removed from public life, which was firmly
based on the theory and practice of the Ottoman State, it is still deeply rooted in the
minds and hearts of the people. The Kemalist ideology, which had national, secular and
62 Ihsan Yilmaz

modern elements, could not fill the gap that Islam was supposed to have left. The state,
through its secular policies and programmes of westernization, has threatened the value
system of the Muslim people in the country without providing, at the same time, a
satisfactory and all-encompassing ideological framework that could have mass appeal
and could have replaced Islam. Local Islam survived despite all attempts of the state.21
Islam is pervasive in Turkish society, and this shows the failure of the Republican elite’s
attempts at making religion a private affair.
In the legal field, too, Islam still continues to influence people’s lives. With the
passage of time, the expectation that people would learn and follow only the official lex
loci by entirely abandoning the Muslim law turned out to be untrue. Yet even today,
there are continuing conflicts between the official legal system and the local law.
In the case of marriage, the attitude to the Turkish Civil Code turns to one of
outright conflict between the official law and Islamic rules or, more accurately, what the
people regard as rules of Islamic law. There exist a number of fundamental differences
between the secular civil law of Turkey and the unofficial Muslim local law. These
differences include the secularization of the marriage procedure. A legal marriage had
to be registered with the civil authorities and concluded in their presence. Religious
ceremony was made optional and carried no legal weight. A religious marriage without
official registration was made a criminal offence.
People in Turkey, after the reception and transplantation of the Swiss Civil Code,
have had three alternatives: avoiding the official law, following the Turkish state law, or
following a combination of the requirements of the Muslim law and Turkish law.
Evidence has shown that they preferred the third option. They have developed a new
hybrid Turkish Muslim law that amalgamates the rules of unofficial Muslim law and of
the state law.22
Under the official law, only civil marriages performed by authorized marriage officers
are allowed and recognized and this is safeguarded by the constitution.23 Article 16 of
the Civil Code states that the formalities of celebration commence with the submission
of the necessary documents by the parties to the marriage office at the place where they
are residing at the time. The authorities start inquiries to check whether impediments
to the marriage exist. The Civil Code provides that a marriage may be solemnized in
accordance with any religious rites if the parties desire but registration of marriage
preceding such a solemnization shall be necessary. Only after the celebration of the civil
marriage is a nikah permitted.24 If a civil ceremony in a register office is followed by a
religious one, the religious ceremony does not supersede or invalidate the civil cer-
emony and is not registered as a marriage in any marriage register book. The civil
ceremony is clearly the only marriage which the official law recognizes. The men and
women who perform a religious marriage ceremony without having made the legal
marriage contract are considered to be punishable.
Many Turkish citizens still prefer the informal or consensual marriage, or imam
nikahi. Sometimes they marry with imam nikahi without registration, which is not
recognized under the Civil Code. Marriages are performed by the imams without prior
celebration. Despite all the legal measurements governing marriage ceremony, the
authorities will not know of the incident unless a dispute arises. The majority of the
perpetrators of these alleged ‘crimes’ remain unpunished. In many cases, judges would
be tolerant with the convicted and would change the punishment from imprisonment
to a pecuniary punishment.
Data from the 1990s show that the importance of the religious marriage in the eyes
of the people still continues. Turkish people have learnt to combine the official and
 Marriage Solemnization among Turks 63

unofficial marriages. Even at the village level, the ratio of performing both marriages is
87.4%. Religious only marriages still occur in substantial numbers, in violation of the
official law.25
People prefer nikah to the civil ceremony, mainly for two reasons: first, they feel the
need to sanctify their marriages to be happy and, second, the formalities of official
marriage seem too cumbersome to handle. Compulsory medical examinations and the
number of supporting documents required make people hesitant about official mar-
riage. Early marriage is another reason for marriage by nikah for it would not meet the
official standards. It is even argued that the difficulty of divorcing is the main reason for
the popularity and widespread practice of imam nikahi.26
In another scenario that exemplifies another kind of nikah arrangement, people marry
religiously with a nikah and count this as an engagement, and if they agree in all aspects
during engagement, they register their marriages and become a ‘real’ couple. However,
in the course of the last decades, changes in marriage patterns and realization of the
legal security of civil marriage have led to an increase in the number of civil marriages.
Even in rural areas, people have started to register their marriages whilst still giving
essential importance to the nikah.
In summary, therefore, it can be concluded that there are five different patterns of
solemnization of marriage in the Turkish context: (a) civil marriage, (b) religious
marriage, (c) both civil and religious marriages at the same time, (d) civil first without
solemnization for a period and then the religious marriage, and (e) religious first and
after a while civil marriage.

The Emergence of Anglo-Turkish Muslim Law

As we saw above, most Muslims in England register their marriage first because of
concerns of izzat (honour). If a Muslim couple want to marry, they will actually marry
twice. By doing so, they meet the requirements of both Muslim and English law. In
addition, they fortify the strength of nikah by incorporating official legal rules into their
unofficial laws.
Among the Muslims in England, 250,000 to 300,000 are people of Turkish origin.
Ninety percent of these Turks live in London, concentrating in certain parts, to the
effect of creating ‘Turkish towns’. Preliminary observations and anecdotal evidence
suggest that there is an emergence of a hybrid Anglo-Turkish Muslim law that is a
combination of Turkish Muslim law and angrezi shariat.
Kucukcan summarizes the types of marriages between Turkish indivudials in London
as follows: (a) marriages between individuals living in England and living in Turkey; (b)
marriages between individuals living in England and living in Cyprus; (c) marriages in
London (i) between mainland Turks; (ii) between Turkish-Cypriots; (iii) between
mainland Turks and Turkish-Cypriots; and (iv) outside the Turkish community.27
Among the Turkish community in London, it is observable that ‘the migration
experience and diaspora situation has changed some facets of wedding rituals and
marriage presentations’.28 Kucukcan notes, ‘(T)here was a new type of network
developing, in addition to that of kin and friendship networks. I would like to refer to
it as a “religious network” originating not in blood relations, neighbourhood or in
village origin but belonging to particular religious movement’.29 He goes on to explain
that:
64 Ihsan Yilmaz

… religious families and Islamically educated young people within the Turkish
community would like to marry someone who has similar tendencies. In many
cases this is seen as the precondition of mutual understanding and compati-
bility … an ideal marriage is based on Islamic rules whereby religious rituals
are observed and children are brought up according to Islamic principles.30
Our participant observation on the Turks in London confirms the above-mentioned
phenomenon. Over the last five years I have been observing Turkish marriages in
London. Last year I have interviewed six newly married couples. For our research
purposes, this sample was selected on the basis that the bridegroom is originally from
Turkey who did not have a residence permit but had only a visa for a limited period of
stay. In all these six cases, the bridegroom is from Turkey who came here to study with
the intention of going back to Turkey. Then they met suitable candidates and decided
to marry and stay. Four of the brides are from the London Turkish community, one of
Pakistani origin and the other of Kenyan origin who were all born and raised here.
In all theses six cases, they married religiously with a nikah at the engagement
ceremony and counted this as only an engagement (diametrically opposite of the angrezi
shariat practice of the solemnization of the marriage), even though they were rightfully
and legitimately married in Islamic law. The underlying reason was as follows: these
marriages were all arranged. In these arranged matching attempts, the girl and boy
might meet and talk in the presence of a third person. If they like each other, they can
get engaged, and during this period they need to get to know each other more closely.
To legitimize their meetings without attendance of the third person, parents wanted
them to marry religiously in order not to commit a sin.31
When they agreed on all aspects during engagement they registered their marriages
with the English law. Yet still at this stage they were not seen as married in the eyes of
the community, although even according to angrezi shariat there is nothing more left to
do. The reason that they wanted to register their marriages involves immigration or visa
purposes. Although they sincerely intended to get married, it was not time yet. They
may not be ready for dugun (the real wedding ceremony) for different reasons. But the
bridegroom’s visa vas limited and in order to have him stay in Britain they officially
married but did not solemnize the marriage until dugun. However, as we underlined
above, both in Muslim law and English law they were legitimately married. These two
marriages were not enough for the solemnization of marriage in the eyes of Anglo-Turk-
ish community. The prospective couples had to wait for dugun, which is the traditional
wedding ceremony that takes place in banqueting suites, hotels, restaurants, or a
mosque’s meeting and wedding hall (a separate function room which is not a prayer
area) to get the parents’ and community’s recognition that they were husbands and
wives.
They also needed to register their marriage with the Turkish consulate as in all these
cases the bridegrooms were Turkish citizens and in four of the six cases the brides were
Turkish nationals who had to inform authorities of their marriage under the Turkish
law.
In the Kenyan and Pakistani brides’ cases this was much more important for if they
did not register it with the Turkish consulate within four weeks of the official English
marriage, they would have lost their right to become a Turkish citizen automatically on
the ground of marrying a Turk. After the four week period elapses, the automatic right
 Marriage Solemnization among Turks 65

to citizenship expires and they need to learn Turkish and stay in Turkey for a period
of minimum five years to become a Turkish citizen.

Conclusion
Preliminary observations and anecdotal evidence suggest that there is a process of
hybridization of Turkish–English–Islamic law to the effect of the construction of an
Anglo-Turkish Muslim law that is in some ways also a combination of Turkish Muslim
law and angrezi shariat.
Thus, in the area of marriage, many Muslim Turks in London marry three times in
accordance with this new hybrid law. First, they employ nikah, during their ‘engage-
ment’ period without consummating their marriage, even though they are rightfully and
legitimately married in Islamic law following their nikah. Then, they register their
marriage with the English state for immigration and civil purposes, so that the bride or
bridegroom can stay in the country if his/her visa is expiring. In some cases, the civil
registration takes place before nikah. Yet these two marriages are still not enough for
the solemnization of marriage in the eyes of Anglo-Turkish community. The prospec-
tive couple has to wait for dugun. Moreover, they will need to register their marriage
with the Turkish consulate as well if they have a Turkish nationality. In sum, whilst an
ordinary English couple marries once, for some Muslim Anglo-Turks, at least three
marriage procedures are needed before it is solemnized and consummated.

NOTES
1. M. K. Masud, ‘Being Muslim in a Non-Muslim Polity: Three Alternate Models’, Journal Institute
of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1989, pp. 118–128, p. 125.
2. S. Silbey, ‘Let Them Eat Cake: Globalization, Postmodern Colonialism, and the Possibilities of
Justice’, Law & Society Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1997, p. 219.
3. Definition of a Turk in this study includes: all Turkish nationals including the ones who are
ethnically Kurdish, Turkish-Cypriots, and British citizens who are ethnically Turkish or originally
from Turkey.
4. R. Oakley, ‘The Cypriot Migration to Britain’, in ed. V. S. Khan, Minority Families in Britain,
London: Macmillan, 1979, pp. 13–34, p. 13.
5. S. R. Sonyel, The Silent Minority, Turkish Muslim Children in British Schools, Cambridge: Islamic
Academy, 1988, p. 12.
6. F. M. Bhatti, ‘Turkish Cypriots in Britain’, Research Papers—Muslim in Europe, No. 11,
Birmingham: Centre for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 1981, p. 2.
7. Ibid.
8. T. Kucukcan, Politics of Ethnicity, Identity and Religion: Turkish Muslims in Britain, Ashgate:
Aldershot, 1999.
9. Bhatti, ‘Turkish Cypriots’, op. cit., p. 17.
10. Oakley, ‘Cypriot Migration’, op. cit., p. 31.
11. R. King, ‘The Changing Distribution of Cypriots in London’, Etudes Migrations, 1982, Vol. 19,
No. 65, pp. 93–120, p. 93.
12. Kucukcan, Politics of Ethnicity, op. cit., p. 62.
13. Ibid., p. 7.
14. Ibid., p. 63; M. Storkey, Identifying the Cypriot Community from the 1991 Census, London: London
Research Centre, 1996, p. 63.
15. S. Ladbury, ‘Turkish Cypriots in London, Economy, Society and Culture’, unpublished PhD
thesis, SOAS (School of African and Oriental Studies), London, 1979, p. 309.
16. Kucukcan, Turkish Muslims, op. cit., p. 65.
17. N. Dokur-Gryskiewicz, ‘A Study of Adaptation of Turkish Migrant Workers to Living and
Working in the United Kingdom’, unpublished PhD thesis, Birbeck College, London, 1979,
p. 187.
66 Ihsan Yilmaz

18. See I. Yilmaz, ‘Muslim Law in Britain, Reflections in the Socio-Legal Sphere and Differential
Legal Treatment’, Journal Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2000, pp. 353–360.
19. I. Yilmaz, ‘Dynamic Legal Pluralism in England: The Challenge of Postmodern Muslim Legality
to Legal Modernity’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2002, pp. 343–354.
20. Ibid., p. 348; see also in detail D. Pearl and W. F. Menski, Muslim Family Law, 3rd edn, London:
Sweet & Maxwell, 1998, p. 74–80.
21. S. Mardin, Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey: The Case of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi,
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989, p. 229.
22. See I. Yilmaz, ‘Instrumentalist Use of Secular Law in Turkey and the Emergence of Unofficial
Turkish Muslim Law’, The Middle East Journal, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2002, pp. 113–131; and I. Yilmaz,
‘Non-Recognition of Post-Modern Turkish Socio-Legal Reality and Predicament of Women’,
British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2003, pp. 25–41. For very recent
remarkable developments in the Turkish Islam and Turkish Muslim law, see I. Yilmaz, ‘Ijtihad and
Tajdid by Conduct: Gülen and His Movement’, in eds John Esposito and Hakan Yavuz, Turkish
Islam and the Secular State: The Gulen Movement, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2003,
pp. 208–237.
23. Article 174/4 of the Turkish Constitution.
24. Article 108 of the Civil Code and Article 237/3 of the Criminal Code.
25. For details, see Yilmaz, ‘Non-recognition’, op. cit.
26. H. Fisek, ‘Introduction’, in ed. T. Erder, Family in Turkish Society, Ankara: Turk Sosyal Bilimler
Dernegi, 1981, pp. 287–298, p. 295.
27. Kucukcan, Politics of Ethnicity, op. cit., pp. 85, 99.
28. Ibid., p. 98.
29. Ibid., p. 108.
30. Ibid., p. 109.
31. Kucukcan’s findings concur with our observations. He observed that ‘As soon as the engagement
was announced, a religious wedding contract (dini nikah) took place in order to enable the couple
to see each other in accordance with the Islamic rules. Generally after six months engagement the
couple married in Germany and the wedding ceremony was repeated in London’. He also notes
a similar wedding that took place between a Turkish man and a French convert woman. Ibid.,
p. 111.