Sara Sharif - correlated to concerns on Sharia Law - father claimed it was in his right to do what he did
In December 2024, 43-year-old Urfan Sharif and his wife Beinash Batool were convicted at the Old Bailey of the murder of his 10-year-old daughter, Sara Sharif, following a year-long “campaign of abuse”. They were both sentenced to life imprisonment, with Urfan Sharif ordered to serve a minimum of 40 years.
The Specific “Right” and “Legal” Claims
Your inquiry touches on whether Urfan Sharif claimed “it was in his right to do what he did.”
While the court and public trials did not correlate his actions to formal Sharia Law or a recognized religious defense, Urfan Sharif did make a specific claim regarding “legally” punishing his daughter.
This claim was captured during his emergency call to UK police on August 10, 2023, which he placed from Pakistan two days after Sara’s death.
-
The Exact Wording Used:
During the recorded phone call, which was played to the jury during the trial, Urfan Sharif stated:
“I did legally punish my daughter and she died.”
He expanded on this in the same phone call, adding:
“I’ve killed my daughter. I legally punished her, and she died. She was naughty. I beat her up, it wasn’t my intention to kill her, but I beat her up too much.”
Context from the Trial and Defense
-
“Legal Punishment” Context: The phrase “legally punish” in this context refers to his attempt to justify the fatal beating as a form of parental discipline or “chastisement” that got out of hand, rather than an intentional murder. Under UK law, there is no legal defense for the extreme physical violence, binding, and torture that Sara was subjected to.
-
Shift in Defense: During his testimony in court, Sharif initially tried to blame his wife for the injuries. However, he later reversed his position under cross-examination, admitting to tying Sara up and beating her with various objects. In court, he stated:
“She was my daughter. I’ve been nasty, I’ve been mean with her. I couldn’t care for her; I didn’t do what a father should have done, and I’ll take responsibility for everything.”
General Demystification & Trial Truths
Urfan Sharif’s claim that he was “legally punishing” his 10-year-old daughter is entirely legally invalid and has no basis in either UK law or Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia).
There is a stark difference between his self-serving criminal defense and actual religious and legal frameworks.
The Myth of the “Sharia Defense”
During the trial and subsequent legal commentary, there was no credible correlation drawn between Urfan Sharif’s actions and Sharia Law. He did not offer a religious defense, nor would any Sharia council or Islamic scholar recognize his actions as permissible.
The concept of “discipline” in Islamic jurisprudence is strictly bounded:
-
The Prophetic Standard: Islamic traditions (Sunnah) record that the Prophet Muhammad never struck a child or a woman.
-
Strict Prohibitions: Islamic law categorically forbids physical force that causes pain, leaves marks, bruises, or breaks skin. Severe abuse is defined as Haram (forbidden).
-
The “Reasonable Punishment” Context: When Sharif used the phrase “legally punish”, he was attempting to exploit a loophole in English common law—specifically the old common law defense of “reasonable punishment” (or “lawful chastisement”) under the Children Act 2004. In March 2025, legislative debates under the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill sought to abolish this defense entirely in England.
Do Muslim Parents Misunderstand Safeguarding Rules?
The vast majority of Muslim parents in the UK raise their children safely within the law. However, researchers, charities, and community groups identify specific areas where systemic misunderstandings about UK safeguarding rules do occur:
1. Cultural vs. Religious Practices
Some parents confuse traditional, regional cultural practices from their countries of origin with Islamic teachings. While local cultural norms in some parts of South Asia or East Africa may tolerate corporal punishment, both UK statutory law and classical Islamic law heavily restrict or ban it.
2. The Fear of Statutory Services
A major hurdle in UK minority communities is the fear of “social services”. Due to historical distrust or language barriers, some parents falsely believe that reporting a domestic issue or seeking mental health support will result in the state immediately removing their children. This fear often prevents families from accessing early-help services.
3. Faith-Based Safeguarding Challenges
In a small minority of cases, severe abuse has been linked to extreme interpretations of faith or spiritual beliefs (such as attributing behavioral issues or disabilities to “spiritual possession” or djinns). UK safeguarding frameworks treat this as a form of child abuse, regardless of the parents’ cultural or religious justifications.
To bridge this gap, major organizations partner with Muslim communities to publish culturally sensitive guidance. A prime example is the NSPCC’s “(un)comfortable conversations” campaign, developed alongside the group Approachable Parenting, which helps Muslim families navigate tough conversations and safeguarding standards in a supportive environment.