Guidelines on drawing up Islamic wills issued

[Ifreann]

Personally, I think we should not pander to this demand in any way.
If they want to award women half of what they award men in wills, they can do it in their own countries.

You'll find that British law doesn't work like that at all.

[FreedomsLands]

But it will increase the discrimination against non-believers and females. For example, a Muslim man could block a non-believing relative from receiving their inheritance, or block a female from receiving it as well.

Couldn't they do so regardless? Despite the obviously bigoted nature of such inheritance practices, people have always had the right to choose to whom their money is bequeathed. What has really changed here besides the publication of an official guide to help lawyers do what they have already done more effectively for an increasing number of people?

[Zapato]

Personally, I think we should not pander to this demand in any way.
If they want to award women half of what they award men in wills, they can do it in their own countries.

That's what's happening here, tho. The guidelines will help them do just that in their own country, specifically England and Wales.

[Ifreann]

Personally, I think we should not pander to this demand in any way.
If they want to award women half of what they award men in wills, they can do it in their own countries.

That's what's happening here, tho. The guidelines will help them do just that in their own country, specifically England and Wales.

While we're pointing out the ways Quintium is wrong, if the Law Society is responding to any demand it probably originates with its members, not the Muslims he incorrectly characterises as foreign.

[L Ron Cupboard]

This thread is so full of shit it is absolutely pointless continuing with it.

[Ifreann]

This thread is so full of shit it is absolutely pointless continuing with it.

But the interracial law of the muslamic infidel!

[Ethel mermania]

That's what's happening here, tho. The guidelines will help them do just that in their own country, specifically England and Wales.

While we're pointing out the ways Quintium is wrong, if the Law Society is responding to any demand it probably originates with its members, not the Muslims he incorrectly characterises as foreign.

the demand would not exist if the end customers did not want it.

[Gravlen]

I can't think of a more boring non-issue.

Of course, the original title of the thread, which was something like "Sharia Law Comes to the UK", likely got some posters' blood pressure to rise.

It was the same title as the news articles.

I hope you one day will realize that, even if newspapers use sensationalist and incorrect headlines in a desperate attempts to generate enraged clicks and furious readers, you don't have to follow in their footsteps.

[Gallup]

It's their right to give to whomever they want. Religious Liberty should be preserved.

[Greed and Death]

No, the British Government is not enforcing Sharia Law where you will get your hands cut off for stealing, or anything like that. It is a group campaigning for the change of how Muslims will be able to manage their inheritances and wills.

Please don't come into this thread and start the racist propaganda. If you wish to debate if Islam is a racist religion, or any topic like that please take it to another thread.

Sharia principles are to become enshrined in the UK legal system for the first time, with The Law Society publishing guidelines for drawing up documents according to Islamic rules, which would exclude non-believers and encroach on women’s rights.

The new guidelines were produced by The Law Society earlier this month. Under the guidance, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills which will have the power to exclude non-believers completely and deny women an equal share of an inheritance.

“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognized,” states the document.

Any children who have been born outside of marriage and even kids who have been adopted will also not be recognized as legitimate heirs.

It also advises lawyers to draft special exclusions from the Wills Act 1837, which would allow gifts or money to pass to the children of an heir who has died, as this practice isn’t recognized in Islamic law.

Sharia law only recognizes Muslim weddings, so anyone who was married in a Christian church or in a civil ceremony would also be excluded from succession.

At the moment, Sharia law is not formally included in the UK’s laws, though a network of unofficial Sharia courts has developed in Muslim communities to deal with issues within Muslim families.

A few are official tribunals which operate under the Arbitration Act, drafted in 1996 to help settle personal disputes within Britain’s diverse community. They mainly operate in commercial disputes, but can also deal with issues of domestic violence and other family disputes including battles over inheritance.

There is also a large network of more informal Sharia tribunals, also called “councils,” which are normally based around a mosque and deal with child custody issues and divorces in line with Islamic religious teaching. Their hearings are laid out like courts.

A study compiled four years ago by Civitas think-tank found more than 80 unofficial Sharia courts operating in the UK.

Nicholas Fluck, president of the Law Society, told The Sunday Telegraph that publishing the new guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.

“This is the first time such advice has been published and we hope it will assist solicitors with Sharia probate matters. There is a wide variety of spiritual, religious and cultural beliefs within our population, and the Law Society wants to support its members so they can help clients from all backgrounds,” he said.

However, Sadikur Rahman of the Lawyers Secular Society, said this new guidance legitimizes discrimination towards women and so-called "illegitimate children," and is contrary to the Equality Act by which UK solicitors must abide.

“This raises serious questions about professional ethics and the role of The Law Society. The guidance seems not to recognize that there is a serious potential conflict between the Code of Conduct for solicitors and the guidance,” he said.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer who leads a parliamentary campaign to protect women from religious discrimination, said she thought The Law Society's publishing of the guidance was “deeply disturbing” and vowed to raise the issue with ministers.

“Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs. But to have an organization such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern,” she said.

http://rt.com/news/sharia-law-uk-legal-713/

I am not familiar with UK law, but the whole purpose of drafting a will is to avoid the default rules.
I see nothing wrong with a testator drafting a will in accordance with his beliefs.

[Quintium]

Personally, I think we should not pander to this demand in any way.
If they want to award women half of what they award men in wills, they can do it in their own countries.

It's their own property, so why not let the muslims decide for it themselves?

I'm all in favour of people being able to discriminate based on race, sex, religion and anything else when it comes to the way in which they maintain and manage their own property. However, what we see here is something symbolical. Yes, I read the source. Yes, I'm aware of the basics of British law. Yes, I know who did this and for which purpose, but it's the symbolism that matters. For the same reason, I oppose the building of mosques or islamic cemeteries in Europe even if they are funded privately (which, often, is not entirely the case). All of these tiny developments, ultimately, are symptoms of the disease of Islam eating away at Europe's identity.

[Greed and Death]

Personally, I think we should not pander to this demand in any way.
If they want to award women half of what they award men in wills, they can do it in their own countries.

Remove the woman and man. You are allowed to give one child twice as much as another child right ?

So a testator can do that anyways.

[Gravlen]

Britain, what are you doing? That's not equality.

It's time we move past these primitive beliefs.

How is it not equality?

[Quintium]

Personally, I think we should not pander to this demand in any way.
If they want to award women half of what they award men in wills, they can do it in their own countries.

Remove the woman and man. You are allowed to give one child twice as much as another child right ?

Perhaps, but the reasoning behind it is that the Quran specifies that a woman is to receive half of what a man receives, because men and women are not equal in Islam. The problem I have with this situation is not legal but moral and normative. This islamic rule, even between individuals, is a violation of everything our societies are supposed to stand for, and yet those who are most progressive and happy about western values also overlook these enormous faults in the islamic community. Why is that?

[Gravlen]

So, a legal society drafts guidelines for solicitors so they can better serve their Muslim clientele when assisting them with the drafting of their final will and testament..... How is this an issue again? I really do not see the problem anywhere here. Someone may need to explain to me where the problem is.

a legal society drafts guidelines for solicitors so they can better serve their Muslim clientele when assisting them with the drafting of their final will and testament

guidelines for solicitors so they can better serve their Muslim clientele

their Muslim clientele

Muslim

That's the problem, right turr.

[Greed and Death]

Remove the woman and man. You are allowed to give one child twice as much as another child right ?

Perhaps, but the reasoning behind it is that the Quran specifies that a woman is to receive half of what a man receives, because men and women are not equal in Islam. The problem I have with this situation is not legal but moral and normative. This islamic rule, even between individuals, is a violation of everything our societies are supposed to stand for, and yet those who are most progressive and happy about western values also overlook these enormous faults in the islamic community. Why is that?

I do not think the law should care about his reasoning. He can divide his property in a manner of his choosing.

[Neutraligon]

Remove the woman and man. You are allowed to give one child twice as much as another child right ?

Perhaps, but the reasoning behind it is that the Quran specifies that a woman is to receive half of what a man receives, because men and women are not equal in Islam. The problem I have with this situation is not legal but moral and normative. This islamic rule, even between individuals, is a violation of everything our societies are supposed to stand for, and yet those who are most progressive and happy about western values also overlook these enormous faults in the islamic community. Why is that?

Because again one is allowed to distribute private property as one wills.

[Ifreann]

While we're pointing out the ways Quintium is wrong, if the Law Society is responding to any demand it probably originates with its members, not the Muslims he incorrectly characterises as foreign.

the demand would not exist if the end customers did not want it.

The end "customers" of the Law Society are its members, the lawyers who will be guided in line with these guidelines. I doubt there are any Muslims in England and Wales who want to write a will but can't.

---

It's their right to give to whomever they want. Religious Liberty should be preserved.

It's more a matter of property rights than religious liberty.

---

It's their own property, so why not let the muslims decide for it themselves?

I'm all in favour of people being able to discriminate based on race, sex, religion and anything else when it comes to the way in which they maintain and manage their own property. However, what we see here is something symbolical. Yes, I read the source. Yes, I'm aware of the basics of British law. Yes, I know who did this and for which purpose, but it's the symbolism that matters. For the same reason, I oppose the building of mosques or islamic cemeteries in Europe even if they are funded privately (which, often, is not entirely the case). All of these tiny developments, ultimately, are symptoms of the disease of Islam eating away at Europe's identity.

If you want people to be denied equality before the law based on their religious beliefs, then perhaps you would be more comfortable living somewhere like Saudi Arabia.

[Neutraligon]

It's their own property, so why not let the muslims decide for it themselves?

I'm all in favour of people being able to discriminate based on race, sex, religion and anything else when it comes to the way in which they maintain and manage their own property. However, what we see here is something symbolical. Yes, I read the source. Yes, I'm aware of the basics of British law. Yes, I know who did this and for which purpose, but it's the symbolism that matters. For the same reason, I oppose the building of mosques or islamic cemeteries in Europe even if they are funded privately (which, often, is not entirely the case). All of these tiny developments, ultimately, are symptoms of the disease of Islam eating away at Europe's identity.

To change the law of the country to prevent a sect of the population from doing what the rest of the population is allowed to do, simply because of their religion is backwards, and destroys the very society they are trying to protect. You claim some future Islamic Europe needs to be prevented since it will destroy European values and identity, and yet, in order to "save" Europe, you are destroying it's values and identity. So, how are you saving Europe?

[Greed and Death]

I'm all in favour of people being able to discriminate based on race, sex, religion and anything else when it comes to the way in which they maintain and manage their own property. However, what we see here is something symbolical. Yes, I read the source. Yes, I'm aware of the basics of British law. Yes, I know who did this and for which purpose, but it's the symbolism that matters. For the same reason, I oppose the building of mosques or islamic cemeteries in Europe even if they are funded privately (which, often, is not entirely the case). All of these tiny developments, ultimately, are symptoms of the disease of Islam eating away at Europe's identity.

To change the law of the country to prevent a sect of the population from doing what the rest of the population is allowed to do, simply because of their religion is backwards, and destroys the very society they are trying to protect. You claim some future Islamic Europe needs to be prevented since it will destroy European values and identity, and yet, in order to "save" Europe, you are destroying it's values and identity. So, how are you saving Europe?

It would destroy many secular wills too. What if I reduce what my daughter receives in the will because she got mad and I was not allowed to see my grand kids for the last 5 years of my life.

[Quintium]

I do not think the law should care about his reasoning. He can divide his property in a manner of his choosing.

But that is discriminatory - it's discrimination based on sex. And in Britain, if I understand correctly, that's not something people tend to agree with, even if it falls just outside the scope of regular anti-discrimination laws. Yet if it's about the single most conservative and discriminatory group in the western world, the same people who shout loudest about human rights are quiet as the grave.

If you want people to be denied equality before the law based on their religious beliefs, then perhaps you would be more comfortable living somewhere like Saudi Arabia.

Equality? We're talking about their right to discriminate based on their belief that women are worth less than men. It's impossible, the way the people who are usually most vocal about their opposition to discrimination based on race or sex are crawling and pandering just so they don't have to think about the idea that inviting a medieval death cult into their countries may have been a bad idea.

[New Aerios]

This thread is so full of shit it is absolutely pointless continuing with it.

But the interracial law of the muslamic infidel!

[Quintium]

It would destroy many secular wills too. What if I reduce what my daughter receives in the will because she got mad and I was not allowed to see my grand kids for the last 5 years of my life.

The major difference is the reasoning. Your reason is that your daughter refused to allow you to see your grandchildren. Their reason is Quran 4:11:

"Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half. And for one's parents, to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children. But if he had no children and the parents [alone] inherit from him, then for his mother is one third. And if he had brothers [or sisters], for his mother is a sixth, after any bequest he [may have] made or debt. Your parents or your children - you know not which of them are nearest to you in benefit. [These shares are] an obligation [imposed] by Allah . Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

[Greed and Death]

It would destroy many secular wills too. What if I reduce what my daughter receives in the will because she got mad and I was not allowed to see my grand kids for the last 5 years of my life.

The major difference is the reasoning. Your reason is that your daughter refused to allow you to see your grandchildren. Their reason is Quran 4:11:

"Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half. And for one's parents, to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children. But if he had no children and the parents [alone] inherit from him, then for his mother is one third. And if he had brothers [or sisters], for his mother is a sixth, after any bequest he [may have] made or debt. Your parents or your children - you know not which of them are nearest to you in benefit. [These shares are] an obligation [imposed] by Allah . Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

And the first thing an attorney will do if you outlaw the reasoning is draft wills that are devoid of reasoning.

Does the exact same thing, just does not mention why. Seems like a very hollow victory to me.

[Ifreann]

If you want people to be denied equality before the law based on their religious beliefs, then perhaps you would be more comfortable living somewhere like Saudi Arabia.

Equality?

Equality before the law. As in, if I can write a will dictating how my property is to be disposed of after I die, then so can my Muslim neighbour, on the same terms. His reasons and motivations are his own business, as mine are my own.

We're talking about their right to discriminate based on their belief that women are worth less than men.

We are talking about people's right to control their own property. Their reasons for the choices they make about their own property are entirely their own business. We have no thought police in Europe.

It's impossible, the way the people who are usually most vocal about their opposition to discrimination based on race or sex are crawling and pandering just so they don't have to think about the idea that inviting a medieval death cult into their countries may have been a bad idea.

Perhaps the problem is that you fail to appreciate that while liberals value equality, we also value freedom. And medieval death cult? Troll harder.