Guidelines on drawing up Islamic wills issued

[L Ron Cupboard]

"You know the Law Society isn't a government institution."

Except it sorta is. Law Society is a Professional association: it's sorta like a Trade Union for Lawyers except they are rich and evil; it's sorta like a Government Institution.

When a Lawyer is accused of corruption, Law Society conducts an investigation. That Lawyer is tried before a jury of Lawyers. It is very rare for a Lawyer to be tried before a Secular jury of Citizens. That is one of the many legal privileges of the professional associations.


AFAIK: Common Law: a man dies intestate - his N children legitimate, adopted, bastard etc each get (X divide N) %, his wife gets (100-X) %. If he writes a will, then people get whatever percentage he writes. Maybe there might be rules that he gotta give his dependents Y % - but he can surely give (100 -Y) % however he likes

AFAIK from reading the Independent: Sharia makes wills obsolete. Your man has N islamic, legitimate, biological boys and M islamic, legitimate, biological girls. They and only they get percentages as decreed.

In theory, it would be legal to write a will that gives his children the Sharia percentages. But that is no reason to make it so easy and legal.

There was mention of islamic Priests refusing burial certificates to corpses who didn't write Sharia wills. Is that a real thing

Muslim Brit writes a Sharia Will; he dies and is buried.
Muslim Brit dies intestate, so under Brit Law, all his childern inherit, BUT because he didn't write a Sharia Will, priests forbid a burial certificate and his corpse is left to rot in the street. Is that a real thing

Stop making shit up if you don't know.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

@Gravlen: I have a question. In the OP, it is stated that these guidelines would (provided this is true, that is) allow people to draft wills in which women could be excluded from inheriting. The UK has certain protections when it comes to that, right? As in, people can't be completely drafted out from inheritances on account of gender?

I know that in the US a son or a daughter is still entitled to a percentage of the inheritance, even if they're not the main recipient. 5-10%, iirc. Is there something similar in UK inheritance guidelines? Did I ask this clearly? :/

As you know, I'm not Nadkor, so I'm no legal authority when it comes to the UK. With that in mind, I'll simply quote a random UK lawyer:

A person may make a will to leave immovable and movable property located in UK to any chosen beneficiaries. There is no “forced heirship” or “reserved portion; however, if a testator domiciled in the United Kingdom dies, leaving dependents who are not adequately provided for under the terms of the will, the dependents may apply to the court to claim reasonable provision for maintenance from the estate. Maintenance may be in the form of income payments for life, or alternatively a lump sum payable from the estate.

So the short answer as far as I understand it is yes, a person can be completely excluded from inhereting through a will. There's no limitations based on motivation, i.e. he or she can be excluded for any reason, even unsavory ones. However, children who are excluded or don't recieve sufficient means may petition the court to grant them (more) money. That seems to be the only safety valve there is if a valid will exists.

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So in other words, nations that aren't wealthy and nations that aren't Western are what you used as examples. Gotcha.

Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are exceedingly western in their way of life - though not in their approach to immigration, because they weren't part of the group of countries caught by the Revolution of 1968. But if you want an example that's smack-bang in the middle of Europe, try the Czech Republic. Behind the Iron Curtain during the 'crucial years' of 1968-1989, now with a Human Development Index similar to Britain's, but with hardly any Muslims and seemingly no change in that situation. So, it's not unavoidable at all. As I said, it's a matter of political will.

The Czech Republic hardly takes in any immigrants at all from anywhere, not just Islamic majority nations.

Translation: You pulled it out of your ass, based on a superficial reading of history filtered through a bigoted and xenophobic worldview that naturally tends to think that them furriners just can't be trusted.

Well, you're allowed to think that, and while you're not allowed to insult me like that (it's called flaming) I'll pretend I didn't see that.
I know I'm right, unfortunately, and you'll see that I'm right if you make it to that time.

That wasn't flaming. That was an observation that your worldview seemed to be one that involved a bigoted and xenophobic filter. If you think that it's flaming, then report me. Otherwise, stick to the subject and don't whine when you're called out on what I see as being a paranoid, disturbing, and even potentially dangerous approach to other cultures and races.

[Gravlen]

You're asking why there is a difference between the private disposition of property, and the participation in public business taking place between two or more parties? Or are you asking why making a will is different from entering into a contract?

While a will is a unilateral action from a legal perspective (that is, an action taken by one party without the need for approval from the other party), I don't think that explains why that suddenly makes discrimination acceptable.

Because we don't employ PsyCops, and because your decision to leave your fortune to someone for whatever reason doesn't impinge on the rights of others. Just like how your decision to give a gift to your favourite butler has no impact on the rights and duties of your least favourite butler.

In any case, it's about a situation between two private parties in which one party has the ability to decide whether to grant the other party certain rights or privileges related to his own property. In both cases, both parties are private and not public and the property in question is privately-owned, so what's the difference?

Because when you go out in public and offer your goods and services, you've created a reasonable expectation among the public that you'll actually sell your goods and services to them. If you were to refuse to do business with an individual based on his or her gender, race, sexuality, etc. you would impinge on the rights of the customer. Also, while it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses, this viewpoint fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. If you're doing business with the public, you simply have a duty to sell your wares and services to all comers.

But fear not, you may still discriminate - in private. As with gifts and inheritance, it's up to you if you, as a private individual, to choose whom you'd like to enter into a contract with. You just have to seek out that individual instead of offering your goods and services to the public.

Hopefully you see the difference here.

[Gravlen]

As you know, I'm not Nadkor, so I'm no legal authority when it comes to the UK. With that in mind, I'll simply quote a random UK lawyer:

A person may make a will to leave immovable and movable property located in UK to any chosen beneficiaries. There is no “forced heirship” or “reserved portion; however, if a testator domiciled in the United Kingdom dies, leaving dependents who are not adequately provided for under the terms of the will, the dependents may apply to the court to claim reasonable provision for maintenance from the estate. Maintenance may be in the form of income payments for life, or alternatively a lump sum payable from the estate.

So the short answer as far as I understand it is yes, a person can be completely excluded from inhereting through a will. There's no limitations based on motivation, i.e. he or she can be excluded for any reason, even unsavory ones. However, children who are excluded or don't recieve sufficient means may petition the court to grant them (more) money. That seems to be the only safety valve there is if a valid will exists.

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about it.

De nada

[Tekania]

Ok, I was wondering about it.

This whole thread is rubbish, based on a bad OP using an appalling piece of journalism as a source.

Yep, the thread and article is effectively people getting pissed off that muslims can do the same thing everyone else can there, and that solicitors have gotten guidelines on how best to serve the needs of their clients who happen to be muslim when they are seeking aid in the drafting of wills. It's pretty much a massive non-issue (except to the rabid inslamophobes).

[Volantyz]

As you know, I'm not Nadkor, so I'm no legal authority when it comes to the UK. With that in mind, I'll simply quote a random UK lawyer:

A person may make a will to leave immovable and movable property located in UK to any chosen beneficiaries. There is no “forced heirship” or “reserved portion; however, if a testator domiciled in the United Kingdom dies, leaving dependents who are not adequately provided for under the terms of the will, the dependents may apply to the court to claim reasonable provision for maintenance from the estate. Maintenance may be in the form of income payments for life, or alternatively a lump sum payable from the estate.

So the short answer as far as I understand it is yes, a person can be completely excluded from inhereting through a will. There's no limitations based on motivation, i.e. he or she can be excluded for any reason, even unsavory ones. However, children who are excluded or don't recieve sufficient means may petition the court to grant them (more) money. That seems to be the only safety valve there is if a valid will exists.

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about it.

So I said

AFAIK: Common Law: a man dies intestate - his N children legitimate, adopted, bastard etc each get (X divide N) %, his wife gets (100-X) %. If he writes a will, then people get whatever percentage he writes. Maybe there might be rules that he gotta give his dependents Y % - but he can surely give (100 -Y) % however he likes

and I'm wrong because you said

however, if a testator domiciled in the United Kingdom dies, leaving dependents who are not adequately provided for under the terms of the will, the dependents may apply to the court to claim reasonable provision for maintenance from the estate. Maintenance may be in the form of income payments for life, or alternatively a lump sum payable from the estate.[/box]
]However[/url], children who are excluded or don't recieve sufficient means may petition the court to grant them (more) money. That seems to be the only safety valve there is if a valid will exists.

I said "dependents get Y%". Why am I wrong

[Tekania]

While there are dependency provisions for potential challenge of a will, it should be noted that such provisions require a pre-existing financial dependency between the testator and the person making the challenge. If you were not financially dependent upon the estate at the time the contest will likely be moot.

[Ethel mermania]

This whole thread is rubbish, based on a bad OP using an appalling piece of journalism as a source.

Yep, the thread and article is effectively people getting pissed off that muslims can do the same thing everyone else can there, and that solicitors have gotten guidelines on how best to serve the needs of their clients who happen to be muslim when they are seeking aid in the drafting of wills. It's pretty much a massive non-issue (except to the rabid inslamophobes).

not quite, we can still say its pretty shitty to want to leave half of what you leave to a child with a vagina as you would to a child with a penis, simply based on which bits the kid has.

[Ifreann]

@Gravlen: I have a question. In the OP, it is stated that these guidelines would (provided this is true, that is) allow people to draft wills in which women could be excluded from inheriting. The UK has certain protections when it comes to that, right? As in, people can't be completely drafted out from inheritances on account of gender?

I know that in the US a son or a daughter is still entitled to a percentage of the inheritance, even if they're not the main recipient. 5-10%, iirc. Is there something similar in UK inheritance guidelines? Did I ask this clearly? :/

As you know, I'm not Nadkor...

I dunno, I've never seen the two of you in the same place...

[Ethel mermania]

As you know, I'm not Nadkor...

I dunno, I've never seen the two of you in the same place...

i have never seen nadkor with a chainsaw.

and fwiw, in the us you can completely disinherit an offspring, you just have to mention it in the will, or it will be contested, as the decedent "forgot" to include the offspring. the reason you would leave just a small token to a rotten kid is to preclude a probate court battle on the will.

[Yaltabaoth]

So to clarify:

Muslims in Britain already had the same rights as non-Muslims in Britain, in regards to how they wish to distribute their property upon event of their death, before these guidelines were published.

And after these guidelines were published, Muslims in Britain continued to have the same rights as non-Muslims in Britain, in regards to how they wish to distribute their property upon event of their death.

And absolutely no laws have been changed whatsoever.

Scary stuff indeed!

[Ifreann]

So to clarify:

Muslims in Britain already had the same rights as non-Muslims in Britain, in regards to how they wish to distribute their property upon event of their death, before these guidelines were published.

And after these guidelines were published, Muslims in Britain continued to have the same rights as non-Muslims in Britain, in regards to how they wish to distribute their property upon event of their death.

And absolutely no laws have been changed whatsoever.

Scary stuff indeed!

Some lawyers will be saved some time and effort in dealing with Muslim clients looking to have wills written up. And that's terrible.

[Yaltabaoth]

So to clarify:

Muslims in Britain already had the same rights as non-Muslims in Britain, in regards to how they wish to distribute their property upon event of their death, before these guidelines were published.

And after these guidelines were published, Muslims in Britain continued to have the same rights as non-Muslims in Britain, in regards to how they wish to distribute their property upon event of their death.

And absolutely no laws have been changed whatsoever.

Scary stuff indeed!

Some lawyers will be saved some time and effort in dealing with Muslim clients looking to have wills written up. And that's terrible.

Ah, so the problem is that this benefits lawyers.

Now I understand the outrage.

[The Alma Mater]

I was under the impression you could impose such conditions in a normal Will and Testament, surely?

British law allows that ? Seriously ?
Dutch law doesn't .. hence my surprise.

Though I guess it is reasonable. It is their money, their choice who to give it to.

[Gravlen]

Some lawyers will be saved some time and effort in dealing with Muslim clients looking to have wills written up. And that's terrible.

Ah, so the problem is that this benefits lawyers.

Now I understand the outrage.

Yeah, I also understand now... Giving lawyers more time on their hands is sure to cause the downfall of Europe, if not all of civilization itself!

[Tekania]

Ah, so the problem is that this benefits lawyers.

Now I understand the outrage.

Yeah, I also understand now... Giving lawyers more time on their hands is sure to cause the downfall of Europe, if not all of civilization itself!

Given that modern bureaucracies are largely a product of lawyers with time on their hands, this is a somewhat defensible position.

[Whitton World]

I read the OPs post and read it again and read it again.

I fail to see how this changes anything.

If a person dies without writing a will, their estate will be dealt with under probate. This usually means distributed to family according to a defined set of rules, which I understand treat all dependents equally.

If a person wishes for an arrangement other than probate, then they need to write a will.

A person does not need to write a will, but if they choose to write a will, they are under no obligation to treat all dependent equally, or could leave everything to something other than their dependents - friends - charity - whatever.

For many people, changes to probate amount to small factors. Maybe a mother wishes to leave her jewelry to her daughter rather than her son. That type of thing.

Sometimes, the changes may be more dramatic:
- Child A is a drug addict and murderer and the parent does not think they deserve anything so they write them out altogether
- Child B has led a very worthy and selfless life, so gets extra compensation for their goodness
- Big differences in children's earned wealth, so giving more to the one that was less successful. Maybe consider an extreme like David Beckham versus his siblings - the successful footballer (not saying which one that is) will not benefit by receiving, say £100k, from a parent's estate, but the other sibling that may be a life-change amount.
- Child C has disgraced the family through marriage or behaviour, or whatever, so gets less.

So, many reasons and examples why a will may be written to differ from probate.

I can only imagine that any Muslims seeking to apply this type of differentiation would do so now, they would know what they want to prepare as their will, and if they happen to be in doubt I am certain there are enough lawyers who also practice the Islamic faith that would be available to advise.

No-one is forcing people to practice Islam, or forcing people to prepare their will in a way that differs from probate, so this is all just existing options making a slow news day story, as far as I can tell.

[Indira]

Pretty sure that these things were doable under the law before this anyway. So what's all the fuss about?

[Whitton World]

The real challenge is the choice whether to die quick before everything goes in inheritance tax, or live your normal life and give everything to the state in inheritance tax. Inheritance tax applies at every reducing sums every year as people get wealthier in the main but the tax threshold stays the same.

It is probably better to live your full life, and just give everything up as inheritance tax. We should not be choosing our own timing of our own demise.

[Tekania]

The real challenge is the choice whether to die quick before everything goes in inheritance tax, or live your normal life and give everything to the state in inheritance tax. Inheritance tax applies at every reducing sums every year as people get wealthier in the main but the tax threshold stays the same.

It is probably better to live your full life, and just give everything up as inheritance tax. We should not be choosing our own timing of our own demise.

What in the hell does this have to do with the subject of the thread?

[Whitton World]

The real challenge is the choice whether to die quick before everything goes in inheritance tax, or live your normal life and give everything to the state in inheritance tax. Inheritance tax applies at every reducing sums every year as people get wealthier in the main but the tax threshold stays the same.

It is probably better to live your full life, and just give everything up as inheritance tax. We should not be choosing our own timing of our own demise.

What in the hell does this have to do with the subject of the thread?

Just saying that wills will become meaningless as we will end up giving everything to the state

[Margno]

Let's play find the emotional language!

Sharia principles Drink! 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 Drink! non-believers and encroach on women’s rights. Drink!

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 Drink! non-believers completely and deny women an equal share Drink! 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 Drink! 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 Drink! 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 Drink! towards women and so-called Drink! "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 Drink! 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 Drink twice! in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern,” she said.

[Gravlen]

Pretty sure that these things were doable under the law before this anyway. So what's all the fuss about?

Muslims. Of course.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about it.

So I said

AFAIK: Common Law: a man dies intestate - his N children legitimate, adopted, bastard etc each get (X divide N) %, his wife gets (100-X) %. If he writes a will, then people get whatever percentage he writes. Maybe there might be rules that he gotta give his dependents Y % - but he can surely give (100 -Y) % however he likes

and I'm wrong because you said

however, if a testator domiciled in the United Kingdom dies, leaving dependents who are not adequately provided for under the terms of the will, the dependents may apply to the court to claim reasonable provision for maintenance from the estate. Maintenance may be in the form of income payments for life, or alternatively a lump sum payable from the estate.[/box]
]However[/url], children who are excluded or don't recieve sufficient means may petition the court to grant them (more) money. That seems to be the only safety valve there is if a valid will exists.

I said "dependents get Y%". Why am I wrong

I think you're quoting the wrong poster.