Guidelines issued on Sharia Wills (ie unequal shares to female children)

[mumblechum1]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamic-law-to-be-enshrined-in-british-law-as-solicitors-get-guidelines-on-sharia-compliant-wills-9210682.html

Must admit I have only been asked on 2 occasions in many years of will-writing to make Sharia compliant wills, and both times advised that they would not stand up in court and so in one case the client went elsewhere, in the other he agreed to divide his estate equally between his sons and daughters when I explained the risk of litigation.

I am saddened if this is now going to change.

Isn't this just the same as the Jewish Beth Din?

British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26717269

Yes, you can leave your estate to anyone you like, but issuing Sharia compliant guidance morally legitimises Sharia within the eyes of the British legal system when that same legal system should be ignoring Sharia completely.

Why the need to issue guidance if not to make those interpreting the law start considering Sharia implications - something which until now their has been no need to do.

Gil - it's just about appealing to Muslim customers, that is all.

There's no moral judgement, it's just drawing up a will for a customer.

You do realise,BTW, that Sharia is the name for all Islamic religious rules, from praying five times a day, to not eating pork. Are shopping centres which provide prayer rooms wrong for not ignoring Sharia? What about Islamic banks? Should our financial system ignore Sharia too?

Carruthers - yes, it's exactly like the Jewish Beth Din, which has been operating for a very long time. Islamic Shariah courts can only grant religious divorces (not civil ones) and cannot overrule civil or criminal law. So in essence they provide religious divorces and arbitration, the latter a service many religious or cultural groups offer formally or informally.

Gil - it's just about appealing to Muslim customers, that is all

Yeah, yeah, that's just what you want us to think.

If it was that innoucous there would be no need for the Law Society to issue guidance would there?

Guidance such as the following:

And in another section it suggests amending clauses which define the terms children or issue to ensure that illegitimate or adopted offspring are excluded from the inheritance.

Are you happy with that 'guidance' that dscrimmates between natural and adopted children? Because I find it vile.

And yes, I know a person can legally do so in their Will at present, but this 'guidance' on Shraia compliancy is something that the Law Society should be getting itself involved in.

As for the rest e.g. the prayer rooms in shopping centres, praying 5 times a day, shunning pork that you mentioned, plus all other religious practises that faiths seem to deem necesary, no, personally I think it's unnecessary to cater for those deluded folk who believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

The world would be a much nicer place without religion.

Gah - sorry for the typos. It should read... is something the Law Society should not be getting itself involved in.

I think the world would be much nicer without intolerant bigots.

I have been on so many of these threads on Mumsnet. Never, ever, have I seen anyone religious insult anyone's religious beliefs or the lack thereof, yet it seems that certain atheists cannot discuss these matters without stooping to insults.

Do you really think it makes you appear superior or enlightened? Do you really think people look at the way you conduct yourselves and think that it is something to aspire to?

Besides which, if you know anything about Muslim inheritance laws, you would see that no one is barred from inheriting. While certain amounts should go to blood relatives, there is a sizeable proportion that can be distributed as the person wishes, this would include adopted or illegitimate children. But hey, you've read an article in a newspaper, so that makes you an expert, right?

Gosh - can you explain it all it simple terms please? From what I've read, this seems to set out the framework for excluding women, illegitimate children and adopted children from inheriting in law. This sounds so utterly ridiculous that I'm sure it's incorrect. Thanks

Sir Women are not excluded from inheriting. Wives, daughters, sisters etc are all entitled to inherit. How much they inherit depends on the composition of the family.

As Crescent moon said upthread, in Islam any money a woman has is her own, to spend or invest as she wishes. Any money a man has is to support his family, this is why sons inherit twice the amount daughters do, because either the brother should be supporting his sisters or if they are married, their husband should be financially supporting them. Note this doesn't mean women shouldn't work, but that if they do work, their wages are their own.

However. I have heard of sons not wishing to be financially responsible for their sisters and in those cases, siblings inherited equally. Also, there may be cases when a sister needs to care for her brother, so again the sister may get more money. Laws can vary depending on circumstances and of course, there is AFAIK, no sharia law governing gifts given while you are alive.

As for adopted/illegitimate children, up to a third of the estate can be given to non blood relatives, so they can inherit from this.

Here is a detailed look at who inherits, it is rather complex:

www.sailanmuslim.com/news/inheritance-according-to-islamic-sharia-law/

Thanks

Just a quick question about the adopted/illegitimate children thing - why are they classed as non-blood relatives when they are actually the child/ren of the deceased?

Gosh

Besides which, if you know anything about Muslim inheritance laws, you would see that no one is barred from inheriting

I would appear to know a lot more about Muslim inheritance than you do as that statement of yours is actually totally incorrect.

There are many categories of people who are barred from inheriting under Islamic law. Non-believers are one category. Murderers are, obviously and correctly, another. Anyone who is not a blood realtion is debarred. So therefore are adopted (or non-uterine children), the reasoning being that adoption itself is forbidden in Islamc law.

Quaranic law also states that in certain situations a daughter's share of the Will is only half that of her brother.

Of course, if you think that Islamic law is actually good guidance on the distribution of wealth then you're welcome to use the secular laws we already have to enact your wishes.

However, in the enlighted Western country that I live in male and female children are treated equally and adoption means treating a person as though he/she was your natural child. Something that Islamic law would forbid me to do in inheritance terms.

Gil - for the umpteenth time, non blood relatives are not debarred from inheriting, up to a third of the estate can be allocated to them.

There is nothing in UK law compelling you to treat children equally in matters of inheritance and many do not.

Not sure if you saw my post - "Just a quick question about the adopted/illegitimate children thing - why are they classed as non-blood relatives when they are actually the child/ren of the deceased?"

I was told by my solicitor that legal challenges by disinherited children are increasing and are also becoming increasingly successful.

I was told that a disinherited child could probably easily find themselves a pro bono lawyer to contest the Will, espcailly if a large estate was at issue.

I was told that aby legal challenege could deplete the estate in the legal fees the heirs would incuir in fighting off the disinherited child's challenge.

I was told that if you really wanted to disinherit a child you should leave them something in Trust with conditions attached. Much more difficult to challenge if a Letter of Wishes explained why you were doing this.

The trouble is there's a standard template for wills made under English law with the default position that children are treated equally. Male, female, biological, adopted. You can of course deviate from that and do what you like, but the default position is one of equality.

The standard template for sharia-compliant wills starts with the default position that children are not treated equally on gender grounds. So you start on a discriminatory footing. However you can deviate from the gender discrimination if you want.

However if your child is adopted they are a lesser being who can at best scrabble around for the third of your estate which 'people like them' are allowed to access. You cannot deviate from the sharia template treat them as you would a biological child.

And that is vile and disgusting.

Yes, it is appalling the Law Society should issue shiut guidance rather than guidance which says if you have sexist misogynistic clients you should be kicking them between the legs after offering them a weekend feminist course....

However......

1. English laws of primogeniture with not only the oldest child (not fair on younger ones) and only if they are male means many estates and titles only go to oldest boys. We are not sitting here as white atheists from the UK with clean hands as it were.

1. If you disinherit someone who is dependent on you and do not make sufficient provision for them under the IPFDA whatever it is called then those not provided for can apply for support. I would hope solicitors would be encouraged to bring legal challenges against these awful unfair Muslim rules which treat women as second class citizens and have no place in the UK.

I see the basic point that currently you can leave your assets to whoever you like. Which means it can be as unpleasant as you want it to be. And this new guidance to solicitors doesn't change that. Indeed, as has been pointed out upthread, we had (and still have) some of these noxious practices in UK law for generations. When my mum had her will written, the solicitor's first draft left certain sums to be divided between "all legitimate grandchildren". My mum was livid - not least because she has three girls so we know damn well where all those grandchildren came from...she gave the solicitor what for and that phrase was removed.

However, it does not seem particularly enlightened of the Law Society to be drawing up guidance now to help enshrine in properly written wills some of the stuff referenced here such as the lesser status for adopted and illegitimate children. If someone wants to leave less to their adopted child than to their birth child, they should just spell it out in unattractive words in their will. No one needs guidance to help anyone do this - it just is crap and making it properly drafted crap doesn't change that.

What on earth is "scrabbling around" about having a share of a will accounted to you? Depending on the make up of the family, an adopted child could actually inherit more then the person's biological children and that's in addition to anything they may also have inherited from their deceased parents.

With regards to adoption, Muslims generally don't adopt as orphaned children are generally cared for by relatives, so while caring for a relative's child is common, adoption is very rare. When a child is adopted, their lineage should not be hidden, so they keep their own names, they keep any property or goods they had and they keep their entitlement to inherit from their birth family, that's why they aren't treated as biological children under inheritance laws.

As for illegitimate children, there's no specific provision for them in the same way that there's no mention of girlfriends having any inheritance rights, because if you are a religious Muslim, you are not meant to be having children out of wedlock, hence they aren't specified in Islamic inheritance laws.

Are people worried that more sharia laws will be legalised? Are they the same from country to country anyway? I would assume they differ to some extent between different 'flavous' (sorry, not the right word, brain dead atm, been a long day) of islam.

Can such a will not be contesyed under _' law if, for exampe, a daughter is a poor widow and her brother has a business and loads of money? They can't ensure that he looks after his sister financially can they?

I assumed it was more a case of the money going to a 'household' and the sons more likely to be supporting a wife/kids, whereas a daughter would be assumedly being finand by her hubby and his inheritance. Of course, this is all very ye olde fashioned. Not very 21st century UK.

If I understand this correctly, the document is "How to write a will, under English law, so that the bequests will be calculated according to the proportions desired in accordance with Muslim tradition"

So there is no imposition of an alien law.

You might equally have a document specifying how to word a will if you wanted all the legatees' shares to vary depending on age or consanguinity.

You might or might not agree with how a person chooses to divide their estate, but that's no more your business than it is mine.

What on earth is "scrabbling around" about having a share of a will accounted to you? Depending on the make up of the family, an adopted child could actually inherit more then the person's biological children and that's in addition to anything they may also have inherited from their deceased parents.

Sorry but this is pure sophistry. Biological children have automatic entitlement to a share of at least 66% of assets under sharia wills and up to 100%. Adopted children can access a maximum of 33%, and are prohibited from accessing more. So yes, if someone has tons of biological children and one adopted child then technically you could have the anomalous situation where the adopted child gets more, if the parent sticks to the default 66/33% split. Rather than give the 'real' kids 100% and the adopted one nothing which they can easily do. But they can't treat the adopted child equally.

You are ignoring the fact that adopted children suffer appalling discrimination under sharia law.

You are missing my point that there aren't many children adopted in the Western sense in Muslim families, it is extremely rare and since adopted children don't just pop up randomly in a family, it is straightforward for a family to make provision for them.

You are also ignoring that of the 66%, it doesn't automatically go to the biological children, they get a share, but other family members may also be entitled to a share of that 66%.

You're failing to see the point here Gosh.

We live in a society where there is absolutely no discrimmination between your natural and adopted children in law.

Whether you chose to leave them an inheritance or not is up to you, but the law itself does not discrimminate.

Sharia law does make that distinction bwteen uterine and adopted children. It does discrimminate.

It's really depressing that Muslims seem to think that this is accpetable and try to argue this away by saying 'Well actually, Muslims don't adopt anyway, so it's all hypothetical'.