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.

Ah, they were a primative people, who developed algebra, astronomy, fine cuisine (well some of it), medicine, and written language...

Anyway. As usual it will boil down to cultural practice. My relatives in one part of the ME obviously live with sharia law. You can still leave your money to whoever you want, but traditionally it will be a bigger cut to your sons. Usually, however, the daughters do get a cut but also are given money/property by their mums (not usually the sons, now) who, as they have had the right to hold in their own right, control their own property. And remember, daddies do help out their daughters in their lifetimes too and buying homes is not unheard of before a marriage to guarantee a home if a marriage breaks up (which is pretty cool in my eyes as the ex can't get his hands on it).

Now, this 'civilized' behaviour may not happen with the muslim equivalent of the Jeremy Kyle types (oh yes, there are shits in all religions and none) but this is what I see happening. I have also known hugely massive estates all going to charity.

I am sure the ratbags will use it to their benefit. As long as it doesn't extend to parental 'rights' after divorce. Hats a sticky one.

Any religion or culture which is sexist is morally objectionable and the Law Society has no place in encouraging or facilitating that sexism. It needs to be wiped off the face of the earth, no matter how well meaning when originally proposed and I apply that as much to English aristocracy's primogeniture rules to any religious rules.

People to know it is morally wrong and if there is a God you can be sure she will be very cross when you end up meeting her that women and men are treated differently. These sexist religions will be due a huge comeuppance in the after life if there be one.

Indeed it is no different than if I founded a religion tomorrow which said if you are white you receive x10 the assets of any child who is black and those who be Asian will receive x 5. You would laugh that out of court yet we kow tow to sexist religions just because it is women who are being treated unequally under the religious law. Anti women inheritance is fine whereas not letting someone inherit because they are black for example would be clamped down upon if it were within religious rules which in a sense what Islam does (as if the person to inherit is not Muslim they inherit or inherit less which is surely bound to affect those who marry out... in which case is that not illegal indirect racial discrimination?)

The folks I know that have given heaps away have been very religious types who have made sure their kids have had the best starts in life, but were keen to 'do the right thing' morally (to the poor) and make sure that their kids learned to make their own way.

A bit like the AO guy in the press this weekend with his £££squillions that he wasn't going to leave to his 5 kids. I can't see that will going uncontested!

Indeed it is no different than if I founded a religion tomorrow which said if you are white you receive x10 the assets of any child who is black and those who be Asian will receive x 5

So true. In fact, if most religions were founded today there would be outrage at what is required in order to be an observant and good member of that faith.

It always works well as an analogy - so many things which are sexist to the core everyone thinks are fine as it's only women being discriminated against but as soon as you change the example and put black and white in there the awfulness of the original sexism comes to light.

Here is a link to the petition requesting the Law Society withdraw the practice note in case anyone wants to sign.

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-law-society-law-society-withdraw-your-guidance-legitimising-discrimination-against-women-non-muslims-and-illegitimate-and-adopted-children

Signed.

Thanks.

crescentmoon - Under Sharia Law, women are routinely discriminated against. The fact that men are treated as the breadwinners, does not balance it.

It always works well as an analogy - so many things which are sexist to the core everyone thinks are fine as it's only women being discriminated against but as soon as you change the example and put black and white in there the awfulness of the original sexism comes to light

So true. I was recently at a workshop conference thing about business ops and the Saudi man at the table was telling everyone about their family business and how obviously it was run by the 12 brothers not the 17 sisters. Everyone at the table just nodded and smiled while inwardly rolling their eyes. If he had been an Apartheid South African making an equivalent choice about race, expecting everyone round the table to listen and endorse the decision, people would have stood up and walked out.

I wonder if we've become so frightened of offending religions and cultures that we don't challenge for fear of being intolerant, or not multiculturally minded, or bigoted - whereas it's easier to challenge racism as the legal framework is clear in what is acceptable? I don't know...but my concern is that the Law Society's stance on Sharia law gives it a seal of approval almost, which in turn makes it harder to challenge as being unacceptable.

Yes, Quangle - it helps to expose sexism but turning the offending thing round into a black and white issue as we can be so used to people saying it's fine women get less or are treated worse but if we substituted the word black or Jew or Muslim people would be up in arms about that. The Mormons a very long while back did not allow black members (that has definitely by the way changed now) but was a big issue in its day.

I don't believe that values are all relative. I think it is an absolute that discrimination is wrong. I am sure that Islam was set up in many of its rules in its day to protect women and was well meaning but applying it to today's times it is utterly sexist particularly these will rules and also the rules in some states that you need two women to give evidence to be worth that of a man's evidence.

The Law Society may well be stuffed with rich posh men who presumably are more than happy with the Sharia status quo which is UK circa 1820 where could not even own property. If you get groups of men alone or on line the sexism is very strong and as most religions are sexist and male led it is not surprising that some of the worst sexism comes from religion even if the principles are supposedly of equality. It is man who has distorted any message of a supposed God for male ends through history in most religions.

SirChenjin

I wonder if we've become so frightened of offending religions and cultures that we don't challenge for fear of being intolerant, or not multiculturally minded, or bigoted

Sort of

I'd put it like this

I wonder if we've become so frightened of unintentionally offending religions and cultures that we don't challenge for fear of being labelled intolerant, or not multiculturally minded, or bigoted by those who really don't stop to think about the points we're trying to make or those who just wish to stifle all debate

I would hope that no-one would intentionally offend - but some people take offence when their religion (and some of the less desirable elements of said religion) is called into question.

Though.They should get therapy if they can't cope or hang out in Saudi where their religion is not likely to be revealed as the sexist sham it is.

Sorry, but we're here to stay and as long as it fits within the UK law, we'll practice our religion as we please.

I did wonder how long it would be until a thinly veiled version of "they can go back to where they came from with their foreign ways" would pop up.

Here is a link to the petition requesting the Law Society withdraw the practice note.

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-law-society-law-society-withdraw-your-guidance-legitimising-discrimination-against-women-non-muslims-and-illegitimate-and-adopted-children

Gorilla, of course many, maybe most, Muslim people are born and brought up in Britain. Doesn't stop Islam being a patriarchial religion that discriminates against women.

The bigots will always expose themselves a bigots - no matter how hard they try to conceal it. ' Go back to where you came from' is such a racist, bigoted remark. The new format of the same thing is ' go back to a muslim country'. Will take the bigots a while to figure out why that is a bigoted remark.

those same people bang on about 'political correctness gone mad' and how ' the good law abiding british upstanding citizens have such fear of 'accidentally' offending those multicultural people for fear of being labelled racist/ bigots/ xenophobes/ islamophobes'. Because multicultural people cannot possibly be british can they! Wrong skin colour, or wrong beliefs etc etc.

This talk of islam and sexism on this thread is more about the white feminist saviour than anything else.

defuse - you are assuming so much i.e. that others on this thread are white, and that no one who is white is allowed to be critical of anything that happens that negatively impacts on black of asian women.

Yes some criticism of Islam as a religion that oppresses women is fuelled by racism. But certainly not all.

Pffft. Under standard British law nothing in a will goes automatically to anyone, the person writing the will has complete free reign.

You are wrong. There is no such thing as 'British Law'. There is English law and Scots law. Under Scots law, you cannot disinherit your children and all children, regardless of gender, are entitled to claim a portion of the movable estate.

Ithaka That was a very deliberate piece of pedantry/ misunderstanding. If one substitutes 'E & W' for 'British then the point is a good unarguable one.