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.

I think the difficulty (that sometimes obscures meaning) Defuse, is one of language.

'British' is now, quite rightly, an all encompassing term covering a multitude of religions and cultures.

'British way of life', 'British values' etc are expressions that have been adopted and warped by the far-right, EDL-type racists.

I think there are a group of people wanting to make a certain type of point with no racist or bigoted intent, who are left at a loss for vocabulary.

It is no a two-sided debate. It is hugely multi-faceted. There are big issues like freedom of speech and non-discrimination in public life involved. It matters.

It is cheap to dismiss whole chunks of opinion as bigoted without proof.

And the above is dangerous. People and opinions, of any stripe or viewpoint, being routinely dismissed or unjustly maligned just fuels bad feeling and undermines the debate.

AND polarises the debate artificially.

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.

It is not pedantry or misunderstanding to point out a fundamental factual inaccuracy. The point you are making about inheritance is wrong as there is already no single set of 'rules' in this country - because there is no such thing as British law.

You cannot use 'British' as interchangeable for 'English and Welsh', that is ignorant, wrong and offensive.

I didn't make the original point.

Whoever did, made an error in referring to 'British law'.

However, the point (s)he made is quite accurate in relation to E&W 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

Iirc, there are ways to mitigate this issue ie if you make a will then you can restrict the claim substantially. esp in respect to property.

Doesn't stop Islam being a patriarchial religion that discriminates against women

^this

of not to

The bottom line is that Sharia discriminates against women in a way that is unacceptable in the UK today and most of us want to work to ensure that changes. The fact the Law Society puts its rubber stamp on it is appalling but perhaps illustrates the law still remains chock full of sexist white males who are misogynists so Islam must suit them rather well.

The truth is sexist white males don't give a stuff about Muslim women.

Sharia law provides a framework which makes it easier for them to be absolved of all need to consider Muslim women. What's not to like?

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.

Well you played the race card on Tuesday, when you accused me of being racist, when in fact I'm motivated by being adopted and also having worked with adopted and fostered children. I left the thread then as I thought it pointless to continue debating with someone who was into (a) cheap shots and (b) supported a system which would completely fuck me and my kind over.

And today, form another poster, we have the you can't criticise if you are white because it's colonial. Yeah, it's completely 'white feminist saviour' to object to unequal treatment on grounds of gender/birth circumstances.

Muslims are apparently very happy to keep saying that Islam isn't a race - unless people disagree with aspects of Islam, and then they immediately conflate religion and race so they can shout 'racism'.

It is very simple.

Is Islam a race? No.

Are most

Pressed post to soon.

Islam is not a race, but much criticism of Muslims, who by and large are not white is absolutely steeped in racism and orientalism.

Hence we have someone, completely without shame declare that Sharia Law is only suitable "for primitive people living in deserts" and "If they don't like it, they can go and live in Saudi Arabia".

Have any of the rich white arisitocrats who people on here claim to be equally outraged by, been described in such terms? No, they have not.

Defuse is exactly right, these threads are completely about a white saviour complex and wanting to tell Muslims how to live their lives and is just the modern day version of the Ham Police, rather then any actual concern for Muslim women.

Muslims are told that their food is unacceptable, their clothes are unacceptable, how they chose to spend their money is unacceptable and so on until the choice is to either not be Muslim at all, or leave. Yet this is supposed to be liberation for us?

A "White feminist saviour" argument just doesn't apply here (in a multicultural UK context).

If it does then what the poster is arguing is that a majority of UK women should be effectively disenfranchised from opining about the Law Society's actions in relation to gender equality, on the basis of their skin colour

Surely the question is whether the guidance was necessary and/or justified?

Xposted

I have concerns about the fact that the guidance has been issued Gosh but not out of 'concern for Muslim women'. My concern is about the integrity of the law and the law society and about gender equality.

I'm quite sure 'Muslim women' are more than capable of being concerned about themselves.

This line of argument amounts to blackmail; "agree with us or we'll accuse you of racism".

And BTW, anyone using terms like primitive and suggesting Brits move to Saudi are probably best dealt with by being comprehensively ignored.

fideline - you misunderstand what is meant by "white feminist saviour complex". It's the idea that Muslim women cannot help themselves, have no understanding of what is best for themselves, but need someone from superior White, Western culture to save them and tell them what is best for them.

"Do Muslim Women Need Saving?" by Lila Abu-Lughod is an excellent overview of this.

fideline - you misunderstand what is meant by "white feminist saviour complex". It's the idea that Muslim women cannot help themselves, have no understanding of what is best for themselves, but need someone from superior White, Western culture to save them and tell them what is best for them.

"Do Muslim Women Need Saving?" by Lila Abu-Lughod is an excellent overview of this.

No, I understand it, but I disagree with the way that it is being invoked.

I think this whole thread has got misframed. I'll pop back in a bit and expand.

Okay; the OP is a professional will-writer, she has started this thread expressing sadness that the guidance has been issued by the Law Society and mentioning 'unequal shares to female children'. She is clearly not in favour of the LS's action.

Several posters agree with her, several don't. Several of the 'don'ts' have declared themselves Muslim.

One poster manages to sound racist, one gets (apparently unfairly) accused of racism, two posters make sweeping claims about the UK being generally racist or somesuch. Everyone else seems to be trying to have a semi-sensible debate.

I am not picking up a general flavour of 'white feminist saviours' from the 'anti LS guidance' contingent. I just can't see it.

My own concern is that I think UK law (Scots and E&W) should not be endorsing or codifying anything that contradicts or compromises the principle of gender equality.

The clincher is that there isn't even a conflict with E&W law (which applies to majority of UK citizens) - this guidance wasn't even necessary to enable Sharia-compliant wills in E&W. So why have the LS issued the guidance, risking accusations of enabling various discriminations in the process?

I joined this thread expecting to learn that there was indeed some obscure necessity. Not a single person has outlined one.

It would be really good to get the debate back in a sensible track.

So two questions;

1. Why was the guidance needed? 2)Why do you think 'white feminist saviour theory applies?

I'm interested in the white saviour argument. Does a questionning of the less savoury aspects of a religion (or culture) have to be challenged with a reference to this argument?

One thing is for sure as ever all the sexist men are in it together whether keen to maintain Sharia law which keeps women down or whilst excluding women from their clubs and groups and the like. Go any place men post where women don't and you will find huge sympathy for rules which ensure supremacy for men, sadly. I hope that will change but the ethos that eldest sons inherit, it's not worth spending money on education of girls who will only marry etc etc must give lots of common cause between Muslim men and traditional white English men.

They are both as wrong as each other. If female muslims don't want atheist women to point out their law is sexist to the core that is just tough (and I have explained above how most of us know that in their day which has long gone now those Mulsim rules were there to protect women as much as harm them of course) and I would make the same comment to anyone else whose rules were sexist including the C of E which still does not allow a female archbishop and has a long way to go.

Sir - Less savoury according to who? Who gets to decide and does the opinion of a non-Muslim British person somehow hold more weight then that of a Muslim British person?

Then there's the question about what should happen as a result of that opinion. People will happily mouth denunciations of Aristocrats, but only Muslims seem to have petitions mounted against them.

Then there is the whole wider context of ongoing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice in the UK.

Fideline - as explain upthread (with a link added), Islamic wills are very complex, the Law Society therefore wish to provide guidance and training for solicitors who wish to undertake this work.

And, you cannot dismiss racism or declare any mention of it not be sensible. The idea that you somehow need to facilitate the debate by telling Muslims what they can and cannot say would be laughable if it did not so perfectly prove our point.