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.

"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."

I haven't 'dismissed racism' Gosh I've said alleging it on thin to non-existent evidence is unhelpful.

"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."

That's not a need. Is there a need?

This thread is full of what constitutes the 'less savoury' aspects of Islam. I'm saddened that you are unable to see that Sharia law is incompatible with a society which recognises women as equal to men, adopted children as equal to biological children.

And please stop accusing the UK of having an anti-Islamic agenda. The race card is getting tiresome.

"The idea that you somehow need to facilitate the debate by telling Muslims what they can and cannot say "

Another example right there. How is pointing out a lack of logic (on more than one side) specifically 'telling Muslims what they can and cannot say'?!!

You don't seem to be objecting to my other stated opinion that the use of the word 'primitive' was completely unreasonable.

If anyone can actually explain how WFS saviour theory is relevant i'd be all ears. I really can't see it.

There are plenty of Asian women who criticise Islam as a patriarchial religion that oppresses women. Just as there are plenty of Irish women who criticise catholicism for the same thing.

Someone who believes in Islam, is hardly likely to recognise how it fundamentally oppresses women.

Feminists who criticise Islam, also criticise all of the abrahamic religions. So I think catholicism is evil in how it treats women.

And for your info, Catholics tend to say I and others are anti Christian and - "you wouldn't say that about Islam". I do not discriminate when noticing how religions harm women.

fideline - It isn't relevant. It is a silencing technique that has loads of assumptions inherent in it. Not least, that all of us criticising Islam are white.

That's what I thought

I see. So you've all decided amongst yourself that anything Muslims have to say, unless they agree with you, is irrelevant.

On you go then, carry on saving Muslim women.

Why can't you substantiate your assertions Gosh? Why can't you point out the rationale or the evidence?

No-one's been in touch with me - I'm so clever that I managed to work out for myself that Sharia law and Islam is incompatible with equality.

I think we're supposed to be conspiring on-thread Sir.

Presumably it is our collective failure to agree with her stance that gives the conspiracy away .

Apparently so. It's that pesky anti-Islamic conspiracy again, isn't it

I genuinely think it is a colossal shame that a proper debate has to be derailed by both racist bigots and race-card players.

Ok, this is how the conversation seems to be going. A poster says that there is racism and bigotry on the thread. Another poster backs it up ans says she feels the same. Then along comes another poster who tells both those posters that their feelings are invalid and that is such a shame because they were doing soooo well up until then, with the add-on advice to be better and cleverer. Patronising much!

Then comes another poster talking explicitly about islam being 'prmitive' and about muslims to 'go back to saudi'. Then along comes another poster talking about muslims playing 'the race card'. So some shout bigotry, and some shout oh you are just playing the race card to stifle discussion. As a poster said above, we have been presented link after link for a petition against the shariah compliant will - where is the link for petition against aristocracy practices? Still claim that race and bigotry has no role in all of this?

The white feminist saviour complex does apply here. Dont know if anyone read the link - but if they did, did you see the example of the masai warrior? I wholeheartedly get it - and not because i am from the masai tribe! The way the white saviour tries to save women from other cultures, is by applying her own logic, rather than listening when the other women are saying that they dont need saving!

On paper, females get less than a male. I am female. Do I want to be given an equal share as my brother? The answer is no. My parents have done a whole lot more for me than they have for my brother. I like to think that I have done a lot for my brother too. He is entitled to his share. I do not begrudge him that.

I do not mind if muslims are being criticised fir a valid reason, but i feel incredibly upset when islam gets unjustly criticised. Most of the time, its just to make an inflammatory point, rather than debate.

No, the white saviour argument does not apply here. If you feel it does then I suggest you acquaint yourself with the whole thread.

As for not criticising Muslims unless there is a valid argument - again, read the whole thread. The reasons for the criticism have been set out very clearly. If you don't have concerns about the discrimination inherent in Sharia law then that's your lookout obviously, but it's not a discrimination that I feel happy to leave unchallenged.

The white saviour argument has been raised to subvert discussion about the discrimination within Sharia law.

I would go as far as to call Sharia primitive. Any form of 'justice' that permits the amputation of limbs is primitive.

Defuse of course colonial meddling in Masai cultural practices (and all other examples of WFS) are irrelevant here. We are discussing law in the UK. Not in Pakistan. Not in Saudi. Not in Palestine.

UK women discussing UK law is absolutely legitimate, whatever colour they are.

White British women are not colonial interlopers in the UK.

And the 'debate' is allegedly about the need or otherwise for the LS's new guidance and STILL no-one has pointed out what the need is. Or why the example of the Jewish Beth Din model could not be copied, keeping civil and religious law separate.

If there is a case to be made for the guidance being necessary or information to be supplied quite a few posters are wilfully swerving the opportunity.

in English law adopted children are not always treated the same in a few circumstances, they can not inherit titles, if William and Kate had been unable to conceive and have their own child Harry would be the heir this would still be the case even if they adopted a child ( irrelevant as they have George in practice) also in this case the heir must still be legitimate a child turning up from a previous relationship would not be the heir

this is elsewhere but prince albert of monaco has at least 2 children but he was not married to their mothers so at present his sisters and their children are the heirs as although married now there are no children to the marriage

Absolutely - in a few very limited circumstances. It's not a widespread occurrence, thankfully, as it is under Sharia law.

Various aristocrats have mounted legal challenges to some of those rules and doubtless the whole nonsense will crumble in time, but it is small area of arcane law which effects a tiny proportion of the population.

If you are having to point to the idiosyncrasies of the nobility to justify your argument, I suspect you are short on substantive arguments.

I don't accept all relativism. That is the issue, isn't it? Sexism, particularly that against women in Islam and most religions and English artistocratic male traditions is objectively wrong. If some women love how it protects them and ensures men provide for them etc etc then they are entitled tot atht view as we are the USA not Saudi - we allow different views but we are free to say that Islam is fundamentally sexist and to hope that

The only reason I have repeatedly mentioned the sexism (small bit of it) that exists in the aristocracy and also in the inability of you don't have penis to become Archbishop of Canterbury is to illustrate that the arguments of women who want equal rights is nothing to do with picking on Islam. I am just as unhappy about women's lack of progress in getting cabinet seats although at least that is not enshrined by law.

My point on the guidance is it is a seal of approval to sexist awful religious laws which damage women and if she exists make God cry. It also is likely to encourage solicitors who know nothing about Sharia to make a pig's ear of such wills and ending up being sued for negligence. Lose lose all round for the Law Society. The fewer sharia wills the better.

The fewer sharia wills the better.

I disagree there Jane. If a million (or ten million or whatever) Brits want to write Shariah-compliant or Shariah-inspired wills that's fine by me. It is great that everyone has the freedom (In E&W at least) to dispose of their property as they see fit.

What I object to (until someone persuades me otherwise) is the LS signalling approval or acceptance of a discriminatory framework.

What I object to (until someone persuades me otherwise) is the LS signalling approval or acceptance of a discriminatory framework

Absolutely agree.

I certainly agree with that. However don't we accept there are objective moral wrongs we want righted - like there aer too many murders or too much domestic violence? I would add t that although not quite so bad the treatment of women by Sharia law. Therefore I don't sit on my hands silently saying let this sexism continue - girls get a worse deal than boys or some families encourage girls to serve men even their brothers or allow men 4 wives but women only 1 - I stand up and say that is objectively wrong and I want it to stop. I want the scales to be lifted from the eyes of those brought up with sexist conditioning so they see it for what it is and change for the better in the next generation.