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.

We can all agree that there are some pretty awful places on earth and places where Islam is around at present do not come out very highly on tolerance, women's rights and peace. That does not mean that other countries are great - there are 250,000 in prison camps in North Korea and the parts of Africa where Islam is not present are still pretty awful. India is a lot nicer than Pakistan though so that may be a religious difference - Hindu more peaceful than Muslim? Although it's sexist to the core and kills many baby girls every year as does China. This planet is not a great place for women. The UK and US and much of Europe are some of the better countries for women.

I don't know what the solutions are in the Middle East. We seem to have supported extreme Islamic rebels in Syria and on the one hand say the regime in power there is awful and yet then criticise British muslims (women as well as men) who go there ( just as British people did to Spain decades ago during the Spanish civil war) to fight against the regime the UK state apparently hates. What a mess. The sooner all those states from Saudi to Iran have 100% female leaders the better.

Secular government but in most cases comprised of praticising Muslims.

I don't remember the west saying 'never again' after Szrebenica. I remeber being utterly depressed at nothing being done to stop the Serbs. I do remember a lot of hand wringing before the atrocities committed against the Sarajevans finally got the US to take action.

Can't you see how contrary your view is?

You complain about western interference in these NA/ME countries and then complain that the west is not involved in Syria.

And the reason we are not involved in Syria is that the GB public had no stomach for it, having seen how our 'interference' in other countries has been viewed. The Arab League could easily sort out the Syrian problem. Saudi has the capability to do so. They just won't use it.

Basically we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

fideline. You are rude and patronising to gosh. You are not refereeing this debate, nor are you the judge and jury. If you cannot be respectful and civil, then you shouldnt be 'debating' - if thats what you call your patronising stance.

India is a lot nicer than Pakistan though so that may be a religious difference - Hindu more peaceful than Muslim?

jane you are ill-informed and hold bigoted views ethnic cleansing.

What about Syria and Iran's fuelling of the Israeli conflict by supplying Hizbollah?

wet you really think that weapon supply to Hizbollah is the predominant cause of the israel- palestinian issue? Do you think israel will stop all its violations if the weapon suply stopped, and have mercy on palestininian children?

amnesty 2012 report

We continue to digress. Back to the op, for the 1000th time, nothing is going to change in English law. If you cannot understand why muslim women may hold an opinion that opposes yours, especially because you are trying to tell her what is good for her and effectively trying to save her from those sexist muslim men, when she doesnt want or need saving, then i say that you have a white feminist saviour complex who is creating an 'us' and 'them' scenario and you really should address this first of all - the saviour complex that is.

What nonsense. Gosh insults everyone who is trying to engage with him/her by ignoring questions and ranting irrelevantly.
Maybe he/she thinks it looks clever? It doesn't. I think it looks evasive

There still hasn't been a substantive answer about what the need for the practice note actually was Defuse. If you genuinely want to get back to the OP, perhaps you could address that.

wet you really think that weapon supply to Hizbollah is the predominant cause of the israel- palestinian issue

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

You're attributing views to me that I don't hold.

I just remarked on the selectivity of the examples that were picked.

Personally, I have no wish to 'save you'. I just don't want your religiously held views encroaching on my personal freedom.

Go and help Syria if you wish. I don't think the British guy who went to be a suicide bomber did the conflict much good. But whatever floats your boat.

Telling us what we think seems to be part of their MO Wet

Wet - people keep trying to explain to you about the regimes in the Middle East and all you keep saying is that "they're all practising Muslims". Assad sr and Jr, Hussein, Ghaddafi, Ben Ali, Mubarak, none of them were motivated by Islam and all of them gave anyone who appeared " too Muslim" an extremely hard time and by hard time, I mean imprisoned, tortured, executed, or forced into exile.

It is a common mistake to overlook the many political, economic and ethnic issues within the Middle East and assume that it's all about Islam. It really is far more complex then that.

As for "dammed if we do, dammed if we don't". Iraq was an illegal and unjust war. Afghanistan is a failed state due to essentially being used as site of a proxy war during the Cold War. I don't think a foreign invasion after decades of foreign invasions was a particularly wise idea. So I would say critism of both interventions are well founded.

As for Syria, the conflict is now 3 years old. People seem to be forgetting about the original armed opposition to the regime, the Free Syrian Army who were non-sectarian. It is possible that arming them, early in the conflict would have finished the Assad regime, before the Islamist likes of ISIS had chance to get involved. But I will accept that is mere speculation.

Besides limited Western involvement in Syria has far more to do with avoiding a proxy war with Russia and Iran, both of whom are heavily backing the Assad regime.

Jane with your remark about female leaders, you do know that Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia have all had female leaders?

Fideline - why do you think the Law Society have issued a guidance note? Is it a plot to further Sharia law? Or do you think it's because will-writing for Muslims is a potentially lucrative but complicated field for solicitors and the Law Society just wants to help its members access that market? You seem to think it's some kind of sinister scheme, when the reality is far more prosiac.

Can you show me any evidence of me 'seeming to think it's a sinister scheme' Gosh?

Didn't think so.

Do you think my explanation of why they've issued the guidance note is plausible? Yes or no.

As I read it you were saying the guidance notes was issued to make it easier for solicitors to draft sharia-compliant wills. Yes? That of course seems plausible.

What I am wondering is whether there was really a problem prior to the guidance notes and thus whether the guidance notes were actually necessary?

There have not been many female leaders in most countries, though including the West. If more women got more power in Islamic states women would be treated a lot better, I'm sure. It is certainly so that women do much better in countries where Islam is not in the ascendancy or the awful sexist version of it men choose to promulgate for their own ends.

The guidance notes are a big mistake not lease because they might make solicitors who don't know Sharia have an attempt at doing a Sharia compliant will and probably getting it wrong.

There are many muslim feminists and they with non muslim feminists need all the help they can get about shouting from the rooftops as to how sexist Islam can be. There is no reason why in 2014 when many Muslim women are doctors and lawyers and earn more than their husbands, when education for girls and boys is such a high priority particularly for many immigrants the inheritance rules should be those appropriate for a time when women were almost owned property. It's ridiculous. Think about God. Think about what the intention was - to ensure women are not destitute. That is only a means - sexist rules which were the best compromise in their day. A better rule today is fairness and ensuring girls get such a good education they don't need to rely on men financially to provide for them.

If more women got more power in Islamic states women would be treated a lot better, I'm sure.

Bhutto didn't do a lot in that predominately Muslim country. I remember Womans Hour criticising her when she was in power for failing to tackle the rape laws that discrimmated against women.

The Law Society should be blind to all but E & W law. It should have no views and provide no 'assistance' or guidance on alternative 'laws'.

From the Law Society Website www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/practice-notes/:

"Practice notes are for our members and represent our view of good practice in a particular area. Following the advice in these practice notes will make it easier to account to oversight bodies for your actions."

It's not about recognising other laws. It's not about putting other laws on a par with E&W law or allowing them to overrule E&W law. It is purely and simply about guiding solicitors who wish to meet the needs of a particular group of clients. All the work of the solicitor is still governed by E&W law.

If a cultural group (and many do) liked to divide their estate in a particular and rather complex way, based on their own traditions and the Law Society subsequently issued a guidance note about it, the Secular society and the media would have nothing to say about it. Yet, if Muslims do it, petitions get created. It is nonsensical.

I find it embarrassing that a major national newspaper such as the Independent and several others seems to have no idea of how the law works. Having a negative opinion of Muslims is one thing, having total ignorance of the legal processes of this country is quite another.

It is official endorsement of sexist legislation which is appalling to many people. yes it is guidance only, but it is still them saying this is fine - write will under it, great law, go forth and encourage the sexism of this.

No one is saying everyone else writes fair wills and no one else is sexist. That is a separate point. Now when the Law Soc got English law changed to enable chained Jewish women to get theit Get to get a divorce that was freeing the women, that was enabling them to enforce their legal rights. I could stand behind that. It was in a sense saying jewish law is awful because it is unfair to women. Well done Law Soc for that. What they are doing with Sharia is not their place to do and will make people think it's fine to leave boys double what they leave girls. Absolutely dreadful.

I came onto this thread hoping that the Law Society guidelines would be addressing the question of advising Muslims on how they could manage their estate in such a way as to conform to Sharia while achieving greater equality for daughters. I live in a Muslim country and increasingly I see that parents are making property over to their daughters before they die, while retaining the "usufruit" (does the term exist in English? - the right to live in the house, take the rent from rented property...) during the parents' lifetime, so that as much property as possible passes to the daughters. In a family with two daughters and no sons, for example, if the father dies before the mother, then under Sharia law the daughters get a third each, the mother one eighth, and the remainder is divided between the father's parents (if still alive) and siblings. The siblings may have no interest at all in helping to support the daughters, so the argument that men have to bear the expenses of the household is irrelevant. I know several couples who only have daughters and no sons, who have chosen to make their property over to their daughters for this reason, while other couples with both sons and daughters have given money to their daughters to enable them to start a business or buy a house.

"It's not about recognising other laws. It's not about putting other laws on a par with E&W law or allowing them to overrule E&W law."

Well of course it's not.

That's not the source of the concern.

Fideline - According to Wet August, it is the source of concern and that is who I was responding to. Stop being so snippy.

Long - I don't think it is fair to expect the Law Society to further a particular agenda. The Law Society may well have guidance notes on leaving your estate to charity, but I'm sure the guidance note won't discuss if it is ethical to disinherit your family, or give to animal charities instead of ones helping humans. The Law Society clearly states that it issues guidance notes to help it's members operate within the law. Nothing about bringing about societal change.

In one of my first posts on here, I did mention that Sharia can be flexible and nicename also gave examples of how daughters are often gifted property in their lifetime, but that was overlooked.

"It's not about recognising other laws. It's not about putting other laws on a par with E&W law or allowing them to overrule E&W law."

Fideline - According to Wet August, it is the source of concern and that is who I was responding to. Stop being so snippy.

Where on earth did I say that? I didn't There you go again, attributing views to me that I dont hold.

I know what the Law Society is and it isn't Parliament. Only Parliament could put sharia on a par with E&W law or overturn E&W law - and that is not going to happen for the forseeable future.

My disagreement with the Law Society guidance is that they felt they had to recognise sharia in any way, shape or form. It should be sufficient for any Muslim to turn up at their solicitors and make a will leaving whatever they want to whomever they want - as long as that will is complaint with E&W law. If a solicitor could not draw up such a will without specific guidance from the Law Society on how to do so then that solictor is not fit to practise.

That's my disagreement - the recognition that was given to Sharia.

So the Law Society should not provide its members with any background information about a particular client need because that is seen as recognising a practice you find distasteful?

What nonsense.

It's also worrying to advocate that the legal profession should be ignorant of a particular matter that is relevant to serving their clients, just because it doesn't fit with the ethical values of some people.

Either the Law Society is allowed to provide information to help its members meet client needs, or it isn't.

o the Law Society should not provide its members with any background information about a particular client need because that is seen as recognising a practice you find distasteful?

What nonsense.

It's also worrying to advocate that the legal profession should be ignorant of a particular matter that is relevant to serving their clients, just because it doesn't fit with the ethical values of some people.

Either the Law Society is allowed to provide information to help its members meet client needs, or it isn't. Demanding that the Law Society withdraw guidance to serve a particular client group could set a very unpleasant precedent.

So the Law Society should not provide its members with any background information about a particular client need because that is seen as recognising a practice you find distasteful?

There you go yet again - attributing views to me I don't hold.

Lets try again

^So the Law Society should not provide its members with any background information about a particular client need. FULLSTOP.

NEW SENTENCE. Yes, I find Sharia law distasteful. Don't you? Or are you happy with the stonings of adulterers, hanging of homosexuals, amputation of limbs, gouging of eyes.... and all the other punishments meted out under the auspices of 'sharia'.

The Law Society should be blind to all but E&W law(but that's actually a bit too narrow as E&W law can actually take account of common law formulated in other countries whose systems of law follow the E&W system).

If you do intend to respond please try reallym really hard not to attribute to me any more views that you may feel I should hold, but in reality, I don't.

That's the usual courtesy when discussing things.

But what about if those "other countries" you've mentioned also have the death penalty, or other laws you find oppressive?

Most Muslim countries don't carry out

hadd punishments by the way, so to claim that such punishments are an inherent part of Sharia Law is incorrect.