Alright, for once I am on the feminists side on this one
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html
Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.
High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs. Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.
It explains how, in Islamic custom, inheritances are divided among a set list of heirs determined by ties of kinship rather than named individuals. It acknowledges the possibility of people having multiple marriages.
“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class,” the guidance says. “Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”
Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.
High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs. Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.
It explains how, in Islamic custom, inheritances are divided among a set list of heirs determined by ties of kinship rather than named individuals. It acknowledges the possibility of people having multiple marriages.
“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class,” the guidance says. “Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”
Scroll to see replies
WTF mate you're ****ing kidding me
It's a will.
I can write whatever I want in my will as long as I am mentally competent to do so.
If that means I want to give everything to charity or to one son then that is my decision.
I can write whatever I want in my will as long as I am mentally competent to do so.
If that means I want to give everything to charity or to one son then that is my decision.
(edited 10 years ago)
People can do whatever they wan with their money, but for some understanding, most muslim fathers expect that that their daughters will 100% be financially supported for by their husbands and so a son will need more money, as he will have to share it with his whole family whereas a daughter keeps it all to herself, and he can use 1/3 to give all to his daughter if they're not married. But this is all irrelevant anyway, people should be able to do whatever they want with their money. Middle-class feminists moaning about an issue that doesn't effect them, go ask what Muslim women think.
How absolutely ridiculous.
If they truly wish to follow and instill such ridiculously sexist values, they should leave to live in Islamic nations where this type of behaviour is already prevalent and accepted, rather than take advantage of our comfortable living standards and then enforce idiotic aspects of religion that have no place in this country. It's almost insulting.
If they truly wish to follow and instill such ridiculously sexist values, they should leave to live in Islamic nations where this type of behaviour is already prevalent and accepted, rather than take advantage of our comfortable living standards and then enforce idiotic aspects of religion that have no place in this country. It's almost insulting.
Original post by DorianGrayism
It's a will.
I can write whatever I want in my will as long as I am mentally competent to so so.
If that means I want to give everything to charity or to one son then that is my decision.
I can write whatever I want in my will as long as I am mentally competent to so so.
If that means I want to give everything to charity or to one son then that is my decision.
Original post by Gjaykay
This is completely unnecessary.
The state should have zero control over what a dead man leaves in his will.
Sexist and whatever or not, it's his last request, they should but the hell out.
The state should have zero control over what a dead man leaves in his will.
Sexist and whatever or not, it's his last request, they should but the hell out.
No.
Sexism should not be enshrined or protected by British Law.
Original post by the mezzil
No.
Sexism should not be enshrined or protected in British Law.
Sexism should not be enshrined or protected in British Law.
I said the lawmakers should keep out of it. It's not up to you who gets left something, and it shouldn't be up to anyone but that person.
Sexist or not, its nothing to do with either you or the state.
I erm..don't really get the big issue? Is it because its Islamic? Because as far as I understand it what someone puts in their will is their business? I could hypothetically leave my son £200,000 inheritance and £100,000 to my daughter. I mean I don't like it, but is it the states business to interfere here?
Original post by Gjaykay
I said the lawmakers should keep out of it. It's not up to you who gets left something, and it shouldn't be up to anyone but that person.
Sexist or not, its nothing to do with either you or the state.
Sexist or not, its nothing to do with either you or the state.
We have laws for a reason. It's to stop immorality's occurring, such as this. You could make the same argument about murder or taking cocaine: "lawmakers should keep out".
No. British law should not enshrine or protect sexism.
Original post by DorianGrayism
It's a will.
I can write whatever I want in my will as long as I am mentally competent to so so.
If that means I want to give everything to charity or to one son then that is my decision.
I can write whatever I want in my will as long as I am mentally competent to so so.
If that means I want to give everything to charity or to one son then that is my decision.
I wouldn't describe people who base their life decisions on archaic principles, as mentally competent.
Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time
This may well be the most misleading headline I've ever come across.
The fuss over this is just stupid.
Original post by the mezzil
No.
Sexism should not be enshrined or protected by British Law.
Sexism should not be enshrined or protected by British Law.
Quite. Good, then, that nothing close to that has happened.
The whole point of the Law Society's guidance is that the will must satisfy English law. The entire exercise is premised on the fact that Sharia law is not enshrined in English law. It's guidance on serving particular clients' wishes within English law.
Original post by Meyrin
How absolutely ridiculous.
If they truly wish to follow and instill such ridiculously sexist values, they should leave to live in Islamic nations where this type of behaviour is already prevalent and accepted, rather than take advantage of our comfortable living standards and then enforce idiotic aspects of religion that have no place in this country. It's almost insulting.
If they truly wish to follow and instill such ridiculously sexist values, they should leave to live in Islamic nations where this type of behaviour is already prevalent and accepted, rather than take advantage of our comfortable living standards and then enforce idiotic aspects of religion that have no place in this country. It's almost insulting.
what's insulting is you thinking the state has the right to dictate how people divide their assets. Get a grip
Original post by the mezzil
We have laws for a reason. It's to stop immorality's occurring, such as this. You could make the same argument about murder or taking cocaine: "lawmakers should keep out".
No. British law should not enshrine or protect sexism.
No. British law should not enshrine or protect sexism.
Yes, because deciding who gets the stuff you have acquired throughout your own life is equal to murder.
Taking cocaine isn't equal to murder either.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
This may well be the most misleading headline I've ever come across.
The fuss over this is just stupid.
Quite. Good, then, that nothing close to that has happened.
The whole point of the Law Society's guidance is that the will must satisfy English law. The entire exercise is premised on the fact that Sharia law is not enshrined in English law. It's guidance on serving particular clients' wishes within English law.
The fuss over this is just stupid.
Quite. Good, then, that nothing close to that has happened.
The whole point of the Law Society's guidance is that the will must satisfy English law. The entire exercise is premised on the fact that Sharia law is not enshrined in English law. It's guidance on serving particular clients' wishes within English law.
The guidance suggests that Sharia principles could potentially overrule British practices in some disputes, giving examples of areas that would need to be tested in English courts. Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws.
Original post by Gjaykay
Yes, because deciding who gets the stuff you have acquired throughout your own life is equal to murder.
Taking cocaine isn't equal to murder either.
Taking cocaine isn't equal to murder either.
That is a different debate, one I would disagree with you on.
I never said it is equal to murder. Read again:
We have laws for a reason. It's to stop immorality's occurring, such as this. You could make the same argument about murder or taking cocaine: "lawmakers should keep out".
As much as it's the will writer's choice what goes where, the fact that we've added religious doctrine into law just sickens me.
If there's no will then inheritance should be split equally between the heirs. If the will writer wants it all to go to their son and none to their daughter that's perfectly fine, but only because it's what the writer wants. If unspecified it should be split equally.
Why did we need Islamic culture incorporated into our system? We should be moving away from this nonsense not adding more.
If there's no will then inheritance should be split equally between the heirs. If the will writer wants it all to go to their son and none to their daughter that's perfectly fine, but only because it's what the writer wants. If unspecified it should be split equally.
Why did we need Islamic culture incorporated into our system? We should be moving away from this nonsense not adding more.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by the mezzil
That is a different debate, one I would disagree with you on.
I never said it is equal to murder. Read again:
We have laws for a reason. It's to stop immorality's occurring, such as this. You could make the same argument about murder or taking cocaine: "lawmakers should keep out".
I never said it is equal to murder. Read again:
We have laws for a reason. It's to stop immorality's occurring, such as this. You could make the same argument about murder or taking cocaine: "lawmakers should keep out".
Ok. If I die, why would it be immoral for me to decide who gets my stuff?
If I gave all my stuff to a lassie and none of it to a guy, is that immoral?
This argument is really, really stupid. It's not sexist, it's entirely up to the individual who gets his stuff when they pass on to the other side.
Who the hell are you to say otherwise?
Original post by Gjaykay
Ok. If I die, why would it be immoral for me to decide who gets my stuff?
If I gave all my stuff to a lassie and none of it to a guy, is that immoral?
This argument is really, really stupid. It's not sexist, it's entirely up to the individual who gets his stuff when they pass on to the other side.
Who the hell are you to say otherwise?
If I gave all my stuff to a lassie and none of it to a guy, is that immoral?
This argument is really, really stupid. It's not sexist, it's entirely up to the individual who gets his stuff when they pass on to the other side.
Who the hell are you to say otherwise?
So you are a sexist.
What good reason would you choose your son over your daughter or vice versa? (Remember the decision is purely based on sex, not their individual achievements/ actions)
Yes it is immoral. Discriminating purely based on sex, not achievements. British Law should not protect it.
I have every right to stand against sexism.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by the mezzil
So you are a sexist.
What good reason would you choose your son over your daughter? (Remember the decision is purely based on sex, not their invidual achievements/ actions)
Yes it is immoral. Discriminating purely based on sex, not achievements. British Law should not protect it.
What good reason would you choose your son over your daughter? (Remember the decision is purely based on sex, not their invidual achievements/ actions)
Yes it is immoral. Discriminating purely based on sex, not achievements. British Law should not protect it.
Whatever reason the person chooses?
How do you not understand how a will works? It's the dead man's choice, take it up with him.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Guys have you ever......?
- not sure on a levels
- Did anyone else severely miss their predicted grades?
- English Literature A level Feminist Critical Theory
- SOAS vs Queen Mary
- How do you get a guy to ask you out?
- Physics or applied science?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- possible to reverse?
- Masters degree UK
- First-class University Essay
- English literature coursework a level-feminist critical theory
- Edexcel A Level History: How do I structure essays?
- English Lit NEA
- dropping A-level economics
- Help with forces in action question
- Psychology, Politics or History Degree
- how do you get full marks in 20 mark aqa sociology question a level sociology
- Acne /skin texture on the face
- Edexcel GCSE Foundation tier Maths Paper 1 1F (1MA1) - 19th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
