OT- How do the Brits feel about this?

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. Under ground-breaking guidance produced by The Law Society, 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. Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said that the guidance would promote "good practice" in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system. However, some lawyers described the guidance as astonishing, while campaigners warned that it represented a major step on the road to a parallel legal system for Britain's Muslim communities.

For a country that once boasted the fairest legal system in the world & one that most democratic countries have based their laws on, this must come as a huge backward step....at least in my view.

Agree 100%. If they don't like the existing law they should fark off to whence they came.

Can't you currently exclude or include anyone you want in your will?

And this is hardly ground breaking in the UK is it:

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.

JGK wrote:Can't  you  currently exclude or include anyone you want in your will?

Not sure about UK but in SA you cannot exclude someone who is dependent on you. I am guessing this is something similar.

Seriously? what if you hate your kids?

JGK wrote:Seriously?  what if you hate your kids?

In SA we have something called group life assurance which is part of your pension system. In my case it pays 3 x annual salary. Last week we had a meeting with the pension administrators and had to fill in new beneficiary forms. We were warned that the form can be overruled if you exclude dependents. In the case of most of the lower paid employees this is probably the only life insurance they have.

I guess once the child is earning their own money and is independent of you, they can be excluded.

Why is it still called a will if it doesn't conform to your will?

lardbucket wrote:Why is it still called a will if it doesn't conform to your will?

because lawyers are qunts

In the long term I'd rather have some Muslims living in England so at least they're exposed to a sensible (well, less retarded) way of doing things. Maybe in a few generations they'll loosen up a bit. I'm not sure if this makes me a bigot.

Winkle Spinner wrote:In the long term I'd rather have some Muslims living in England so at least they're exposed to a sensible (well, less retarded) way of doing things. Maybe in a few generations they'll loosen up a bit.

but instead of loosening up theyre enshrining their inequities in your legal system. apparently with your approval. they insist theyre being discriminated against and use that as leverage to impose their own much worse discrimination
its one country. you have to have one legal system for everyone. anything else is unjust

I thought this was a thread about Argentina and Germany making the world cup final and how the Brits felt about that.

There are a few old Germans who have been living in Argentina for several decades who might feel a little bit torn.

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

Winkle Spinner wrote:In the long term I'd rather have some Muslims living in England so at least they're exposed to a sensible (well, less retarded) way of doing things. Maybe in a few generations they'll loosen up a bit.

but instead of loosening up theyre enshrining their inequities in your legal system.  apparently with your approval. they insist theyre being discriminated against and use that as leverage to impose their own much worse discrimination
its one country.  you have to have one legal system for everyone. anything else is unjust

I'm not convinced there is any change here. It's your will, you can pretty much already do what you want with it.

JGK wrote:And this is  hardly ground breaking in the UK is it:

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.

If the estate in question is land and income derived from that land the original land grant can still tie your hands (it's rare but).  Specifically if agnate primogeniture is specified and some other conditions are fulfilled and no disqualifications met.

This in it's most extreme form is why Charles can't abdicate.  Actually that might be wrong.  There was Commons committee poking around in the Duchy's affairs a few years ago and I think they recommended this be fixed up urgently.  Don't know if it was part of that whole removal of male succession thingy a few years ago.

JGK wrote:

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

Winkle Spinner wrote:In the long term I'd rather have some Muslims living in England so at least they're exposed to a sensible (well, less retarded) way of doing things. Maybe in a few generations they'll loosen up a bit.

but instead of loosening up theyre enshrining their inequities in your legal system.  apparently with your approval. they insist theyre being discriminated against and use that as leverage to impose their own much worse discrimination
its one country.  you have to have one legal system for everyone. anything else is unjust

I'm not convinced there is any change here. It's your will, you can pretty much already do what you want with it.

Wills are frequently challenged in our courts however it looks like such options are few under Sharia.

I know of wills that were signed off on by all potential beneficiaries that were successfully challenged after death by someone getting greedy

A similar thing was tried by the Muslim councils in Australia a couple of years ago. One of the few things that Julia Gillard got right was to tell the Muslims to bugger off.

Well, only the second Pom on here answering the call so far ... here goes ...


I am against the pick'n'mix Islamisation of parts of local life here. But as has been pointed out, precisely wills and testaments are (as far as I understood) an aspect of life - and death - that are entirely up to the deceased anyway. If some want to frame their male chauvinism in a preferred quasi-legal convention, and broadcast to the world that they are pasha pigs, then I suppose it's hard to stop them.

But hands off our Wills, I say. That goes especially for Horrie.

What about hands off your Kate?

PeterCS wrote:Well, only the second Pom on here answering the call so far ... here goes ...


I am against the pick'n'mix Islamisation of parts of local life here. But as has been pointed out, precisely wills and testaments are (as far as I understood) an aspect of life - and death - that are entirely up to the deceased anyway. If some want to frame their male chauvinism in a preferred quasi-legal convention, and broadcast to the world that they are pasha pigs, then I suppose it's hard to stop them.

The problem is not the wills as I see it, but the precedent that is being created to interfere in other areas of the British legal system.

JGK wrote:What about hands off your Kate?

You can't have your Kate and eat it.

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Well, only the second Pom on here answering the call so far ... here goes ...


I am against the pick'n'mix Islamisation of parts of local life here. But as has been pointed out, precisely wills and testaments are (as far as I understood) an aspect of life - and death - that are entirely up to the deceased anyway. If some want to frame their male chauvinism in a preferred quasi-legal convention, and broadcast to the world that they are pasha pigs, then I suppose it's hard to stop them.

The problem is not the wills as I see it, but the precedent that is being created to interfere in other areas of the British legal system.

Well quite. That's where the "bugger off" (quoting BD) comes in.

JGK wrote:What about hands off your Kate?

Hands on, more likely!

You can't have your Kate and eat it.

You wish!