Sharia Law Society
July 6, 2014 3:35 AM Subscribe
Islamic law will be effectively enshrined in UK law for the first time. Guidance on 'Sharia compliant wills' has been drawn up by The Law Society meaning high street solicitors can draft documents in line with religious principles, reports the Telegraph.
The wills will be able to deny an equal share of inheritances to women and non-Muslims and children born out of wedlock can be excluded completely.
Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society the measures would promote "good practice" but others have condemned the move as risking creating a parallel legal system for UK Muslims.
Baroness Cox said: "This violates everything that we stand for. It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.
"Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs.
"But to have an organisation such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern."
Law Society Sharia Law Succession Rules
One Law For All: We, the undersigned, are appalled to learn that the Law Society, the representative body for solicitors in England and Wales, has issued Sharia-related guidance on wills, succession and inheritance.
Law Society Sharia Law Succession Rules
One Law For All: We, the undersigned, are appalled to learn that the Law Society, the representative body for solicitors in England and Wales, has issued Sharia-related guidance on wills, succession and inheritance.
This post was deleted for the following reason: This is a very short write-up from a few months ago, presented in what seems to be a sensationalist or unclear way that seems basically like a "let's fight" invitation. Since this is not a new development, maybe take some more time to make a more in-depth post that presents the issue with more explanation and analysis. -- taz
Oh, Fluck.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 3:38 AM on July 6, 2014
posted by bitter-girl.com at 3:38 AM on July 6, 2014
When did the Law Society start passing UK legislation? Oh right, it doesn't, does it.
"Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs"
So no actual changes to the law at all then?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:41 AM on July 6, 2014 [7 favorites]
"Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs"
So no actual changes to the law at all then?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:41 AM on July 6, 2014 [7 favorites]
What a terrible mistake.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:42 AM on July 6, 2014
posted by five fresh fish at 3:42 AM on July 6, 2014
Can someone explain at potato-print level how this is "enshrining" sharia law in UK law? Or does "effectively enshrined" mean "not actually enshrined"?
posted by ominous_paws at 3:43 AM on July 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ominous_paws at 3:43 AM on July 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
Aren't you already allowed to deny or grant inheritance to anyone you like for whatever you please? What exactly is being enshrined in law here? I see here guidance for lawyers who wish to assist clients. This sound like shrill 'the Muslims are coming!' bullshit to me.
posted by molecicco at 3:44 AM on July 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by molecicco at 3:44 AM on July 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
Can someone explain at potato-print level how this is "enshrining" sharia law in UK law? Or does "effectively enshrined" mean "not actually enshrined"?
The second one.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:45 AM on July 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
The second one.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:45 AM on July 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
others have condemned the move as risking creating a parallel legal system for UK Muslims
Mefi has taught me a lot about the importance about picking good valid slippery slope arguments from bad invalid ones.
... This is a terrible one, right?
posted by ominous_paws at 3:47 AM on July 6, 2014
Mefi has taught me a lot about the importance about picking good valid slippery slope arguments from bad invalid ones.
... This is a terrible one, right?
posted by ominous_paws at 3:47 AM on July 6, 2014
Shit stirring by fuckwits. Cox is a right wing loon of long standing.
posted by biffa at 3:49 AM on July 6, 2014
posted by biffa at 3:49 AM on July 6, 2014
This is the equivalent of saying that offering kosher food in a military mess hall, alongside non-kosher food, ENSHRINES JEWISH COOKING FOR OUR SOLDIERS!!!1!1!!!!
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:50 AM on July 6, 2014
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:50 AM on July 6, 2014
On reflection, the editorial framing of this post, especially that terrible first sentence, feels not-fantastic and a little one-sided to me.
posted by ominous_paws at 3:53 AM on July 6, 2014
posted by ominous_paws at 3:53 AM on July 6, 2014
It's basically a choice of jurisdiction clause, with little conceptual difference to the derivatives traders in the City agreeing that in the event of dispute netting out will take place under New York law.
posted by dmt at 3:53 AM on July 6, 2014
posted by dmt at 3:53 AM on July 6, 2014
This is the equivalent of saying that offering kosher food in a military mess hall, alongside non-kosher food, ENSHRINES JEWISH COOKING FOR OUR SOLDIERS!!!1!1!!!!
I think it's closer to saying that offering a kitchen to allow people to prepare their own meals allows them to prepare halal / kosher food, thus ENSHRINING ISLAMIC / JEWISH COOKING IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE
posted by Luddite at 3:56 AM on July 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think it's closer to saying that offering a kitchen to allow people to prepare their own meals allows them to prepare halal / kosher food, thus ENSHRINING ISLAMIC / JEWISH COOKING IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE
posted by Luddite at 3:56 AM on July 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
In Canada, we have a law school that claims to be "Christian". The school requires abstinance from its unmarried students. Oh, and no gays, kthxbye.
The provincial law societies have, by and large, decided not to recognize graduates from this school. Their argument has essentially been that you can't break constitutional law and simultaneously claim to be producing lawyers.
Equality under the law needs to mean something. UK barristers are tossing it away.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:58 AM on July 6, 2014
The provincial law societies have, by and large, decided not to recognize graduates from this school. Their argument has essentially been that you can't break constitutional law and simultaneously claim to be producing lawyers.
Equality under the law needs to mean something. UK barristers are tossing it away.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:58 AM on July 6, 2014
« Older Justin Bieber: A Case Study in Growing Up Cosseted... | Not as equal as advertised. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:37 AM on July 6, 2014 [2 favorites]