Inheritance law is yet another arena of gender inequality in Islamic law: “Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females….” (Qur’an 4:11)
And now it comes to Britain. This is the first time that Sharia has become an element of British law, something that British lawyers have to master. It will by no means be the last.
Jihad Watch had this story 10 days before the Telegraph: just one more reason why you’re wise to read this site. “Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs,” by John Bingham in the Telegraph, March 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):
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 the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.
Some lawyers, however, described the guidance as “astonishing”, while campaigners warned it represented a major step on the road to a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.
Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers.
“This violates everything that we stand for,” she said. “It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”
The guidance, quietly published this month and distributed to solicitors in England and Wales, details how wills should be drafted to fit Islamic traditions while being valid under British law.
It suggests deleting or amending standard legal terms and even words such as “children” to ensure that those deemed “illegitimate” are denied any claim over the inheritance.
It recommends that some wills include a declaration of faith in Allah which would be drafted at a local mosque, and hands responsibility for drawing up some papers to Sharia courts.
The guidance goes on to suggest 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.
However, a network of Sharia courts has grown up in Islamic communities to deal with disputes between Muslim families.
A few are officially recognised tribunals, operating under the Arbitration Act.
They have powers to set contracts between parties, mainly in commercial disputes, but also to deal with issues such as domestic violence, family disputes and inheritance battles.
But many more unofficial Sharia courts are also in operation.
Parliament has been told of a significant network of more informal Sharia tribunals and “councils”, often based in mosques, dealing with religious divorces and even child custody matters in line with religious teaching.
They offer “mediation” rather than adjudication, although some hearings are laid out like courts with religious scholars or legal experts sitting in a manner more akin to judges than counsellors.
One study estimated that there were now around 85 Sharia bodies operating in Britain. But the new Law Society guidance represents the first time that an official legal body has recognised the legitimacy of some Sharia principles.
It opens the way for non-Muslim lawyers in High Street firms to offer Sharia will drafting services. The document sets out crucial differences between Sharia inheritance laws and Western traditions.
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.
Similarly, a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir, as the entitlement depends on a valid Muslim marriage existing at the date of death. This means you should amend or delete some standard will clauses.”
It advises lawyers to draft special exclusions from the Wills Act 1837, which allows gifts to pass to the children of an heir who has died, because this is not recognised in Islamic law.
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.”
Lady Cox said: “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.”
Surprise Endings says
Huh?
What?
Who the?
I am so angry, shocked, perplexed, and ,,,,and…..and……
I can’t believe these English political leaders are so …. so …..
eib says
If they had any love of country, and belief in the goodness of English common law, they would revile Sharia a million times over.
I’d curse them, but since they’re already 9/10ths of the way to hell, and dragging their country with them, what would be the point?
eib says
Quote:
Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.
end
There is no good in Islam.
It is the perfect murdering the good.
There are no good practices here.
And you, sir, are a traitor.
rolf wittwer says
Disguisting “Quisling”-style approaching the still sleeping UK and Europe –
without being recognized!
Peter Buckley says
Baroness Cox has been involved in the struggle to close down Sharia courts, BACKED BY MUSLIM WOMEN. I don’t fancy the chances of a few dhimmi lawyers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6uYaOO8od0
Put it to the people. Vote UKIP.
Bluelilly says
UKIP is not anti-Islamic, only anti-European. Speaks out against Eastern Europeans. They are mainly Christian.
Farage, and others abstained from voting against FGM.!
Itinerant says
You should watch Pat Condell’s latest piece,UKIP are not anti-European,they are anti-EU.The EU is NOT Europe, anymore than the Communist party was Poland or East Germany.
They want one law for all in the UK,which is anti-Sharia by default.
Ritchie says
will Sharia law be applied to non Muslims in the uk?
Jay Boo says
Those who call Sharia a religious based law give it way too much credit since Islam is not a religion at all. It is a political ideology.
Anyone living as a citizen in the West should be willing to respect the laws of their host country or leave.
Sharia is a foreign law and anyone who wishes to follow a foreign law has committed treason.
Ban sharia and outlaw the underhanded political system of Islam.
Ritchie says
so on other words, if you are a woman, a Muslim and live on the UK, you have no rights and no protection under the law
Boston Tea Party says
There once was an Englishman named Fluck,
Who passed his bar exam with a good deal of luck.
When told that his ruling
Would lead to England’s undoing,
He replied, “I simply don’t give a fuck.”
Kepha says
@Boston Tea Party: Loved your limerick!
@all: One more example of the EmCeePeeCee crowd not knowing where they’ve been or where they’re going, and when things get bad, they’ll blame the ordinary British people (whether English, Scots, Welsh, Manx, Northern Irish, or Channel Islander).
Maybe the Brits need to pull another 1638–only this time, against the black-robed poodles on the judicial bench rather than against the bishops (then again, the CoE bishops today impress me as a rather sorry sub-Christian lot, with a handful of exceptions).
Boston Tea Party says
A few thoughts about this.
I was reading this story, and another one on the Telegraph about the Trojan Horse takeover of schools in Birmingham by Muslim administrators, where the government had to intervene. A couple things stuck out to me. All western countries are on the same path, but England is REALLY far down the road. Notice that even on the Telegraph (not the most leftwing paper in the UK), there are no “comments” sections for stories on Muslim extremism, even though there are for most other news stories. I think that’s clearly because they know what most of the comments are going to say—and it’s not going to be positive in regards to the Islamic community.
I think the ruling elites in government and media realize how intractable the problem is, and they don’t have any solutions—and frankly, maybe there aren’t any. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I honestly wonder how close to violent ethnic clashes/low-grade civil war the UK and other countries are? If the authorities believe that the country is reaching a tipping point, the first thing they will do, I think, is to try to tamp down any type of speech that is going to light the tinder. While I certainly don’t support Robert and Pamela being banned from the country, I wonder if that decision was made less out of political calculation, and more out of pure panic and fear?
I believe that a good percentage of Muslims in the west are more accurately described as “settlers” rather than “immigrants”, and I think many European governments are very afraid that their native populations are going to reach that same conclusion. Let’s face it, if Muslims DON’T want to integrate and adhere to western liberal value systems (and I think there is a lot of evidence for that)—-there really is no “Plan B”.
WVinMN says
You nailed it by describing them as “settlers” as opposed to immigrants. Conquistadors may be even more apt. I will also add that we are witnessing the same type of behavior by muslims in the States, especially recent muslim immigrants such as the massive influx of Somalis in MN and OH. How sad the West has become. Throughout history, those that conquered were some combination of stronger/smarter than their victims, whether or not those victims had rotted to such point making them ripe for said conquest. The West remains far stronger and smarter than the collection of 3rd world dirt-bags discussed here and elsewhere. And yet, a large segment of our society seems ready and willing to aid in their own extinction.
Bill C. says
I know I keep hammering on this, but if England hadn’t done away with the law-abiding populace’s ability to own guns I don’t think this would be as big a problem as it is now.
As far as it’s gone, all we can do is use it as an extremely well documented instruction manual, if you please, so it doesn’t happen here.
We can start in Texas with that black Muslim conclave under our noses.
Diane Harvey says
Jefferson’s first listed complaint against the then Monarch of Great Britain – namely, “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good” – has at long last been rectified.
Hip, Hip, Hooray! Long live the Shariah!
eib says
Islam is profane.
Sharia is profane, and leads only to hell.
Your perfection is damnation.
Your prophet is false.
There is no salvation in Islam, only slavery.
You are the implacable enemy of the West.
We will resist you, and then we will destroy Islam– it will collapse under the weight of its bloody history and commands.
southeuropean says
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Catherine_Ashton_Ban_Ki_Moon_Ahmad_Shaheed_Save_26_year_old_woman_from_being_hanged_in_Iran/?sbss%22+%5Ct+%22_blank%22+https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.avaaz.org%2Fen%2Fpetition%2FCatherine_Ashton_Ban_Ki_Moon_Ahmad_Shaheed_Save_26_year_old_woman_from_being_hanged_in_Iran%2F%3Ffbss&mobile=1
Wellington says
British elites are more culpable for the descent of Britain than are Muslims. If history is not a pack of lies agreed upon, and the truth prevails, this will be the assessment long term on late 20th and early 21st century Britain. History’s verdict here, of course, is still out.
Jay Boo says
We must force the British elites out into the open.
First … (in the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali)
We must call it by its name
dumbledoresarmy says
All British jihadwatchers are going to have to get behind Baroness Cox and PUSH.
And every MP in the British parliament should be inundated with letters and phonecalls demanding that *all* presently-existing accommodations with the sharia of Islam be rescinded. Pronto. Halal meat, sharia finance, sharia “courts”, the works. NO official accommodation. And no further accommodations, either. Hunt down and prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, every British-law-breaking (and usually welfare-defrauding) mohammedan polygynist. No more mosques. Ban the Slave Mask – for that matter, go the whole way and ban the Slave Rag in all its forms, period, it’s no different from a Swastika armband – and enforce the ban…by the use of the army to suppress mohammedan insta-riots, if necessary.
Stop appeasing and start pushing back, HARD.
Because the ummah, considered as a gestalt, is a bully. bullies, when they face determined and concerted resistance, often buckle surprisingly fast.
Defcon 4 says
@DDA
What constitutes “pushing back, HARD.”? What policy would you propose?
dumbledoresarmy says
Didn’t you read my post?
To begin with (note, I now say, *to begin with*, because I’m being realistic about the sorts of things that *could* be done *now*), what could be aimed for, by non-Muslims in the UK and elsewhere in the Anglosphere – and beyond – is a complete end to accommodation of sharia. No more sharia courts – shut them down.
No more halal creep (by that, I mean, no more halal-as-the-unlabelled-norm, no more ‘halal certification’ of the majority’s food etc; companies that *had* been ‘certified’ would tell the mohammedans – “we’re not renewing the certification, our food or whatever-it-is will be NON-HALAL from now on.”) No more sharia finance dabbled in by mainstream non-Muslim banks, etc (and they’d *end* whatever sharia involvement they *already* had, and advertise themselves as *NON-sharia-compliant*). And the slave rag would be banned; take the French ban, which mostly exists on paper, but *enforce* it, resolutely. And hunting down and prosecution of mohammedan polygynists. And no more special muslim footbaths and no more accommodation of Muslim ‘prayers’ in infidel secular institutions.
What I’m thinking about is that there’s NOTHING, really, to stop non-Muslims from applying exactly the same “ratchet” method as the mohammedans have been using up till now. Start with one thing, then move to the next, till it all adds up.
Gavin Boby in his “Law and Freedom Foundation” is finding ways of putting backbone into local councils, to stop the building of mosque after mosque after mosque. And he’s scoring runs on the board. That *matters*, because it’s blocking the mohammedan turf grab.
Jay Boo says
Ayaan Hirsi Ali video clip
Bill C. says
Getting out of the EU is a great start. France (of all places) has had it up to here with immigration and car arson and are ready for some payback (unfortunately, that also means the Jews will suffer). The Swiss have, in their own, subdued way, have also begun. So have the Dutch.
But, (and I do not say this *but* lightly) it may be a starting place to finally start saying NO MORE to these interlopers.
God, I hope so.
gravenimage says
Bill C, why would the Jews suffer if the British oppose Shari’ah? In fact, the Jews are foremost among Islam’s victims.
DAVID KENT says
whether this is applied to just Muslims only or not, you can’t have double standards, if this treats women badly by not giving them there legal right/ or share. we need to stop this, everything that those men and woman give they life for is been eroded away, you accommodate silly religious non sense but you don’t allow it to be brought into law.
Henry says
Isn’t hindsight a laugh, take those silly Nazis, with their tanks, planes, and artillery, for an assault on Britain. Operation Sea Lion indeed! Wrong approach, and completely unnecessary old chap. Capitulation of Britain? Simply send enough dedicated followers across with the ferry and begin to demand things. Mission accomplished.
ibn Muslim says
Suffragettes are indeed turning in their graves. They are rotating like propellers in hell fire for deceiving people into anti-Sharia values.
gravenimage says
The sickening ibn Muslim just offers further proof that equality, fairness, and justice are un-Islamic. *Ugh*.
Jacksonl03 says
Keith Porteous Wood . . said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British . . . human rights . . . law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. . . . Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”
Poor British: This is like watching a horrendous train wreck in slow motion. Is anyone awake over there?
Rushton says
My great-great grandfather was born in a small village in England, as was my great-grandfather and (possibly) my grandfather. I hope that none of them are rolling in their graves in response to this abomination and abdication of 800+ year old rights under the Magna Carta.
Yep, I’m in the U.S. but Long live the King (or Queen), for surely the Kingdom is dead and doesn’t yet know it. Another civilization is added to the dustbin of history.
Jerry says
It appears the President of the British Law Society has a Flucked up mind and a redundant “l” in his surname.
gravenimage says
Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs
……………………………….
Suicidal madness. How can Britain formally embrace a system that mandates discrimination against women, children, and non-Muslims?
More:
And now it comes to Britain. This is the first time that Sharia has become an element of British law, something that British lawyers have to master. It will by no means be the last.
……………………………….
No, indeed. As awful as Shari’ah inheritance laws are, this is *far* from the most horrific aspect of Islamic law, which includes flogging, amputation, and *stonings*.
More:
Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.
……………………………….
There is *no* “good practice” in Shari’ah law…
More:
Some lawyers, however, described the guidance as “astonishing”, while campaigners warned it represented a major step on the road to a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.
……………………………….
Glimmers of sanity…
More:
Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers.
“This violates everything that we stand for,” she said. “It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”
……………………………….
Bravo Baroness Cox!
More:
The guidance, quietly published this month and distributed to solicitors in England and Wales, details how wills should be drafted to fit Islamic traditions while being valid under British law.
……………………………….
*None* of this is valid under British law.
More:
It suggests deleting or amending standard legal terms and even words such as “children” to ensure that those deemed “illegitimate” are denied any claim over the inheritance.
……………………………….
Repulsive. And this includes children whose parents *were* married, but under non-Muslims religious and civil law.
More:
It recommends that some wills include a declaration of faith in Allah which would be drafted at a local mosque, and hands responsibility for drawing up some papers to Sharia courts.
……………………………….
Which will enshrine the validity of these horrors in British law. *Ugh*.
More:
The guidance goes on to suggest that Sharia principles could potentially overrule British practices in some disputes, giving examples of areas that would need to be tested in English courts.
……………………………….
Yes—we may soon see the horrific spectacle of brutal Shari’ah law trumping civilized British law *in British courts*.
More:
They have powers to set contracts between parties, mainly in commercial disputes, but also to deal with issues such as domestic violence, family disputes and inheritance battles.
……………………………….
And how insane *is this*, given that Islam sacralizes wife beating?
More:
But many more unofficial Sharia courts are also in operation.
Parliament has been told of a significant network of more informal Sharia tribunals and “councils”, often based in mosques, dealing with religious divorces and even child custody matters in line with religious teaching.
……………………………….
Yes—and this mad embracing of Shari’ah law will only serve to legitimize them.
More:
It acknowledges the possibility of people having multiple marriages.
……………………………….
This is a bland way of saying it *normalizes polygamy*—even though polygamy is illegal in Britain.
More:
The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”
……………………………….
I believe that would be the last 1400 years…
More:
Lady Cox said: “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.”
……………………………….
That’s the whole point. If Muslims want to follow discriminatory Islamic guidelines, that is their right.
But to have Britain *enforcing* Shari’ah law is deeply alarming.
Paul Vincent says
Awesome!
I can’t wait to see public stoning to death of teenage bitches because they showed too much skin.