75ZT Community

oh dear

Sounds like huge conflicts could arise with cases of "our law" verses "their law"... The only reason I can think of for going down this road, is that there is a lot of money to be made by our lawyers innit...

How strange, I was convinced this is the 21st century, not the 14th.

When one trough gets smaller - legal aid they create a new trough - Sharia Law wills.

Mind you, I am thinking of converting - keep those women well under the thumb!

As per the rules for this forum I have summarily deleted a post from this topic.
I'm certain the OP was expecting a reasoned discussion on this subject. Overt racism and / or incitement to racial and religious hatred will not be tolerated. Any such posts will in future result in the deletion of the posters account without warning.

Those of you who know me will hopefully be aware that my views are very much "live and let live". I can't abide racial / religious hatred but my reason for opening this thread, as Mick says above, is for reasoned discussion. You see, I'm finding my beliefs somewhat challenged regarding the link in my opening post and I suspect that might be because I'm not fully understanding what is proposed. I thought kicking the topic around, as it were, might bring forth viewpoints which might assist. I apologise to Mick for the fact that he has found it necessary to wave the pointy stick but also appreciate that he has allowed the topic to continue.

What concerns me about such a proposal is how this would conflict with English law and how it would side step the hard fought for rights of women's equality. Surely this would be a step backwards?

Cheers


Mie

I'm fairly sure, but stand to be corrected, that being a devout Muslim and subscribing to Sharia law aren't concomitant.

Should it conflict with current English law which one would take precedence? Surely there cannot be one rule for one and another for anyone else? There would be an obvious conflict which cannot be good and neither would it work.

Gary M.

I sometimes wonder what Country I reside in. No other comment publishable.

Been thinking about this - hope this does not cross the boundary.

From reading the article, women seem to be second class citizens and someone has mentioned equality laws.

So let's look at a couple of other religions:

Church of England

Big arguments about women bishops and in some areas sections of congregations going to other churches because there is a woman vicar.

Roman Catholics

No women priests let alone any higher up in the hierarchy.

I believe the Jewish faith that has courts that are recognised in Law and that other religions have questioned why should Jews have this type of facility but they do not.

Seems a little unfair that the countries that some of these people come from do not allow Christian faiths yet when these people come to the UK they expect the UK to change.

Different cultures have different beliefs and standards.

When it comes to Wills you can specify what you like what happens to your assets. You can disinherit your children or one of your children (subject to having any), leave nothing to your wife etc. Wills can be challenged so no doubt Sharia Law Wills will also be challengeable. Perhaps all the Law Society is giving its members an insight into what those wishing to have a Sharia Law Will require - as well as enabling them to rake in more money.

Leaving the religious issues out of it, it might be helpful to consider what is actually happening. The report suggests that the law is changing and there might be conflict between Sharia and English law.

In fact no such thing is happening. The Law Society (not a law-making body - merely a kind of lawyers' Union) has advised solicitors regarding the wording of wills, made by Muslims, to possibly comply with religious requirements as dictated by their leaders. These details will not go forward for inclusion in law, they are merely to assuage religious leaders that documents are Sharia-compliant.

There is no doubt that English Law is sovereign over all other pseudo-legal tracts and there are no conditions that can override English Law. A Testator can bequeath his property to anyone he wishes, or specifically disinherit any person he chooses to under English Law and that Will may not be contested unless there are certain and well defined conditions applying. What is being proposed is, in my view, merely a marketing opportunity perceived by the Law Society to benefit solicitors who wish to attract those of certain faiths to their will-writing businesses.

Unfortunately some sections of the media see opportunities to stir passions out of relatively mundane non-issues.


Edit: Sorry PaulT, just seen your preceeding post covering similar ground!

I agree with your interpretation of the bald facts Jumper and I am also well known for my criticism of the media for never letting the facts get in the way of a good story, but my misgivings here stem from, if you will, a (possible) future interpolation whereby the concept of English jurisprudence being held ransom to the vagaries of an archaic, indeed to Western sensibilities, barbaric system would be acceptable, if not inevitable.

Specifically regarding the writing and interpretation of wills. I can see a future where a will is declared immune to contestation under English jurisprudence at which point the cry "Ah, but under Sharia law..."

Not in the immediate future I agree and maybe a future which will not come to pass but nonetheless of concern to me. Human history, in my view, is littered with examples of "It'll never happen"

I also think that Wood makes a valid point in the article, although somewhat taken out of context by the admittedly lurid headline.

As an aside, in my view, and from what little study I've made of the subject, Halakha, or Torah law, if you prefer, including Mitzvot, Rabbinic and Talmudic closely parallels, in most respects, English law, in principal if not in execution

It’s true Wood raises a valid point but his record of tilting at ‘Watchtowers’ that dare to shine their beams on unbelievers says rather a lot about his often intemperate crusade against anything religious!

As an atheist I agree with his motivation but his zeal can be interpreted as intolerance and therefore I would attach less charitable value to his views. I fear Wood has reacted to this latest development the same way as many others and that may be down to the clumsy reportage.

As for the future assumed advancement of Islamic legal influence on Statutes, I suspect the not inconsiderable preponderance in the legal profession of adherents to Judaism might have an important role to play! And if it were ever suggested that any of the Tribes were to be considered either unwanted or subjugated - well, we all know where that heresy would lead!

Doing nothing is obviously not an option, but I believe any such amendment to the law (as reported), would result in such a fuss as to make it impossible. As each day dawns it is getting more acceptable to discuss these matters in public and, as on here, without the need to resort to offensive language or ill feeling. Long may it continue as the ability to be frank enriches us all.

Jumper wrote:It’s true Wood raises a valid point but his record of tilting at ‘Watchtowers’ that dare to shine their beams on unbelievers says rather a lot about his often intemperate crusade against anything religious!

I spent a little time researching the man last night because I'd never come across him before. I have to say that I agree with you and perhaps it was the expected response from the expected quarter

That's gratifying, thank you. Although I would never 'shoot the messenger' I certainly do pay attention to motives. Sometimes they are hidden but in this case, to his credit, they are advertised!