Combining UK and Islamic law

[Zamo]

1. We dont seek to challenge it in English law because discrimination when you are giving away your own property is perfectly acceptable.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 21:15 ----------

 

 

I dont mind it becayse its perfectly legal under existing english law to give your property to whom you want. No business of the state. You seem to think it is.

 

If discrimination creeps into the personal decisions of people making wills then there isn't much we can do about it. But if those views are being influenced by religious beliefs and teaching (e.g. Sharia Law) then the state should be challenging it. We should not accept it and we certainly shouldn't have the Law Society sending out guidance on how to accommodate it.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 21:43 ----------

 

Sorry, I do not agree with that. You are actually looking at it from a wrong perspective. Sharia Law is NOT the sole legal system in this country, and that is why it does not apply in the way that it does in some countries. In this country, we have Common Law (which has taken years to define), along with Statutory Law (?) (I was reading this the other day for another thread.)

 

So unless you are saying that there is a move to overthrow the entire legal system, I do not think that it impacts you or changes the way you live any time soon enough. A country cannot change its legal system so easily. Maybe if the UN actually agrees. Even in war torn countries, when they rebuild an entire country, the UN needs to follow International Law to build it back up from scratch. Maybe you think that it can happen in this country by a democratic vote, but it cannot. Because if it does, it will actually impact so many more countries who is also using Common Law as part of their legal system too. So because of that, it certainly and definitely cannot change any time soon.

 

Now, as to the Sharia Law as part of a religious practice within this country, how does that integrate into the legal system. It had always been part of the legal system, but it seems that some areas are really being tweaked a little bit here and there, that is all. Guidance and recommendation and advice is not wrong, it just makes clear what the boundaries are and how it can be applied. Sometimes you see these charities existing to provide such support and guidance within the legal boundaries, so that many businesses and companies can indeed use this as a base guidance.

 

Even when HR is confused of a situation in their employment law, they certainly can either indeed use some of the references provided by the government's portals to reinforce their own legal interpretation, or that they can indeed use solicitors and lawyers to recheck their own internal HR policies as to not violate the law itself.

 

 

And in terms of the legality and interpretation of things. There had always been these laws, but not everybody or not all companies necessarily interpret it well and really adjust to this. Some companies are being more and more visible in showing that they are compliant, and they try to enforce this throughout their own company as a set of core values for their own employees.

 

The Millenium Goal has forced companies like Deloitte and Touche to really now employ more than 40% of their own workforce to be women. Because when the majority were men, it had a certain inequality which reduced the way it operated. It means or if you read between the lines, previously the company was not able to comply with the law with its existing workforce. Maybe this explains why so many were indeed fired in the end and were retrained or literally hired because they are female.

 

You've answered a question I didn't answer. I simply asked you if you think the discrimination advocated by Sharia law is right or wrong?

 

Anyway... I retire for the evening.

[boyfriday]

If discrimination creeps into the personal decisions of people making wills then there isn't much we can do about it. But if those views are being influenced by religious beliefs and teaching (e.g. Sharia Law) then the state should be challenging it. We should not accept it and we certainly shouldn't have the Law Society sending out guidance on how to accommodate it.

 

Still baffled why you think you're justified in believing that's any of your business.

[salsafan]

If discrimination creeps into the personal decisions of people making wills then there isn't much we can do about it. But if those views are being influenced by religious beliefs and teaching (e.g. Sharia Law) then the state should be challenging it. We should not accept it and we certainly shouldn't have the Law Society sending out guidance on how to accommodate it.

But if these views are representation of the citizens itself, then the State has a need to address it. It is that simple. The same with Christianity. Why does the State provide so much benefits for all ? It is because we are indeed a Christian country and we have defined the law over the years such that it counteract the wealth of the Kings and Queens and Lords of the past, so that all the original "peasants" were looked after by the State. Just like the olden days when we had different Monarchies in place. This setup has not changed.

 

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 21:43 ----------

 

 

You've answered a question I didn't answer. I simply asked you if you think the discrimination advocated by Sharia law is right or wrong?

 

Anyway... I retire for the evening.

It is not a discrimination in my eyes to begin with, so how can I actually answer this as right or wrong? Obviously it is always wrong to discriminate, which is a negative behaviour, but as you could see from my illustration of the legal system, do you truly think that this is discriminatory ?

Edited March 25, 2014 by salsafan

[Zamo]

Still baffled why you think you're justified in believing that's any of your business.

 

It is my business when the regulatory body for solicitors issues guidance to it's members advising them how to write wills that comply with the discriminatory practices dictated by sharia law which fly in the face of the principles and values on which UK equality laws are based. The legal profession should not be promoting sharia law and the fact that it is, and it is being supported by the Law Society in doing so, is a disgrace.

 

It is also my business when the religious seek to establish accommodations to assist their religious choices. Acceptance of sharia law and sharia courts are examples of particularly dangerous accommondations. It is a move towards a state within the state situation where Muslims become more insular instead of more integrated... and history tells us that sooner or later people end up fighting or separating along such divides. Such division is a threat and therefore everyones business.

 

Acceptance of Islamification is also a move that effectively says Muslims can choose to live according to different laws, regulations and rules to the rest of the country. The fact that UK laws will trump sharia laws is a moot point because most Muslims will not risk rejection from their community to access the rights and protection of UK law.

 

There must be one rule of law for all because that is the only way to have religious freedom (including the right to freedom from religion) and for the country to remain unified. That is my business and I don't accept that I have to wait until the Taliban are knocking on my door to check the length of my beard before I can speak out against Islamification. It needs stopping right now.

 

It is not a discrimination in my eyes to begin with, so how can I actually answer this as right or wrong? Obviously it is always wrong to discriminate, which is a negative behaviour, but as you could see from my illustration of the legal system, do you truly think that this is discriminatory ?

 

Let's keep it simple with one example of sharia law. Sharia law considers homosexual acts a punishable crime and a sin. You wouldn't consider that discrimination?

[Cyclone]

This is all a bit confusing and you need more information.

 

If they own the property as joint tenants i.e they both appear as owners on the title and their has been no split of the property into shares, then upon one spuse dying the property transfers to the other automatically. It will not be included in that persons estate. This makes it very tax efficient and saves a lot of hassle.

 

Dunno what you mean by legal entitlement, except of course if you mean as the will prescribes.

 

 

If they decide they want to hold the property as shares i.e 50/50 then they have to make a declaration as such. In the case of where spouse B holds a share of the house as a tenancy in common and leaves half to the wife and half to the child, then you have the wife owning 3/4 and the child 1/4.

 

the way you would resolve this situation I think is by:

 

1. Drawing up a will that declared how the situation was to be resolved.

2. Giving the wife a life interests, so after she dies it is sold.

3. Remortgaging the property and agreeing a payment with the child.

4. Child can attempt to force a sale of the property. Wife can counter by making a claim as a dependant.

 

Normally husbands and wives discuss these things and if you get a solicitor to help he/she will point out such conflicts in advance.

 

I think you can ignore the questions here, they'd really only have made sense if the information that ivanana posted had been correct, and it turned out to be from the Irish citizens advice bureau.

 

---------- Post added 26-03-2014 at 07:28 ----------

 

People have been free to write discriminatory wills before, the guidance doesn't alter anything, it simply explains how to make a law that meets the Sharia expectations as well as being legal in the UK.

 

Lots of things in Sharia might be incompatible with British law, but inheritancy is not one of them.

[Zamo]

Lots of things in Sharia might be incompatible with British law, but inheritancy is not one of them.

 

This is true but not the issue.

 

It is one thing for a person to instruct a socilitor that they want to leave the wife nothing (lack of obediance), to leave the lot to the kids, but hang on a minute, can you make sure the daughter only gets a half share (for being female), and Ishmal should get nothing (for being a dirty homo) and Mohammed also gets nothing (for bringing shame on the family for marrying an infidel, white slut). But it is something else when our legal profession starts directing Muslim clients on what they need to do to comply with the discriminatory requirements of sharia law and effectively promoting and legitimising the nonsense.

 

The Law Society is the regulatory body for solicitors and it is not appropriate for them to be providing guidance to solicitors on how to draft sharia compliant wills when sharia law is not the law of this land. They should be no recognition of religious law because it is divisive and (in practical terms) allows the religious to opt out and impose their laws and justice systems within their community. There must be one rule of law for all and we shouldn't surrender our apsirations for equality and the progress we have made to accommodate religious beliefs and practices 1,400 years behind the times.

[salsafan]

...

...

Let's keep it simple with one example of sharia law. Sharia law considers homosexual acts a punishable crime and a sin. You wouldn't consider that discrimination?

 

If you are a muslim, then you choose to be a non-homosexual by sharia law. If you want to be a homosexual then you cannot be a muslim. It cannot discriminate, can it ? To follow a religion, it must be out of free will.

 

The thing is that you seem to be wanting to push for further integration of Sharia into the English law, but then look at Christianity, it took many years for it to change. If there are to be changes then it must come from Muslim believers to change it from within, and not for non-muslims to harass and push. This is the same with Christianity to begin with whereby we now have homosexual priests. If the sincerity is there from within a muslim community to want this, then they too need to push for that democracy themselves.

 

Look at it from another angle. You may say that you dislike Christianity when conversing between people in a daily basis, but there is no way that you can express this dislike when in employment and when the situation is during the employment of another person when they happen to be a Christian. There is a personal position which you can hold and you can believe in. But you cannot exert that opinion and personal position during a process which you represent an entity and needed to be impartial and not judge someone else based on your own values. THIS is what the law protects. It protects the right of the person during a situation whereby they seek employment, during employment, and when they seek services from the government. They must be treated fairly. The law is not asking you to change your own values. It asks do not push your own values onto others when in a position of responsibility towards the other person.

 

You may say that you can indeed separate the differences, but for many, they are just lazy and try to be impartial daily such that they cannot create a situation where they can discriminate indirectly and unknowingly.

Edited March 26, 2014 by salsafan

[Mecky]

If you are a muslim, then you choose to be a non-homosexual by sharia law. If you want to be a homosexual then you cannot be a muslim. It cannot discriminate, can it ? To follow a religion, it must be out of free will.

 

So why are there gay muslims then?

[salsafan]

So why are there gay muslims then?

 

I do not know any. If there are, then this is a surprise to me. But then again, this is not really for me to know and to judge is it ? Since I am not a believer in Islam, and I do not know the ins and the outs. Just like I do not know why there are indeed homosexual priests when the religion is against that. But I do know that it took the Anglican church an awful long time to consider, and that change has to be from within, and maybe because they are also a service provider as well in accordance to Equality Act that such that it forces them to be able to provide this kind of compliance. But the question remain though, DO homosexuals want to be a priest ? Above the dislike of many of their parishioner ? I hazard a guess that similar things may occur. I do not know if a mosque will indeed also be registered as a public body and as a charity. If they are to do so, then the same Equality Act must apply to them when they actually recruit people, and so forth. I am not too familiar within this new areas to be honest.

 

To me, in a religious context, one must and should indeed be done in sincerity and omitting stirring up actual hatred and discrimination to begin with.

 

With the homosexuals becoming priests. The ones that eventually got the job was indeed supported by their local parishioners to begin with. Even though other churches disliked this actual idea. But for that specific church, if I recall reading about this, is that it was accepted and wanted from their own local communities.

 

 

FYI. Homosexual Bishop within the Anglican church, but they are and must remain celibate. Yet, why define yourself as a homosexual then ? It makes no difference in the eyes of the church. But as a member of the church, you must or should have been shown as a role model. So this is a dilemma for the head of these churches to decide. As it is almost a pre-requisite to remain celibate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/senior-anglican-condemns-gay-bishops-as-a-compromise-too-far-8440005.html

 

To be honest, as I mentioned, I just read this and understand for myself just briefly but I do not get into the thick of things and question this and it really is not something that I confuse myself over that often. I can see conflicts, but it really is not my role to provide any opinions, especially since I do not attend the church.

 

Equality Act in question. Church in response.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13831162

 

"No blessing" given to gay marriages by the church.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/16/uk-britain-religion-marriage-idUKBREA1F0NE20140216

Edited March 26, 2014 by salsafan

[skinz]

I do not know any. If there are, then this is a surprise to me. But then again, this is not really for me to know and to judge is it ? Since I am not a believer in Islam, and I do not know the ins and the outs. Just like I do not know why there are indeed homosexual priests when the religion is against that.

 

Or, homosexuality has nothing to do with religion. If it was and religion had control over gender no homosexual would exist. Gender isn't defined by religion.