.... The question some lawyers are asking is how far their profession should go in facilitating the use of Islam in settling family affairs. In March, the Law Society (the representative body for solicitors in England and Wales) issued what it called a "practice note" to its members on Islamic inheritance rules.
It spells out the basic principles of sharia-based wills. One is that male heirs should in most cases get double the amount due to female heirs of similar proximity; another is that only fellow Muslims can inherit. As the document explains, it is intended to "assist solicitors who have been asked to prepare a valid will which follows sharia succession rules" and it represents the Society's "view of good practice" in this area.
A group called the Lawyers' Secular Society (LSS) has been lobbying hard for the practice note's withdrawal. The campaigners argue that through the note, the legal profession is not just tolerating but actively facilitating practices which violate basic principles of equality and fairness. The Law Society has retorted that it is simply acting in the spirit of testamentary freedom. The LSS scored a tactical victory in July when it persuaded the Solicitors Regulation Authority—a public body which oversees the profession—to withdraw its public endorsement of the Law Society's note as a "helpful" document.
[A COMMENT] This is just more multicultural nonsense, and destructive nonsense at that. Secular societies are governed by secular law, not religious law, period. Otherwise Sharia law and Biblical law will have us cutting off hands, stoning people to death, treating women as not fully human, and at least maiming people attracted to the same sex.
Opening up the law to parochial, superstitious, barbaric, and parochial norms based on supernaturalism is not only a bad idea, it is a very real threat to the national identity and security of the countries that allow it.
[ANOTHER] The Law Society joins a long line of organisations that feel obliged not simply to tolerate non-indigenous cultures but to actively fall over themselves in their enthusiasm to embrace them, however contrary they may be to British values. The Law society has no business in advising on Islamic values and its guidance should solely concern British law.
[ANOTHER] There is a much larger point here: how far should a modern secular society go in order to accommodate the superstitious/religious beliefs of a minority group?
The UK does not accept female genital mutilation simply because more primitive societies still inflict it on their females. The UK does not accept public stoning or amputations, despite the fact some more primitive societies still believe these things are sanctioned by their magical deities and cultural traditions. [The Economist] Read more
