Sharia wills. Mind you, the Indy’s headline is pretty explosive and designed to get some righteous fury stoked.
Islamic law to be enshrined in British law as solicitors get guidelines on ‘Sharia compliant’ wills
Except, of course, it isn’t. There is no “enshrinement” of Sharia going on here. Under English law we can leave our worldly goods to whomsoever we please. If I decide to leave my overdraft to my favourite cat, I can. Likewise, if I feel that cats are worth twice as much as nephews and nephews twice that of nieces and divide my estate accordingly, I can. The state does not get to dictate how I share out my stuff – unlike our Gallic friends across La Manche – and quite right, too, for it is no business of the state. Yes, I am aware that it does get involved if we disinherit dependants, but otherwise, no, it does not and should not.
So, all that the Law society is doing is to clarify, for its members, how Sharia works in this regard – should one of their Muslim clients wish to write a will in accordance with their beliefs. Because, you see, no matter how irrational those beliefs are, the property belongs to the benefactor and according to our law, they may divide it up according to Sharia if they so choose.
Still, there is plenty of screaming in the comments about how it is in breach of human rights. I fail to see how being allowed to divvy up one’s worldly goods as one pleases is in contravention of human rights – ah, we are thinking of the beneficiaries. But, you see, we do not have a right to inherit from others. It is a gift, not a right. And if the giver has weird, irrational ideas about whom to give, well, that’s just too bad.
Tim notes likewise, I see.
You know I thought the same as you did but apparently you can’t leave your money just to whoever you want in UK law. The (usually awful) Amanda Platell mentioned it on the Marr show this morning. Apparently it’s very difficult to cut your spouse out of your will should you wish to do that – and the Courts have ruled on it in UK law.
Is this true?
A spouse can challenge the will under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. It does rather depend on whether the spouse is a dependant, I guess.
However, there is no suggestion that Sharia wills would cut a spouse out, rather that the spouse would get less than a son, for example. There is nothing in English law to prevent that and nor should there be. Again, however, under the above mentioned act, a spouse could argue that there is insufficient provision, but would have to argue that case in court.
We have a summary statement in the 2010 case when the RSPCA was holding out for an estate which had been willed to it. Gill and Woodall (for the RSPCA)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1430.html
There were persuasive reasons to think that the testatrix had not understood her own will at all, since it was set by default by an earlier joint will. Her husband died. The will held, but her choices and statements in the next seven years demonstrated that the believed the daughter to be the sole heir by default.
Gill offered to negotiate with the RSPCA, but they exercised their right to go to the Court of Appeal. Eventually the will was overturned and the charity got nothing because it reverted to intestacy rules.
During the explanation, Lord Neuberger for the Court of Appeal briefly reiterated the principles of English Law at para 26:
“Subject to statutes such as the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the law in this country permits people to leave their assets as they see fit, and experience of human nature generally, and of wills in particular, demonstrates that peoples’ wishes can be unexpected, inexplicable, unfair, and even improper.”
He emphasized the drastic nature of the case and that in English law the obligation of the court is to uphold the will. The challenger has a very high barrier to jump in order to be able to over-turn a will. In this case, it happened, but courts regularly turn away claimants.
It is surprising how many commenters – including solicitors – who seem not to be able to grasp that all the LS is doing is saying that clients might want property divided this way, having first complied with the 1975 act so that you do not have the estate wasted by challenges to clarify the will. Writing a will how the testator wants it, subject to any legal restrictions, is surely the job of a solicitor?
XX Under English law we can leave our worldly goods to whomsoever we please.XX
Aye, but as always, the proof is in the eating.
Lets see just what would happen if someone put a clause “No fucking moslem scum to get a single cent!” When their two daughters are married to sand-niggers, and have “converted.” (No “spouse” she/they are LONG snuffed.)
I know of at least one such case right this minute.
I agree with you it is the owners right to bestow no the receivers right to receive.
My father god rest his soul used to say to me “you should suck up to your uncle (his brother) as he has no children to leave his considerable worldly goods to when he goes ”
My brother often in jest says “I will make sure mum leaves me everything and you nothing”
My mother was very upset when her mother died at the way my uncle divvied up the little my nanna had.
But to me (and maybe I am simple or peculiar) when a person dies, if you truly loved them, having “things” can never replace that person.
I have always said to my father my mother and anyone else who makes comment such as the above…
“actually I don’t want anything I will never want anything because things do not replace the loss”
When my fathers mother died, she left me a small sum, I wanted to return it because it was, as far as I was concerned blood money, she did not like me when she was alive she was actually a cruel bully who revelled in making me upset, so me me that money was purely to salve her conscience for the way she treated me in life.
My intention was to send it straight back to my uncles (the executors of her will), however I spoke to my mum about it and she said “darling you are destitute and she clearly wanted you to have it, think of what you could do for the children with it and keep it, plus it will just give your father and his family a chance to stick the boot in”
Don’t get me wrong it was a small sum by most peoples standards, under £500. but at the time it represented a vast amount of money to me.
So I duly followed her advice and kept it and actually I was glad I did. I wrote to my uncle (my fathers youngest brother with whom I had been very close as a child) and thanked him very much and asked him to pas on my condolences to my father and his other brother.
My uncle then wrote and asked me to contact my father (I had not spoken to my dad for over 6 years by this point) I did and we reconciled I am still glad to this day that I did that as just 5 years later my father died.
I would never have had the opportunity to set things right were it not for that bequest.
So sometimes the will maker does actually know what they are doing, I believe my grandmother knew had she left me any more it would have been rejected but by leaving me what she did she brought myself and my father together.
So no it is not for the law to make decisions on who leaves what to whom regardless of faith or religion .
Well, I’ve already made my will:-
“I, Ted Treen, being of sound mind, spent it.”
I plan to leave an IOU along with my overdraft.