Sharia law to be enshrined in British legal system as lawyers get guidelines on drawing up documents according to Islamic rules

  • The guidelines on wills could mean women are denied an equal inheritance
  • Adopted children could also face losing out under Law Society document
  • The move has been criticised as a backwards step by equality campaigners

Top lawyers have written guidelines for British solicitors on drafting ‘sharia-compliant’ wills which can deny women an equal share of their inheritance and entirely exclude non-believers, it was revealed today.

The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, has written a guide on Sharia succession rules that will be used in British courts. It will mean that children born outside of marriage and adopted children could also be denied their fair share.

The guide states: ‘No distinction is made between children of different marriages, but illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs.

New guidance for lawyers on drawing up wills based on Sharia principles have been released by British legal experts. Pictured, the Sharia Council of Britain preside over marital cases at their east London headquarters

New guidance for lawyers on drawing up wills based on Sharia principles have been released by British legal experts. Pictured, the Sharia Council of Britain preside over marital cases at their east London headquarters

‘The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. 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.’

The Law Society claims the guide is simply to promote ‘good practice’ and ‘support members so they can help clients from all backgrounds’ – but the move has been criticised by equality campaigners.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, an organisation that campaigns for strict separation of the state from religious institutions and equality of religion before the law, says the move is a backwards step that undermines British justice.

Equality campaigner Baroness Cox said the Law Society document 'violates everything we stand for'

Equality campaigner Baroness Cox said the Law Society document ‘violates everything we stand for’

He said: ‘The UK has the most comprehensive equality laws in the world, yet the Law Society seems determined to undermine this by giving approval to a system that relegates women, non-Muslim and children born out of wedlock to second class citizenship.

‘Instead of running scared at any mention of sharia, politicians of all parties should face these issues square on and insist on the primacy of democratically-determined human rights-compliant law.

‘Laws determined by Parliament should prevail over centuries-old theocratic laws. We should have One Law for All, not allowing any law to operate which disadvantages any sections of the community.’

Nicholas Fluck, president of the Law Society, said in a statement: ‘This practice note provides guidance to solicitors dealing with clients where Sharia succession rules may be relevant.

‘This is the first time such advice has been published and we hope it will assist solicitors with Sharia probate matters.

‘There is a wide variety of spiritual, religious and cultural beliefs within our population, and the Law Society wants to support its members so they can help clients from all backgrounds.

‘We hope this guidance will help solicitors assist their clients and go some way to forming an idea of good practice when it comes to applying Sharia succession rules within the legal profession.’

But Baroness Cox, who campaigns against religious discrimination against women, said the guidance was a worrying development.

She told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘This violates everything we stand for. It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.’

In the past she has spoken out about the growth of ‘Islamic courts’ resolving disputes.

She said: ‘No longer do we have a single legal code in our society.

‘Instead, alongside our own law, there is now effectively a parallel quasi-legal system operating within some Muslim communities.

‘Sharia law, imported from theocracies like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, first began to be used here in a strictly limited form, dealing mainly with narrow issues like Islamic financial contracts.

‘But as the Muslim population has grown and the pervasive creed of multiculturalism has become ever more powerful, so Sharia law has rapidly grown in influence within some communities.

‘There are now estimated to be no fewer than 85 Sharia courts across the country — from London and Manchester to Bradford and Nuneaton. They operate mainly from mosques, settling financial and family disputes according to religious principles.’

Archbishop backs sharia law for British Muslims

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA

The Archbishop of Canterbury tonight prompted criticism from across the political spectrum after he backed the introduction of sharia law in Britain and argued that adopting some of its aspects seemed “unavoidable”.Rowan Williams, the most senior figure in the Church of England, said that giving Islamic law official status in the UK would help achieve social cohesion because some Muslims did not relate to the British legal system.

However, the prime minister’s spokesman swiftly rejected the archbishop’s comments, which were delivered in a lecture on civil and religious law at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Gordon Brown’s spokesman insisted British law would be based on British values and that sharia law would present no justification for acting against national law.

“Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

“If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that’s consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the government would look at.”

The Conservative peer and shadow minister for community cohesion and social action, Sayeeda Warsi, also criticised the Anglican primate.

“The archbishop’s comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities … We must ensure that people of all backgrounds and religions are treated equally before the law.

“Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices. But let’s be absolutely clear: all British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through parliament and the courts.”

However, some Muslim groups supported Dr Williams’ views on sharia law, which sets out a broad code of conduct for all aspects of life, from diet to the wearing of the hijab.

The Ramadhan Foundation, an educational and welfare body, said the speech was “testament to his attempts to understand Islam and promote tolerance and respect between our great faiths”.

More than 800 people were present in the Great Hall of the Royal Courts of Justice for the speech. A further 200 poured into the overspill marquee. Plasma screens were erected to ensure people could hear and see Williams clearly, and the audience was encouraged to introduce themselves to those nearby.

Williams said introducing sharia law would mean Muslims would no longer have to choose between two systems.

“If what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of diverse and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable.”

He compared the situation to faith schools, where “communal loyalties” were brought into direct contact with wider society, leading to mutual questioning and mutual influence towards change, without compromising the “distinctiveness of the essential elements of those communal loyalties”.

Earlier, in a BBC interview, he was more succinct. He said it was a “matter of fact” that sharia law was already being practised in Britain.

“It’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system; we already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land … There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law.”

He did not endorse the “kind of inhumanity” associated with sharia law in some Islamic states.

The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, warned last month that attempts were being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character.

“There is pressure already to relate aspects of the sharia to civil law in Britain,” he said. “To some extent this is already true of arrangements for sharia-compliant banking but have the far-reaching implications of this been fully considered?”

The bishop, who is no stranger to controversy, also claimed that extremists have created “no-go” areas, which were too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter. He has since received death threats and was placed under police protection. He was unavailable for comment today.

Meddling Pinko Jew Principal Literally Shaking After Being Misgendered as a Communist

Goy Orbison
Daily Stormer
May 5, 2017

Apart from the all white class and the lack of curvature in the teacher’s nose, I would guess this is close to how modern public school is.

We’re all well aware of how thoroughly POZ’d the public education system is. As the famous Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace sketch described it: “First three weeks, Holocaust. Next three weeks, black history month…”

Very reminiscent of my high school experience.

And nowadays it’s even worse, what with the racially charged anti-white rhetoric being shoved down students’ throats in the form of lectures on “white privilege,” “social justice” and supposed police brutality against basketball-Americans who were just on their way to the library. But according to some recent allegations, this already highly politicized atmosphere just wasn’t contentious enough for one Jewish principal out of New York City.


Jill Bloomberg, the outspoken and popular principal of Park Slope Collegiate principal of Park Slope Collegiate, appeared in federal court Monday to ask a judge to temporarily halt a Department of Education investigation against her.

In a lawsuit filed Friday, Bloomberg alleges that the city launched its probe in retaliation for her activism on behalf of her students. “What speech is prohibited?” she asked outside the courtroom. “The speech I am most known for is anti-racism.”

Right off the bat, there’s something gefilte fishy about how this Jewess is framing the situation.

Does she really think we’re supposed to believe that the Department of Education in the World Capital of Rootless Cosmopolitanism & Smug Shitlibbery is getting on a Jewish principal’s case for being “anti-racist”? That’s about as believable as a pedal-powered brain bashing machine.

Let’s dig a little deeper.

In March, the suit alleges, an investigator from the Office of Special Investigations, an arm of the DOE, visited Park Slope Collegiate and told Assistant Principal Carla Laban that the investigation pertains to “communist activities taking place at the school.”

The city denies any retaliation against Bloomberg. It argues that it first received a confidential complaint in May 2016 that Bloomberg was “actively recruiting students to participate in a political party,” later identified as the Progressive Labor Party. (The website for that party does acknowledge communist ties; Bloomberg says she is not a member.)

This sounds like some kind of leftist martyrdom fantasy come to life. “I was just speaking out against racism and the oppressive government came after me, even calling me a communist because they didn’t like that I was speaking truth to power. This is McCarthyism all over again!”

Well as it turns out, the issue wasn’t so much the type of politics that were allegedly being pushed, but the fact that they were even being pushed at all, which is standard operating procedure in public schools.

Bloomberg’s alleged political advocacy is a violation of two Chancellor’s Regulations, the city argues, which “prohibit the use of school facilities, equipment and supplies on behalf of political organizations.”

Sounds about right to me. Seems unlikely that they would pull such a specific group like the Progressive Labor Party out of thin air.

Bloomberg’s attorney Jeanne Mirer said in court that the allegations were false, and were having a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of both Bloomberg and her colleagues.
“People who support civil rights and integration have long been called communists,” Mirer told the judge. “That’s why this investigation is so dangerous.”

She’s right, although there is absolutely merit to those assertions. The most famous “civil rights” leader of all time, St. Rev. Dr. Msgr. Martin Loofah Kangz, Jr., had a Jewish communist handler, Stanley Levison and even went to communist training camps. The CPUSA used to use civil rights and racial grievances as cover for their political operations.

“Y’all said they was gonna be free chicken wangz and some obese white women. Who’s dis Marx nigga? WTF!”

So back to this case, why would this Bloomberg woman be targeted? A co-worker was quoted as saying “I’ve never seen her furthering any political agenda whatsoever. She fights against racism, but I don’t really consider that partisan politics.”

OF COURSE! It’s not political, she’s just fighting against the elusive specter of racism. Nothing political about that since we obviously all agree on what racism is and that it’s always bad 100% of the time, right? And how exactly was she “fighting racism”?

New York Times:

Through the years, she has helped organize protests and assemblies to push for integration and equal resources and treatment for her almost entirely black and Latino student body.

But that changed in 2010, when she learned the education department wanted to open a new high school in her building to serve white middle- and upper-class families

Ms. Bloomberg said she did not understand why the white parents in the neighborhood could not simply send their children to one of the existing high schools. She said she thought the district had an excellent opportunity to integrate this black and Latino high school with white students from Park Slope and neighborhoods nearby.

A majority black and Latino high school? Sounds like paradise. What could be holding them back?

Over the years, Ms. Bloomberg supported her students in fighting the installation of metal detectors in their school, helped organize school assemblies to talk about police violence, and had spoken out passionately against segregation and what she considers racist Education Department policies.

Why wouldn’t you want your son or daughter in this environment? Really gets the noggin joggin’.

Things never really change. Every time we want something of our own, whether it’s racially restricted neighborhoods or our own schools, some nosy kike has to meddle in our business and force vibrant diversity into our lives. And it’s almost always the same playbook.

In his book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, Benjamin Ginsberg sheds some light on the black/Jewish alliance:

By speaking on behalf of blacks as well as Jews … Jewish groups were able to present themselves as fighting for the abstract and quintessential American principles of fair play and equal justice rather than the selfish interests of Jews alone.

It turns out that there was more to this alliance than simply fighting discrimination; by allying themselves with the blacks, the Jews found that they could covertly attack the people they perceived as their main political enemies and weaken if not destroy their political influence.

Straight from the Herschel’s mouth, ladies and gentlemen. Now THAT I can actually believe. It’s really hard to buy this scenario of a Jew being targeted in NYC for being too leftist.

My guess is that this Bloomberg lady is really shrill and annoying and got on the nerves of the wrong DOE employees. Much more believable than a Jew being persecuted for doing something out of the kindness of their heart.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s