 |
Humanist Association of Toronto |
| Home | Events | Contact | Constitution | Membership | Letter Writing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Message Board | Newsletter | Members | Library | Ceremonies | Links |
| There are two main strands to this issue: Political Islam and
The Ontario Arbitration Act (1991). The Arbitration Act was set up to deal with minor civil cases that were clogging up the court system. Essentially it says that any one can be an arbitrator. If two neighbours have a dispute over a fence payment, they can ask a third neighbour (or you or me) to arbitrate the dispute. They would have to sign documents indicating that they are participating willingly and are not coerced. If, at any time, they felt that there was something amiss in the procedures being followed, they could withdraw and file a complaint. Otherwise, whatever decision is reached is binding and the issue never reaches the courts. If however, one of the participants does not meet the obligations as arbitrated, then the courts become involved in enforcing the arbitrated decision providing the decision does not contravene existing Ontario laws. Islam, like all religions, has adherents ranging from fundamentalists who take every written word of their ancient religious texts as the literal contemporary truth, to people who are almost secular and who are fully integrated into the wider society of their nation state. Shari’a is the set of Islamic laws and regulations, written 1400 years ago, that governs all aspects of human behavior, including those which we, in Canada, consider to be under the Criminal Code. It should also be noted that, in arbitrating, churches and synagogues apply the definitions, terms and conditions of Ontario law. Muslims apply the terms, definitions and conditions of Shari’a. For example, a woman might claim that her husband raped and beat her. The priest or rabbi would not attempt to figure out the retribution for rape since that is under the Criminal Code and the Arbitration Act deals only with civil law. They would both become deeply involved in helping the woman deal with the situation and in trying, also, to help the husband. Both clerics would see the situation as one, which while not healthy for either partner, is one in which the woman was wronged. But under Shari’a, the woman must produce 3 or 4 witnesses to the rape. As she could not do so, she might be punished by being ordered to stay in a small locked room with visits only from her closest relatives and her husband might be authorized to marry again, He, of course, would have custody of the children. This decision would never reach the courts. Shari’a applies to anyone who was born to Muslim parents, even if they no longer follow the religion. In fact, under Shari’a, death is the penalty for leaving Islam. The laws of Shari’a supercede the laws of the nation state. Muslims, no matter where in the world they live, must follow the laws of Shari’a unless to do so would be breaking the nation’s law. However, in such instances, Muslims must, under Shari’a, do whatever they can to have the nation’s laws changed so that they conform with Shari’a. What makes understanding Shari’a suddenly so significant is the fact that the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada) was founded last year to provide decisions under Shari’a which could then be brought before the Ontario court for legal sanction. Since most mosques, like most churches and synagogues, already participate in the Arbitration Act, the glaring question was: “What is the purpose of the Institute?” The most obvious purpose is to give Shari’a’s decisions a greater impact within the Muslim community, where members would be led to believe that Shari’a decisions really had the force of law behind them. This is important. If family law decisions agreed to under Shari’a reached the civil court, most of those decisions would be thrown out. The intent, it seems, is to keep decisions detrimental to women, children, apostates and homosexuals, tightly within the Muslim community, and unchallenged. Muslims are being asked to register with the Institute in order to benefit from Muslim law. One of the clauses states that they may not, for any reason, withdraw from the Institute. Under the Arbitration Act, after agreeing to an arbitration process, one may withdraw for a number of reasons. Furthermore, under the Arbitration Act, one only agrees for a particular case. Under the Institute, a life-long registration with absolutely no way to withdraw is demanded. That makes it virtually impossible for a registeree to ever bring a matter before the civil courts. To really understand the broader purpose of establishing the Shari’a Court (which is the term used by the leaders for the Institute), it is useful to learn what the leaders say and believe. Syed Mumtaz Ali, a lawyer, who is President of the Canadian Society of Muslims is the main driving force behind the Islamic Institute/Court. At http://muslim-canada.org, we learn that Syed Mumtaz Ali sees the Institute as “a private Islamic Court of Justice” to “apply our own Muslim Personal law, including family law (e.g. marriage, khula, divorce, custody, guardianship, mehr division of property, wills and inheritance, gifts waqf etc.)”. There are many more areas where Shari’a extends, but lets just look at the ones mentioned above to see how they relate to the laws of Ontario, Shari’a accepts forced and arranged marriages; even those between female children of 9 and men of 40. This is not as far fetched as one might think. These situations are kept within the walls of the Muslim community, yet every once in a while in Canada and in England, examples of that are revealed. Wills are superceded by preset Shari’a rules. If a will left by a father divides his estate equally between his son and daughter, the son will appeal for a Shari’a ruling since under Shari’a, the male must get at least two thirds of the estate. That is the starting point. He cannot get less. While Muslims, under the cloak of multiculturalism, make demands of our society, they, on the other hand, do not recognize the ethnic and other differences that exist among non- Muslims. Instead, they declare that “All non-Muslims are treated collectively as one people, one community, one nation.” Not only is blasphemy which “includes the denial of any essential principle of Islam” punishable by death, but just as countries have assumed the right to apply capital punishment, so Mr Ali claims, “one cannot deny that right to Islam”. He further states that “Islam does not believe in the principle of separation of the spiritual and the temporal, the sacred and the profane, nor the church and the state.” While living in Canada and using Canadian democracy to achieve his ends, he says. “Islam repudiates entirely the latest version of the philosophy of western democracy in which the west accepts the absolute sovereignty of the people”. And finally, how does Syed Mumtez Ali view his adopted country of Canada? “In practice, the alleged liberal-mindedness of Canadians and their claim to world leadership as international brokers of peace and peace-keeping or as champions of fairness and equality etc, etc., amounts to mere platitudes meant only for foreign consumption and packaged to please the ears of the international community.” I do not believe that the laws and regulations of Canada can deal with what I see as a worst case (but very possible) scenario, which I base on what the proponents of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada) say publicly. In fact, I believe that our laws are such they can and will be twisted and turned upon us so that the outcome will be one that damages Canadian values. Stage One: This is the first stage in the consolidation of power. Using the Arbitration Act, the Shari’a courts appear to get legal sanction and many women and homosexuals feel socially, economically and psychologically pressured to participate in and accept the decisions of the Shari’a court. Stage Two: In this stage, multiculturalism is used as a vehicle for demands such as state financed Muslim schools where girls and boys are kept totally separate from each other from kindergarten on and are given different curricula. This will guarantee that they will not grow up into the Canadian expectation of adults able to exist in egalitarian relationships whether in marriage, friendship or at work. Stage Three: In this stage, Muslims outnumber Christians and the majority rule of democracy is turned on its head as the majority Muslims make Shari’a the law of the land. We must protect Canada from such a scenario. I see the needed action as three pronged: The Muslim community, the governments and non-Muslim society. 1) The Muslim community should be responsible for educating Muslims, especially through radio and tv ads. 2) Governments should provide funds for Muslim women’s groups. Governments should undertake a re-evaluation of Canadian and provincial laws to ensure that our civil laws are outside the reach of Shari’a. 3) The non-Muslim sector of society must make sure that those Muslims and apostates who do reach out, get the appropriate support that they need, such as physical shelter, ESL classes, help in acculturation and job training. We must all work together to ensure a strong integrated Canadian society. |
 |
"Live well and help others live well." (Mario Bunge) |