 |
Humanist Association of Toronto |
| Home | Events | Contact | Constitution | Membership | Letter Writing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Message Board | Newsletter | Members | Library | Ceremonies | Links |
| Comments About the Boyd Report | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Letters about Sharia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sharia in Brief | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Political Islam | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Moderate Muslim Majority | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sharia Links | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In Depth Background Information |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Letter to Marion Boyd | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Islam & Islamic Law: The Threat to Canada and the World | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Understanding the Threat of Shari’a to Canada | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A Canadian Objection to Sharia Under the Arbitration Act | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shari'a, A Threat to the Canadian Society | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments Relating to Marion Boyd's Report |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| by Elka Enola | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Marion Boyd has presented a long and complex report
with some very good suggestions and observations and with some with which I
have serious concerns. Below is by no means a thorough and exhaustive
review of the report. Rather it is a highly subjective and personal
analysis of the points that particularly interested me. There is something inherently dishonest in Marion Boyd’s “review of arbitration of family law and inheritance matters and its impact on vulnerable people”. A large percentage of people who appeared before her asked that family law be removed from the Arbitration Act. She was not even prepared to consider this. Her report is dated December 20, 2004. On August 11, 2004, when asked about having the Arbitration Act exclude matters relating to family law, she replied, “It’s not going to happen.” There was no serious discussion of the idea. No evaluation of how well such a situation was working in Quebec. No indication of why this was an idea which couldn’t even be properly analyzed. What is suitable for a company dealing with intellectual property disputes may be most inappropriate for a concern in family law. My suggestion to the attorney general’s office and to the Review, that if it was essential that family law be subject to arbitration, then family law should be removed from the current law and a new law specifically designed to deal with family law arbitration be enacted. That suggestion has been ignored by everyone. P 5 “The IICJ (Islamic Institute of Civil Justice) was proposing to use the Arbitration Act in the same manner as it is being used by countless other businesses and organizations in Ontario to arbitrate private disputes.” That is not true. Their intent is to use it far beyond the way it is used by every other group. No other group, for example, says that the results of arbitration are not open to appeal . P 9 “The state does not have agents going throughout society looking for wrongs to set right, except in the case of crimes and health and safety inspections, and arguably, in child welfare matters. People are expected to look out for themselves...” I am very accustomed to reading, almost daily, about police posing as hookers or johns to snare prostitutes; or using all manner of technology to find pot growers. But not once have I read of police following up on leads concerning the forced marriages of minor girls, especially of marriages to much older men. The justice system seems to be prepared to intervene only if the girl in question files a complaint. And we all know how likely that is to happen. Sex between such two people is technically rape, a criminal act. But it only affects young females, not financial property, so it is not treated like a real crime ‘that has to be set right’. P 10 The “state has a principled interest in the peaceful resolution of disputes and in having the adult population take responsibility for its actions.” The crux of the problem is the definition of responsibility. The government and Ms Boyd seem to think that if it is written on paper that one is responsible then the matter is closed. But to be responsible entails having the emotional, psychological, social, legal and financial ability to make choices and to live with those choices. This is especially true for the ‘vulnerable’ people that Boyd is supposed to be concerned with in this report. P 10 “...disputants use arbitration because they want to.” When Marion Boyd or I use arbitration that is true. But for thousands of women in Ontario they use it because for social, religious, economic, psychological and other reasons, they really have no choice. They have only a legal choice, but in reality, they have no other choice. P 11 “The court can appoint an arbitrator if the parties cannot agree or if one party refuses to participate.” Back to the freedom of the vulnerable. P 11 “The Act expressly allows the parties to choose what rules of law may apply, and if they do not specify what law applies, the arbitrator can choose the appropriate law.” Nobody should be allowed to opt out of the laws of the land. If a law governing the issue being contended exists in Canadian or Ontario law, then that law should apply to everyone living here. If there is no law governing that specific issue, only then should the parties be free to choose the laws under which they wish a decision to be made. P 12 “Everyone who enters into ‘any form of polygamy’ or any ‘conjugal union with more than one person at a time’ is guilty of an offence.” “...throughout Canada it is possible to have more than one married spouse, as long as the marriages took place in a jurisdiction that recognized the ceremony.” “Even people who have not married more than once can have two or more spouses according to Ontario law.” I don’t care who sleeps with whom if all are informed consenting adults. I don’t care what personal arrangements such people make. My concern with polygamy is with the underlying philosophy of polygamy as an ‘institution’, not as an accidental legal occurrence. The institution of polygamy makes women subordinate and dependent. It then justifies the man, who is responsible, in making all the decisions. It justifies the man having all the opportunities for education and training. It justifies males inheriting a greater percentage of the estate because they have to ‘look after the women’. It justifies an education for males in which they will always be in a situation of authority which means they have no skills to allow them to work in jobs where women are their ‘bosses’. P 32 “Both the National Association of Women and the Law and the Canadian Council of Muslim Women argue that Ontario ought to follow the lead of Quebec and prohibit family law issues from being settled by arbitration.” Many other groups and individuals also made that point to the Review. There is no discussion in the Report about the effectiveness of the Quebec procedure. All there is, is a note saying that in Quebec mediation is mandatory in the case of family law with no discussion of the parameters or limitations of that requirement. P 39 “Decisions of the Catholic marriage tribunal have never been the subject of litigation in secular courts and the participants do not avail themselves of the provisions under arbitration legislation.” The Anglican Church “does not annul marriages or deal with any of the property, support or custody issues that attend marriage breakdown; these are handled by the courts. Again, it appears that the Anglican Church, like the Catholic Church, does not make decisions pursuant to the Arbitration Act.” P 41 “In Ontario, the Jewish court is known as Beis Din. In the vast majority of cases, in the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform traditions of Judaism, parities approach the Beis Dein only to give and receive a get. However, in about thirty cases a year, the Beis Din deals with all issues of marriage breakdown, such as support, property division, custody and access. In these situations, the Beis Din relies on enforcement through the Arbitration Act.” In another part of the Review (P55), Ms Boyd indicates that the Reform section does not need a Jewish divorce (get) since for it the civil divorce is sufficient and so this very large segment of the Jewish population never accesses the arbitration act through the Beis Din. The Conservative sector would apply for the get. The much smaller Orthodox sector, however, forbids is members to go to the secular courts for anything, so they would be the prime cause of the “about thirty cases a year” (p 41) when the Beis Din would deal with family law matters. In those cases, every attempt is made to have the decisions consistent with the laws of the land. P 52 “The majority of respondents opposed to the use of religiously based arbitration maintained that women in relatively closed Muslim communities have no way to know what Canadian law is and no idea of the consequences of choosing religious law instead of going through the courts.” Ms Boyd clearly understands this problem. She does recommend some remedies such as government funding for educational purposes, but her recommendations are vague and do not have operational definitions. How will we know if appropriate funding has been allocated? How will we evaluate the success of the educational program. Tossing out a few thousand pamphlets in various languages does not come close to solving the problem. With all the input she received, she should have been able to have more specific goals. In fact, the report should have said that the IICJ should not be permitted to act on behalf of the Muslim community until some very specific and measurable activities have taken place. How will we know if any of the isolated women have indeed been contacted and functionally informed so that they truly can make informed decisions? Are we back to taking the word of the repressive Imams? P 57 “The Shia Ismaili Muslims (Ismailis) have developed a model of conciliation and arbitration that is the most sophisticated and organized structure in the Muslim community to date and I am going to spend considerable time outlining its origins and activities, as it was mentioned many times by other respondents as an example of what is possible under religiously-based mediation and arbitration.” This is the section of Islam that is led by the Aga Khan. The IICJ is not suggesting the adoption of this process. What the IICJ is proposing is almost diametrically opposite to this. If you have the time, it is worth reading the section of the report (p 57 -60). P 62 The following refers to the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice whose establishment fueled the current debate on arbitration and family law. “The letters Patent of Incorporation #1579565 were granted as of the 15th of January 2004. ...The name ‘Darul Qada - Muslim Court of Arbitration’ was registered under the Business Names Registration Act, and the announcement of the establishment of the Institute was made in March 2004. The Institute is incorporated as a business and is seeking clients to participate in meditation and arbitration under its auspices.” The review then quotes Mumtaz Ali, the ‘founder’ of the Institute: “Every act, deed or movement of a Muslim must consequently be in accord with Muslim law/Sharia injunction. A Muslim cannot be a Muslim without obeying Muslim law in its totality.” Ms Boyd certainly cannot claim ignorance as to the intent of the IICJ. P 66 “Many of the Muslims who responded to the Review, talked about how severely stressed their community has been since the terrorism attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent incidents that have arisen from security measures taken by the Canadian government. ... This fear of discrimination in the mainstream society may make private arbitration under Muslim law seem more attractive and safer, especially to younger people seeking to establish their identity as a minority within a larger community that is seen as hostile.” This is extremely important!! To a great extent, the reaction of the wider non-Muslim section of society has pushed the moderates into the arms of the extremists. Again and again, the press and the public have treated all Muslims as ‘the same’ and have equated them all as oppressive anti feminist and isolationist. Clearly that is not the case. Those of us who are not Muslim have an obligation to reach out to the receptive parts of the Muslim community and to work together for a better Canada. P 66 “Another point raised was the difficulty of honouring community or family obligations within Ontario family law...” So what? Why should our laws accommodate, for example, the revenge family obligations of a tribe in Turkestan that might require the honour killing or isolation or ostracizing of a 14 year old girl who refuses to accept the marriage with a 30 year old man that her father arranged? P 70 “Where a public service is being performed independently of government control the required link is not present and the Charter will not apply.” This seems to indicate that, according to Ms Boyd, the Charter does not apply to decisions made under the Arbitration Act. However, later (p 71) that position is challenged “ There are no court decisions on this issue, and it is not clear whether a court would find the necessary link between government and a privately appointed arbitrator.” Clearly this is an area for legal investigation. P 72 “As we have seen, there are a limited number of categories of action in which the Charter applies. First, there is the government action under a statute. Second, there is government action under the common law. Third, there is govenment omission in the context of government action. “Agreeing to be bound by an arbitrator’s decision falls into the category of an action that is private and therefore, in my view, is not subject to Charter’s scrutiny.” I have absolutely no legal training, so this is something for the lawyers to deal with. P 72 “Although government has a role in ensuring that the law that applies to the breakdown of that private relationship does not perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes, if the participants choose not to follow that law, and instead make private arrangements, the government is not required to interfere.” The government may not be legally obligated to interfere, but at the very least, there is a moral obligation to do so. Again, we are dealing with people having the right to opt out of obeying the law of the land. P 74 Definition of Freedom of Religion by the Supreme Court of Canada: “The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religions belief by worship or practice or by teaching and dissemination.” The main problem with the above is that the term “practice” is not defined. Does it refer to whether one must wear a wedding ring on a specific finger, or does it refer to the practice of granting males authority over females? P 75 “Therefore, as long as true consent if obtained...” And that, of course, is the crux of the problem. Nothing in the current Act ensures ‘true consent’. The recommendations in the report do not guarantee it either. Suggestions for action are made, but we need operational definitions. We need stringent definitions. We must ensure that there are the people hired to do all the appropriate jobs in a timely fashion. I have visions of platitudinous recommendations being enacted into law, and then languishing behind the usual excuse of ‘backlog’. P 86 “Canada, too, has never had strong policies or legislation to define a separation of church and state.” Maybe it’s time we did have such legislation. P 87 “...Aboriginal people, unlike any other group in Canada, have rights that are specifically recognized in Canada’s Constitution Act. 1982" Demands by religious groups for equal treatment with Aboriginal people is untenable. P 88 “Equality before and under the law, and the existence of a single legal regime available to all Ontarians are the cornerstone of our liberal democratic society.” Simply being available is insufficient. A single legal regime should be APPLIED to everyone. P 91 “What must be kept in mind is that the line between public and private shifts, and is in constant negotiations.” And that is precisely why the Arbitration Act is no longer appropriate for family law. That is why the entire notion of multiculturalism must be reconsidered. Multiculturalism was viewed as a way of being inclusive. It has instead become a method of exclusion and has become the excuse for the establishment of numerous ghettos. Replacing public secular schools with private religious schools has further ghettoized our society. There should be serious consideration given to making attendance at full day public secular schools compulsory while allowing for ’ private religious schools at the end of the regular secular school day. P 93 “With respect to the Muslim communities, this issue is complicated by the fact that there appears to be little tolerance in many of them for religious hetrodoxy or other differences of opinion. While this may be changing, many of the loudest Muslim voices, worldwide and here in Ontario, are the most reactionary.” We have to help to make it easier for the moderate Muslims to be heard. P 98 “It was clear from the submissions and the research done during the review that many different forms of domestic abuse are justified within the Muslim community by specific text from the Quran and the hadith. It was equally clear that there is a strong movement within the Muslim community to re-examine the conservative interpretation of Muslim law on such issues as wife-beating, marital rape, forced marriages, and the unequal status of women.” Unfortunately, the IICJ is not one of groups doing any re-examining. We have an obligation to help those segments of the community that are indeed involved in that re-examination with whatever resources they need to do a credible job. P 101 “When parents are immigrants from another country, the vunerablity of women and children is heightened. Women who have been sponsored by their partner may not know that the sponsorship arrangement can be broken without her losing her status in Canada when violence is the cause of the breakdown. Another fear is that, without sponsorship, they will be returned home without their children, who often are born in Canada, they may accede to unreasonable demands from an abusive partner.” (sic) P 103 “A major concern with arbitration under Muslim family law, in particular, is the difference between its provisions for support of women and children and those provisions in Ontario and Canadian law.” “The obligation for Muslim men to support wives and children is part of their religious duty. However, the duty is extremely limited in comparison to what is required by Canadian and Ontario law.” P 104 “Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, are flagged as low cost, faster alternatives to the court system.” Faster and cheaper does not necessarily result in something that is ‘better’. P 108 “The challenge for the Review is to take account of all sides of the issue in an attempt to provide recommendations that may resolve these disparate concerns.” The aim should not be to ‘resolve concerns’ in any manner whatsoever. The aim should be to determine the most just resolution. The two aims may or may not coincide. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Letters About Shari'a |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You can sign petitions and send letters of
support to groups that are fighting the official
introduction of Sharia.
http://www.nosharia.com/eng.htm You can send letters to the editors of the major newspapers Toronto Star lettertoed@thestar.ca. Globe and Mail Letters@GlobeAndMail.ca. You can send letters to the editors of your local papers. Some free community papers depend completely on advertising so it is most unlikely that they will print letters about Sharia, but since you have already prepared the text for a major newspaper, it doesn’t hurt to send them a copy too. You might want to add the addresses of the various newpapers that you are most likely to send email to as Contacts for your email system. That way you don’t have to keep looking them up. You can write to Members of the Provincial Government. It is interesting to note that all the individuals mentioned below are listed on the government website as “The Honourable”, except for McGuinty who is only listed by his actual name. The Premier, Dalton McGuinty dalton.McGuinty@premier.gov.on.ca The Attorney General, The Honourable Michael J. Bryant attorneygeneral@jus.gov.on.ca Your own MLA. This website lists all the MLAs with their contact information http://olaap.ontla.on.ca/mpp/daIndex.do?locale=en You might also consider writing to the Federal Government. The Honourable Irwin Cotler, Minister and Attorney General webadmin@justice.gc.ca Why the Federal Government. Although the specific issue that we are dealing with is the application of Sharia via the Ontario Arbitration Act, it is clear that the same attempt is being made across Canada. Also, parts of Sharia that Islam considers to be under family law (provincial jurisdiction) is in fact, under criminal law (federal jurisdiction). A forced consummated marriage between a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl would fall under the federal criminal code, although the proponents of Sharia Courts insist that it is really just family law. It would be a great idea for everyone to send a very brief note to Irwin Cotler asking him to convene a meeting of all Attorneys General to discuss the implications of the application of Sharia laws within the jurisdiction of Provincial Arbitration Laws. We should also encourage the establishment of a unified and consistent approach for all of Canada relating to such matters. You don’t have to go into any details about Sharia. Just getting a meeting convened would be a major victory. Letters that you send to the newspapers are designed to enlighten the public. This is a very complex situation. Don’t try to deal with the whole issue. Pick one or two points for each letter. Letters that you send to the government are designed to illicit the desired action. State your case clearly in the first paragraph. Then you can add as much supportive argument as you want. Your first paragraph (if it is not too long) will get read. The rest, who know? Pick your angle. You should decide on a specific angle for each letter. Don’t mix the issues of political Islam with those of human rights. While I think that the long term goal of Political Islam is very serious, I don’t think that it is the most pressing point right now. Also, I think it is harder to get that message across to most people. So while it might be appropriate for letters to Attorneys General, I would avoid sending such letters to the newspapers. I would recommend that for the newspapers, we stick to (a) the problem of civil rights of women and coercion within the community; and (b) to the opposition of religiously based legal decisions. Those are two points that almost all readers can understand, and both topics are consistent with HAT’s values. You are always free to lift any part of any of my articles about Sharia. If you are going to use a ‘big’ part of an article, credit me as the source and just let me know after the fact. I give all HAT letter writers carte blanche to use whatever I have written that is useful to them. Some specific points, ideas, suggestions, phrases (in no particular order) One legal system for all. In a democratic secular society, no legal decision should be based upon a specific religious doctrine. What Sharia calls legal marriage under Family Law, e.g. the consummated marriage of a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl, is not considered to come under Ontario Family Law. It should come under federal criminal law which is outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Act 1991. Women are particularly affected by the introduction of Sharia based tribunals for many reasons beginning with the fact that they are called ‘courts’ leading many women to believe that the decisions are really those of the Canadian court. They may be unaware and uninformed that they have full rights of access to the Canadian courts. They may believe that it is their religious duty to submit all disputes to Sharia courts They may believe that they would not be good Muslims if they chose Canadian law over Sharia law They may be coerced by family members to submit to Sharia tribunals Women living in closed communities as second class citizens, with no independent training nor opportunity to be economically self sufficient, cannot risk being socially and economically ostracized. They may neither speak nor read English. They may never be in a situation where they can talk freely with other women. They may not be allowed to leave their home alone to visit others. They may never be in a group situation without ‘protective’ males present. The laws of Sharia supercede the law of the country. Any country. According to Sharia, all Muslims must struggle continually to make Sharia the law of the land. Sharia does not accept the separation of religion and state. Sharia subsumes the state under Islam. Proponents of the application of Sharia in Ontario firmly insist that Sharia is immutable and must be applied as it was formulated over 1400 years ago and must never be changed. Syed Mumtez Ali, the main force behind the establishment of Sharia ‘courts’ has a very low opinion of Canada and Canadians claiming that “the alleged liberal-mindedness of Canadians and their claim... as champions of fairness and equality... amounts to mere platitudes meant only for foreign consumption and packaged to please the ears of the international community”. Under the laws of Ontario, everyone is treated equally. Before undertaking any legal action, everyone knows, a priori, exactly what all the terms and definitions will be. And these terms and definitions will be consistent over time and place. But under Sharia, it is very unclear which aspect of which form of which interpretation will be applied at any given time. This is a far cry from the secular situation of one law for all. As secular Humanists, we believe that our laws are human creations and are not imposed by any deity. As secular Humanists we oppose any law that is based on religious edict, no matter what the religion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sharia in Brief |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sharia, which was established about 1400 years ago is the
religious law of Islam, but since Islam does not separate religion from all
other aspects of life, Sharia law effectively controls every single aspect of
life: social, sexual, political, financial etc. There is a broad range of Muslim adherents. Some at one extreme are almost secular and would not accept the application of Sharia law. Some are at the other extreme and they believe that every single aspect of Sharia must be implemented exactly as it was written 1400 years ago. Most Ontario Muslims are somewhere in the middle. Ontario has the Arbitration Act of 1991. Under this act anyone, you or me, can act as an arbitrator. If I have a dispute with my neighbour, we could ask you to arbitrate under the Act. You would get the appropriate forms from government offices and we would all sign to indicate that we will abide by your decision. You are not required to have any special training or skills to be an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act. It is significant to note that my neighbour and I are equals and neither of us are in anyway coerced into the arbitration process. It is also significant that the government has absolutely no idea how many people use the Arbitration Act in dispute settlement; not does it know what the nature of the disputes are; nor does it know what the resolutions are. The government only gets involved if one of the litigants objects and files a complaint. So if my neighbour discovers that I bribed you to come up with a decision favourable to me, she might file a complaint and the government would then know how we used the Arbitration Act. If the decision was for my neighbour to pay for her share of the fence and she refused, then I would file a complaint and the government would then get involved in enforcing the arbitration decision. The government does not get involved unless someone files a formal complaint. The government does not require that cases using the Arbitration Act be registered. The government does not require that there be no coercion or community pressure. So, why is this suddenly a problem? Well, actually it is not so sudden. When the Act was introduced, women’s organizations across the province were outraged and repeatedly expressed their concerns to the government of the day. The government ignored all concerns about including family law with no constraints under the Arbitration Act. Their concerns, however, got virtually no media attention. What brought the Act back into the forefront was the proposal by a group of Muslim men to use the Arbitration Act. That sounds innocuous enough, given that other religious groups also use the Act. However, no other religious group uses it outside the legal definitions of the Province of Ontario. If a Jewish group is using it to arbitrate problems relating to a proposed marriage, the term ‘marriage’ would be exactly that as expressed by the laws of the province. But Islam and especially Sharia, does not accept the separation of church and state. In fact, under Sharia, if there is a conflict between the laws of the state and the laws of Sharia, the Islamic law always prevails. So under Sharia, a forced arranged marriage between a 12 year old girl and a 40 year old man would be considered appropriate and legal. While this would be paraded out as applying family law under the Arbitration Act, in fact, under secular law, that is not part of family law, but part of criminal law and would be outside of Ontario law. Such a situation would only get government attention if the girl filed a formal legal objection. Now, how likely is that? So the problem is that the form of Sharia proposed is oppressive, especially to women. Under the form of Sharia supported by the advocates of this new Sharia Court (which is not really a court, but is so named to fool the participants into believing that the decisions made there have the force of law), women, for example inherit, at most, half as much as any male. Men may have up to four wives at the same time and, in order not to commit adultery, may take temporary wives for brief sexual encounters. Men make all the decisions. Women are defined as dependent upon and subservient to men. These men have said that anyone who does not register for dispute settlement with that Islamic court, is not a true Muslim. Women who refuse would be shunned within the community. Many of them don’t even speak English, let alone have the ability to be self sufficient outside of their specific Muslim community. Further, contrary to the Arbitration Act, the men have said that once someone signs up with the Islamic court, they can never have their disputes settled any other way. Also, they cannot contest, in the secular courts of Ontario, any decision made by the Islamic court under the Arbitration Act. Since the problems relating to Sharia and the Arbitration Act have been made public, there have been numerous complaints by women in other ‘fundamentalist’ situations such as Orthodox Judaism and women in Native Societies. The coercion of women into the Arbitration process seems to be obvious to everyone except the government. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Political Islam |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Since Islam does not acknowledge the separation of religion and
the state, it is not surprising that many Muslims find themselves unhappy at
having to obey state laws that are contrary to Islam. The equality of all before the law is a secular concept. Under Islam women are not remotely considered to be the equal of men. And so, many Muslims take quite seriously their Islamic directive to do whatever they can to change the laws of the land to coincide and agree with the laws of Islam. Proponents of Political Islam do not call it that. Since they do not make the distinction between The Law and religion, all laws must be consistent with Islam and each Muslim must do all he or she can to further that aim. To avoid doing what one can would be an offense against Islam and you would be a bad Muslim and would suffer the appropriate punishments inflicted by your community. So, women should have as many children as possible and aim for a time when, as a majority, our democracy can be put on its head, and Islamic law be declared. Legally. If you are a lawyer, you do what you can to subvert the law to that end. Twist multiculturalism so that the provincial government will support separate Muslim schools in which girls and boys attend separate buildings and where girls are taught to be obedient and subservient, and under no circumstances what so ever, independent and self reliant. If you are a business man, then you give money to mosques and causes that further the goals of political Islam. So Sharia is the thin edge of the wedge towards the establishment of Ontario and then Canada, as Islamic entities. They are not thinking of this happening rapidly. It might take 50 or 100 years. What matters is that everyone does what ever they possibly can towards establishing an Islamic state of Canada or Great Britain or France... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Moderate Muslim Majority |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| If the majority of Muslims are indeed moderates who really do not
support this extreme form of Sharia, why are they not speaking out? Nine Eleven. Every since 9/11 Muslims feel that they have all been tarred by the same brush. Special boarder rules were made for them. Because the perpetrators of 9/11 were part of the Political Islam movement and were trained to blend in to the wider society, they were never suspected. They seemed ordinary. So now, even ordinary Muslims feel the discrimination and apprehension of the wider community. That has forced them all closer together. It is up to those of us outside of the Muslim community to make it clear that we do not tar all Muslims with the same brush. That we do not fear and mistrust all Muslims. Only when the moderate majority feels that they are accepted, will they feel confident enough to speak out. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sharia Links |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the main anti Sharia website run by Homma Arjomand. http://www.nosharia.com/eng.htm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is a huge website of the main group promoting Sharia
courts. Some of the writings of Syed Mumtaz Ali which I have quoted
and which I have in hard copy, have since been removed from this site. http://muslim-canada.org |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CAIR is a moderate group. You should also visit their main
page, but this is the link to an interesting petition which those of us outside
the Muslim community don’t usually see. http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=169&page=AA |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is the submission that B’nai Brith made to Marion Boyd. Essentially they said that all religions should be allowed to make religiously based decisions under the Arbitration Act and the government should enforce those decisions. They did, however, ask for a few more safeguards to the present system. http://www.bnaibrith.ca/briefs/sharia/sharia040908.html |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Letter to Marion Boyd |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Letter sent to Marion Boyd prior to meeting on
Wednesday August 11, 2004 July 14, 2004 Mrs Marion BoydArbitration Review c/o 11th Floor, 720 Bay Toronto, M5G 2K1 Boyd.review@jus.gov.on.ca Dear Marion Boyd: As a secular humanist group, The Humanist Association of Toronto, strongly supports the separation of church and state. That does not mean that we oppose the existence of religious groups. It does, however, mean that we oppose religious bodies or religious beliefs defining and affecting secular laws and practices. We therefore vehemently oppose the use of The Arbitration Act 1991 by any group applying religious definitions to what should be secular matters. For example, the definition of marriage acceptable under Shari’a would not be acceptable under Ontario Law. In fact, in some instances it might actually come under the criminal code. Furthermore, as Secular Humanists, we are particularly concerned with the plight of women in the application of the Arbitration Act 1991 to Family Law. The Arbitration Act 1991 is an extremely useful tool for a variety of dispute settlements. But not for Family Law. One of the main tenets of Canadian Law is the application of informed consent, a concept which does not seem to be enforced in the arbitration process. This has a particularly onerous effect on vulnerable women who are, in fact, restricted within their tight orthodox religious communities and who do not practice legal freedoms, as most women do, who are operating within the broader more open secular communities. We draw particularly concern to women in the Muslim and Orthodox Jewish Communities. We strongly urge the removal of Family Law from the Arbitration Act 1991. If a separate arbitration act were enacted to deal only with Family Law, then that Act should clearly state the definitions of contentious matters such as ‘marriage’ and ‘consent’ using only the terms current in Ontario Law. No other definitions should be applicable. Yours truly, Elka Enola The Humanist Association of Toronto |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article in HAT newsletter: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Islam & Islamic Law: The Threat to Canada and the Worldby Elka Enola |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (HAT Monthly Meeting, April 11, 2004) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fatemolla presented a talk after which he and Tarek Fatah, a
founding member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, both answered questions from
the audience. Members who attended the Forum preceding the talk by Fatemolla (well known journalist and human rights activist), were made familiar with the article, “Shari’a, A Threat to the Canadian Society” which appears elsewhere in this newsletter. The concept of a Shari’a takeover is so alien to the average Canadian, that it was helpful to have heard this article before being presented with Fatemolla’s bone chilling view of the threat of Shari’a. Shari’a, the laws of Islam were codified in the 8th and 9th centuries during which time the kings shaped the laws to their needs, which were, essentially, to maintain iron fisted control and total power. Now Shari’a is regarded as the divine constitution of Political Islam. Shari’a and Political Islam are a world threat because the requirement of the first, and the intent of the latter, is the establishment of Islamic States worldwide. Shari’a systemically and systematically oppresses women. For example, a woman can not testify as an eye witness. Muslim women cannot marry a non Muslim men, but Muslim men may marry Jews or Christians without requiring their wives to convert to Islam. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Even consenting adults who have sex outside of marriage can expect stoning. In a province of Pakistan, females can only go to female medical technicians, but there are no female ultra sound technicians. In Malaysia, a man may divorce his wife by leaving a message on the answering machine. A Spanish Muslim leader wrote a book advising how to beat a wife without leaving scars. Afghanistan has banned all female singers from appearing on television. “Political Islam is a cunning organization which wants to destroy all states not supporting Islam.” In the written public statement of the group, they claim that Allah “commands that Shari’a be implemented all over the world.” Nationalism is anathema to Islam. To remain a Muslim, Political Islam demands the rejection of allegiance to one’s Islamic nation state. George W Bush and Tony Blair seriously misunderstood the nature of the problems in the Middle East and as a result they lost in Iraq and all the power there now rests with Shrai’a. In fact, Bush’s actions in the Middle East produced the final trump for Shari’a which is now at an all time high. The West is now very successfully portrayed as “The enemy of Islam”. The West must realize that this is a cultural war, not a military war. The West is focused on fighting specific terrorists and specific terrorist groups. But the war is not on terrorists. It is on terrorism. If all terrorists in the world were magically removed, Shari’a will generate hundreds of others. We must eliminate the terrorism. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a central explosive catalyst for the power of Shari’a. Peace between those two groups is essential before Shari’a can be diffused and defeated. Fatemolla ended by making 3 suggestions for action by HAT: 1) Establish a public dialogue between political and non-political Muslims which should be recorded and shared as widely as possible, especially among the media. 2) Print a list of typical Shari’a laws and distribute them as posters and flyers. 3) Launch a movement to have a statement included on the Immigration form signed by those wishing to enter the country to the effect that they believe in and intend to work for a secular democracy. The question and answer period which followed dealt mostly with questions relating to Canada and Toronto. Some of the information from that part of the meeting follows, in no particular order. Most mosque structured organizations in the West are funded by American and Saudi money. Eight billion dollars was given to mosques in North America. One mosque group (Council of Islamic Relations CAIR) got half a million dollars in cash from a Saudi Prince.) The Manifesto of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada) states, “If you choose Canadian law instead of Shari’a, therefore you do not believe in Islam.” There is a subtle racism in the country that results in the attitude towards the problem of Shari’a being ignored as something that only affects a bunch of immigrants in a ghetto. Why should we get involved? They will adjust in a couple of generations. The political left has been co-opted into the camp of Political Islam. When the left sides with those supporting Palestinians against Israel, they are siding with Political Islam and often they don’t even realize that. A speaker at all local anti-war rallies is Bangash, a local leader of Political Islam. There is extra pressure to get Shari’a accepted now because the Muslims who are now in their seventies and eighties are dying off and leaving estates of great wealth. Many wish to make sure that Shari’a will be used to divide up those estates. For example, Under Shari’a the jewelry of a dead mother does not go to her daughter but to her sons and to her son-in-law. Most Muslim groups are getting funds from Heritage Canada. We should be insisting that only groups that support the separation of church and state and the democratic supremacy of the people should be funded. The dilemma: While it is essential that the battle within the Muslim community be fought by Muslims, the penalties are extremely high. They are declared to be apostate, and, under Shari’a could be stoned and/or killed. Those of us who are not Muslims and wish to take on the battle would at most suffer a court case. But our effect on the internal problem would be minimal. After 9/11 and Bush’s bombing of Afghanistan, Political Islam became anti-Imperialist. Unlike other religions, Islam has never undergone a reformation. “If new immigrants do not understand that in Canada, we uphold the separation of church and state, then the battle will be lost” |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Understanding the Threat of Shari’a to Canadaby Elka Enola |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brief presented to John Gregory, Crown Counsel, Office of the Attorney General for Ontario on March 24, 2004: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Canadian Objection to Sharia Under the Arbitration Actby Elka Enola |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| As a Canadian born Secular Humanist I am deeply concerned about
the possibility of legalizing decisions made under Sharia law. Like most
liberal minded Canadians, I regarded as extreme and alarmist claims that, in
western democracies such as Canada and England, girls as young as 12 years old
are forced to marry and have sex with men over 40 years old and that that
practice is sanctioned by Islam. I tended to pooh pooh concerns about Sharia in
Canada. Then I read the article from the Observer-Guardian in England (attached
at end). I have few contacts with the liberal / secular Muslim community and none whatsoever with the fundamentalist Muslim community. When I first tried to find out who was behind the initiative for The Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada) and how far the process to government recognition had gone, I hit blank wall after blank wall. In retrospect, I suspect that those involved wished to keep it, as much as possible, out of public awareness in order to minimize any objection until the Darul-Qada was a legal reality. At first I started to investigate translations and interpretations of the Qur’an but soon realized that, like the Bible, it could be used to justify or oppose just about anything. So I then asked myself, What is the motivation to establish a Sharia Tribunal? What do the proponents themselves say? Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of The Canadian Society of Muslims, presided over the convention that established the 30 member council charged with getting legal recognition for the Sharia tribunal. The quotes that follow are from articles written or edited by him and can be found at http://muslim-canada.org The comments in red italics are mine. ******************************* As for Muslim’s (sic) living in non-Muslim countries like Canada, for instance, the Prophet p.b.u.h, has laid down the law that they are to be considered as if they are non-resident Bedouins. Such Muslims, therefore have to observe the Divine Law of Islam, no matter where they live. Establish a Darul Qada - a judicial tribunal that will, in effect, operate as a private Islamic Court of Justice I think that it is significant that only the Muslims call their tribunal a court. ...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) It is interesting that the specific examples selected are all ones in which the Muslim law discriminates against females. The only way that be done in the context of Canadian law and values is to coerce females into accepting the Islamic decisions without recourse to secular law and, I would guess, without awareness of their right to the more favourable secular law of the land. On the web site http://www.muslim_canada.org/apostasy.htm we find this schematic comparison of some very significant legal differences between Canadian Law and Sharia. These must be understood in order to see the direction which decisions under Sharia would take, keeping in mind that it is the obligation of Muslims to make every attempt to create an environment where they can live as much under Sharia law as possible. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A TABULATED 'EQUATION'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On the same website we
read, According to Islam, as a consequence of this philosophy,
despite the various ethnic racial and other differences, non-Muslims too are
treated collectively as one people, one community, one nation, one Ummah vis a
vis the Muslim community, technically known as Dar al-Harb.
So much for the Muslim understanding of the
Canadian concept of Multiculturalism. This is entirely a we-they view of the
world. BLASPHEMY -It includes a denial of any of the essential principles of Islam. A Muslim convicted of blasphemy is sentenced to death in Muhammadan countries... If a boy under age apostatize, he is not to be put to death, but to be imprisoned until he comes to full age, when, if he continues in the state of unbelief, he must be put to death. The apostate has to choose between Islam and the sword; he cannot be given quarter, nor will he be allowed to become a dhimmi, i.e. a resident non-Muslim subject of the Muslim State, on payment of the yearly protection-tax. Every civilisation (sic) not the least the modern Western one - both in the communistic and capitalistic manifestations - has provided capital punishment against violating the integrity of what it considers its very raison d’etre; and one cannot deny that right to Islam. As an independent organic community, Islam will have the liberty to determine what points should be darer to it: colour of one’s skin, language spoken by its subjects or ideology which animates its existence. The references to communistic and capitalistic manifestations clearly shows that the idea of killing blasphemers is not taken out of context from discussions applying to centuries ago, but rather is intended to be applied in our contemporary society... if only they get the chance. It is well known that Islam provides a complete system for regulating every aspect of human life. The rules, obligations, injunctions and prohibitions laid down by or derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah produce a complete picture of the Muslim community, from which no part can be removed without the rest being damaged. It is clear that Muslims such as those proposing the application of Shari’a law operate under the restrictions of Canadian Law with great difficulty. They truly believe they are doing something sinful. They truly would do anything to be allowed to live under full Shari’a. The following additional differences and distinctions between the Islamic and western ideologies, philosophies of life and legal systems (including systems of punishment) deserve particular attention: - 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. Worth repeating. Islam does not believe in the separation of church and state. - Similarly unlike in the western system, Islam does not separate the treatment of the moral and the legal. Islamic law is essentially a code of moral standards which are to be observed in a Muslim Society and the function of the law is to enforce these moral standards even by punishments. Islamic Society’s standard of morality is indeed very much higher and strict than those of other societies. - Islam makes no distinction between private and public morality. The Islamic concept of PERSONAL FREEDOM is the complete opposite of contemporary western thought. According to Islam, personal freedom is available and permissible only in respect to matters which are NOT REGULATED by the injunctions and prohibitions laid down by the Qur’an and the Sunnah, for these are expressions of the inherent Divine Wisdom manifested through the Divine Will. - Finally, the most important point of all is the concept of Sovereignty and legislative authority. A proper understanding of the Islamic concept of Sovereignty and its paramount significance (which permeates every aspect of human life), will help explain many differences between the Islamic legal systems and western legal systems: In Islam all (political, legal and popular) sovereignty belongs to God alone. Every Muslim is bound by his faith to acknowledge God as the sovereign in all spheres of life BB moral, social, cultural, economic and political. Islam repudiates entirely the latest version of the philosophy of western democracy in which the west accepts the absolute sovereignty of the people, the absolute powers of legislation rest in the hands of the people, lawmaking is their prerogative and legislation must correspond to the mood and temper of their opinion. This too bears repeating, Islam repudiates entirely the latest version of the philosophy of western democracy in which the west accepts the absolute sovereignty of the people, the absolute powers of legislation rest in the hands of the people, lawmaking is their prerogative and legislation must correspond to the mood and temper of their opinion. It gets even worse. While Canadian law changes as needs change, under Islam the laws are ancient and immutable. Simply put, western constitutions are amendable, although with very rigid rules for very special circumstances. In Islam, however, the Shariah (sic) (i.e. the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet) which may be regarded as a parallel to the western style of constitutional law, is not amendable - period. So, 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 our laws and regulations are able to deal with my Worst Case (but probable) Scenario which is based on what the proponents of The Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada) say publically. In fact, I believe our laws are such that they can, and will be, twisted and turned upon us so that the out come will be one that damages Canadian values. Stage One Under the Arbitration Act, the Shari’a courts get legal sanction and many women and gays feel socially, economically and psychologically pressured to participate in and accept the decisions of the Shari’a court. Stage Two 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 Muslims now 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 Education of Muslims by Muslims, especially through radio and tv ads 2 Funding by the government especially 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shari'a, A Threat to the Canadian Societyby Elka Enola |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. What distinguishes Political Islam from the other mainstream religions is the rigid application of Shari’a. Law. The 4 most significant aspects of Shari’a for us to consider are: 1. Shari’a contains regulations concerning all aspects of human behavior including those which we, in Canada, consider to be under the criminal code as well as those, such as Family Law, which in Canada are governed by Provincial law. 2. Shari’a applies to all Muslims no matter where in the world they live. 3.Shari’a denies anyone the right to leave Islam. Those born into a Muslim home are considered, under Shari’a, to be Muslim forever 4.The laws of Shari’a supercede the laws of the nation state. In Muslim countries, the laws of the country must be in accordance with Shari’a. In non-Muslim countries, Muslims are to follow Shari’a as much as they can without breaking the law, and to make every attempt to alter the law so that it is in accordance 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 law which could then be brought before the Ontario court for legal sanction. Under the Arbitration Act 1991, the courts would be obligated to enforce the agreements, provided they were not contrary to Canadian law. But all this seemed so irrelevant. Currently, most mosques have imams who dispense Shari’a law. Currently any decisions they reach can be brought before the Ontario courts in accordance with the Arbitration Act. So the glaring question is: “What is the real purpose of the Islamic Institute?” The most obvious purpose is to give Shari’a decisions a greater impact within the Muslim community, where members would be led to believe that Shari’a decisions really had the force of civil law behind them. This is important. If family law decisions agreed to under Shari’a reached the civil courts, 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. To really understand the broader purpose of establishing the Shari’a Court, it is useful to learn what the leaders say and what they believe. Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of The Canadian Society of Muslims is the main driving force behind the Islamic Institute / Court. The quotes that follow are from articles by him and can be found at http://muslim-canada.org . My comments are in caps and within parenthesis. “As for Muslim’s (sic) living in non-Muslim countries like Canada, for instance, the Prophet p.b.u.h, has laid down the law that they are to be considered as if they are non-resident Bedouins. Such Muslims, therefore have to observe the Divine Law of Islam, no matter where they live” Establish a Darul Qada - a judicial tribunal that will, in effect, operate as a private Islamic Court of Justice.” ( it is significant that only the Muslims call their tribunal ‘a court’) “...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” (it is interesting that the specific examples selected are all ones in which the Muslim law discriminates against females. The only way that can t be done in the context of Canadian law and values is to coerce females into accepting the Islamic decisions without recourse to secular law and, I would guess, without the awareness of their right to the more favourable secular law of the land.) “According to Islam, as a consequence of this philosophy, despite the various ethnic racial and other differences, non-Muslims too are treated collectively as one people, one community, one nation, one Ummah...” (So much for the Muslim understanding of the Canadian concept of Multiculturalism. This is entirely a we-they view of the world.) “Blasphemy -It includes a denial of any of the essential principles of Islam. A Muslim convicted of blasphemy is sentenced to death in Muhammadan countries... If a boy under age apostatize, he is not to be put to death, but to be imprisoned until he comes to full age, when, if he continues in the state of unbelief, he must be put to death.” The apostate has to choose between Islam and the sword; he cannot be given quarter, nor will he be allowed to become a dhimmi, i.e. a resident non-Muslim subject of the Muslim State, on payment of the yearly protection-tax.” ( Not exactly the Canadian way.) “Every civilisation (sic) not the least the modern Western one - both in the communistic and capitalistic manifestations - has provided capital punishment against violating the integrity of what it considers its very raison d’etre; and one cannot deny that right to Islam. ” (The reference to “communistic and capitalistic manifestations” clearly shows that the idea of killing blasphemers is not taken out of context from discussions applying to centuries ago, but rather is intended to be applied in our contemporary society.) “It is well known that Islam provides a complete system for regulating every aspect of human life. The rules, obligations, injunctions and prohibitions laid down by or derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah produce a complete picture of the Muslim community, from which no part can be removed without the rest being damaged. “ (It is clear that Muslims such as those proposing the application of Shari’a law operate under the restrictions of Canadian Law with great difficulty. They truly believe they are doing something sinful. They truly would do anything to be allowed to live under full Shari’a.) “The following additional differences and distinctions between the Islamic and western ideologies, philosophies of life and legal systems (including systems of punishment) deserve particular attention:” “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.” (Worth repeating. Islam does not believe in the separation of church and state.) “Similarly unlike in the western system, Islam does not separate the treatment of the moral and the legal. Islamic law is essentially a code of moral standards which are to be observed in a Muslim Society and the function of the law is to enforce these moral standards even by punishments. Islamic Society’s standard of morality is indeed very much higher and strict (sic) than those of other societies.” “Islam makes no distinction between private and public morality. The Islamic concept of PERSONAL FREEDOM is the complete opposite of contemporary western thought. According to Islam, personal freedom is available and permissible only in respect to matters which are NOT REGULATED by the injunctions and prohibitions laid down by the Qur’an and the Sunnah, for these are expressions of the inherent Divine Wisdom manifested through the Divine Will. ” “Finally, the most important point of all is the concept of Sovereignty and legislative authority. A proper understanding of the Islamic concept of Sovereignty and its paramount significance (which permeates every aspect of human life), will help explain many differences between the Islamic legal systems and western legal systems: In Islam all (political, legal and popular) sovereignty belongs to God alone. Every Muslim is bound by his faith to acknowledge God as the sovereign in all spheres of life –––– moral, social, cultural, economic and political. Islam repudiates entirely the latest version of the philosophy of western democracy in which the west accepts the absolute sovereignty of the people, the absolute powers of legislation rest in the hands of the people, lawmaking is their prerogative and legislation must correspond to the mood and temper of their opinion.” (This too bears repeating, Islam repudiates entirely the latest version of the philosophy of western democracy in which the west accepts the absolute sovereignty of the people...”) It gets even worse. While Canadian law changes as needs change, under Islam the laws are ancient and immutable. “Simply put, western constitutions are amendable, although with very rigid rules for very special circumstances. In Islam, however, the Shari’a (sic) (i.e. the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet) which may be regarded as a parallel to the western style of constitutional law, is not amendable - period.” 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 our laws and regulations are able to deal with my Worst Case (but probable) Scenario which is based on what the proponents of The Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada) say publically. In fact, I believe our laws are such that they can, and will be, twisted and turned upon us so that the out come will be one that damages Canadian values. Stage One Using the Arbitration Act, the Shari’a courts appear to get legal sanction and many women and gays feel socially, economically and psychologically pressured to participate in and accept the decisions of the Shari’a court. This is the first stage in the consolidation of power. Stage Two 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 Muslims now 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 and help in acculturation job training. |
 |
"Live well and help others live well." (Mario Bunge) |