Is this disturbing - should Muslims be allowed to operate under a different law than the rest of us? http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-1-2005_pg3_3 “Justice is not a mere consumer product and citizens are more than retail consumers,” she says. She argues that if the proposed change is implemented, it will amount to privatising Ontario’s Family Law and placing it in the hands of private practitioners who have already started marketing their services as alternate justice providers whereas they are no more than “for-profit religious judges” The debate that has been raging in the Muslim community in the Canadian province of Ontario for the last several months is important because what is at issue could spill across to other countries, from the most conservative to those that are still in the process of finding a workable balance between religion and modernity. The lines are drawn, the divisions are clear and one can only watch with mounting interest the outcome. The issue involves family and personal law. A conservative section of Canadian Muslims, many of them Pakistanis, would like to have personal and family disputes, and questions arising out of such disputes, settled in accordance with what they call Shari’a law instead of laws applicable to other Canadians. Those opposing this attempt argue that since there is no one agreed definition of Shari’a, it will lead to bitter sectarian controversies, and divide the Muslim community at a time when it needs to join hands, move forward and dispel the label of reaction and extremism that has been plastered across its face. Muslim women are fearful that the new arrangement will work against them and be used by men — fathers, husbands, brothers — to deny them their rights as equal citizens. The Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd has thrown a spanner in the works by recommending that the practice not only be adopted and continued but that “Muslim principles” — which she has failed to define despite being asked to do so — be allowed as a substitute for the Ontario Family Law Act. When asked what provisions of the Act were in conflict with what she called “Muslim principles”, she failed to provide an answer. Arbitration by the Shari’a-based tribunals will be binding. One progressive Muslim community leader who has taken up the cudgels on behalf of those opposing the conservative move is Rizwana Jafri, vice principal of a high school in the city of Toronto and president of the Muslim Canadian Congress. In an open letter to Premier Dalton McGuinity of Ontario, she points out that the bid to make use of religious laws to settle family disputes through binding arbitration as a substitute to the Ontario family law court system has deeply divided the Muslim community and caused serious concern among women’s groups and children’s advocates. She says the Muslim Canadian Congress is opposed to all religious courts and tribunals that trespass the public domain. She argues that whether they are Rabbinical or Christian courts, Shari’a-based arbitration tribunals or any other religious-based quasi-judicial body cannot, and should not, be allowed to substitute the existing court and judicial system which is based on laws created by parliament whose members are accountable to those who elected them. Ms Jafri, who is married and the mother of two children, writes that under the cover of “Muslim principles” what is being attempted is “Shari’a by stealth.” She argues that Attorney General Boyd by maintaining that opting for arbitration under Shari’a will be voluntary, is reducing justice to a “mere consumer commodity”, something that is antithetical to both Islamic and Canadian values. “Justice is not a mere consumer product and citizens are more than retail consumers”, she adds. She also argues that if the proposed change is implemented, it will amount to privatising Ontario’s Family Law and placing it in the hands of private practitioners who have already started marketing their services as alternate justice providers whereas they are no more than “for-profit religious judges”. Ms Jafri quotes Prof Omid Safi, who teaches Islamic Studies at Colgate University, New York, who wrote, “The use of religious law as a substitute for laws created by parliament, and the establishment of a multi-tier legal system — one for average Canadians and one for Muslim Canadians, and others for Catholic or Jewish Canadians — is not only unjust, but also detrimental to the well being of all Canadian citizens.” He said that he was “alarmed at the prospects of repressive Muslim governments around the world pointing to Canada, and the implementation of ‘Shari’a’ within Canada, as a justification for their oppressive legal systems. This is not a comment on Islamic jurisprudence as a whole, but rather on the repressive interpretations of Shari’a found in those countries. It is unrealistic to think that the ayatollahs of Iran, the proponents of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and other countries will not use this to promote the viability of their oppressive visions.” The last word should be Ms Jafri’s who wrote, “Our position is not against religion. On the contrary, we stand for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. However, freedom of religion does not mean that we dilute laws and strengthen the power of rabbis, imams and priests over their communities, especially the most vulnerable.” Khalid Hasan is Daily Times’ US-based correspondent.
I think allowing any religious group to substitute their "justice" system" for the government legal system would set an extremely dangerous precedent. If taken to the logical extreme, you could see other private organizations like businesses or even social organizations insist on applying their own justice to their members. Way too much of a slippery slope and way too problematic - I agree with the concern that this could be used to oppress women.
Absolutely, this kind of theocratic bent needs to be stamped out with a quickness whether it be Rabbinic, Christian, Islam, or any other religious sect. I hope extreme right-wing Christian's don't latch on to this idea as well, they already want to reshape our courts with uber-conservative, Christian judges and stop "judicial activism"
This is actually very similiar to what many religious conservatives want for the United States, to have Christian practices be substituted for the current laws.
hahah...you guys are a bunch of idiots....its mainly about marriage and interpersonal issues which won’t effect society as a whole…minor issues…thankfully I am in Canada and people up here are WAY more aware of foreign cultures and politics…DD haha its funny how you say you have nothing against muslims…however your always the first to bash them in a thread…. Its peeps like these that make the world a scary place....my brothers wife is muslim so yes I got to represent....you people are ignorant regarding the religon.. pick up a book and read.
I can't see anything wrong with this, though I haven't thought about it for a long time. If my wife and I want to commit to a deeper contractual marriage than someone else, why would you care? If we want to agree to go to an arbitrator who approaches things from a faith-based perspective, why would you care?? They're not asking for a change in criminal laws...they're asking to have their own separate system for family and personal concerns. At their own expense. Respecting their own beliefs. At first blush, I have no problem with that.
Wizardball, I don't like any religion in general. And particularly not any religion that spawns so many extremists like the Muslim religion does. Or ones that worship a meteorite as a religous symbol. It doesn't matter what part of law they are trying to usurp, religion has NO business in politics..NONE !!! A free society of laws where everyone's rights are protected EQUALLY regardless of religious belief is what is needed. So, let's take an extreme measure, you do know that under Shia law that if a women cheats on her husband he has the right to kill her, right? So, this is ok with you? Max, then they can write it into a legal contract. FROM THE ARTICLE ABOVE: "Muslim women are fearful that the new arrangement will work against them and be used by men — fathers, husbands, brothers — to deny them their rights as equal citizens." DD
DD -- it's an agreed to arbitration between consenting adults. you have to waive your rights to trial through the public system when you agree to this. it's like alternate dispute resolution, which is common here in the States. if we acknowledge that marriage means different things to different people, based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof, then i have no problem with two adults being allowed to submit their family legal disputes before an arbitrator who will keep that in mind and make decisions in that regard. it's their own choice. you're not COMPELLED to take all of your disputes before the courts..particularly if you've lost faith in the courts. if they're fearful...then don't sign the agreement. if they're fearful of their own religion...that's another matter entirely.
Wow, you canadians are so much more enlightened. That's why the President of the Muslim Canadian Congress opposes the move to Sharia law in Canada. Whoa us stupid Americans. Maybe you should read the ARTICLE at the beginning of the thread before telling us to 'pick up a book.'
Fine, Then they can sign a binding contract BEFORE their marriage that states this...... For instance, if a wife wants a divorce, and they go before an arbitrator who rules that divorce is not allowed under this law....she has her rights undermined. They can agree to marriage counseling at any point, I don't see where giving a religious group any rights over others as a good thing. DD
Max, Do you think that one of those consenting adults of a specific gender might be 'compelled' to submit to Sharia law whether from overt pressure or from fear of ostracism?
Maybe I'm not too familiar with family laws in general, but what makes it ok to change them for certain people? I know settling domestic quarrels aren't exactly "major" crimes. But they are still laws, and everyone should be protected by the same ones. And as others have said, it would open up a lot of problems. For example, what if a child of Muslim parents decides s/he doesn't want to be a Muslim, and wouldn't accept the rulings under such a system? Which system should decide the child's fate?
Instead of name-calling why don’t you educate us buddy. I thought Canada was a secular nation? If Sharia is in place for “marriage and interpersonal issues” issues does that mean that men will be allowed to beat their wives? Marry 4 women? Will adulterers be stoned? Will all Muslim men serving time for rape be freed if 4 male witnesses have not testified in the trial. How about “honor killings”?
Perhaps. Sure, I can imagine that happening. So you'd treat it like any other agreement...signed under duress?? It's not valid. The end.
