they're doing it BY AGREEMENT!!! again..that happens here in the States all the time!!! have you signed an agreement with a credit card company, DaDa?? do you have a credit card?? if you do, you have signed an arbitration agreement. you haven't changed any laws, but you're waived your right to have your case heard before a court of law.
MadMax - I think that duress and the ability to prove it is a legitimate concern. Your credit card/arbitration analogy is decent, but falls a little short IMHO in terms of the likeliehood of duress and the ability to prove it (commercial transaction between unrelated parties versus what will likely be one woman against the balance of her family). Also, you can't by contract agree to something that is against public policy (at least in the US). If Muslim law is not gender neutral with respect to family matters, at least in theory, I don't think this would work in the US.
I went back and put bold type on the relevant parts since its so long. There are several concerns. In this instance you have the leader of the whole thing saying that NOT signing up is heresy. It is an inherently unequal system for arbitration favoring men. Its either naive or disingenous to assert that women will be 'voluntarily' agreeing to this. That is not the same thing as you and I entering into a contract. I have no religious or cultural impetous to accept an unfavorable result, and no hesitancy in pressing my claim. I have no less standing than you in court or arbitration, and you have no inherent right to more than I do in court. That ain't the same thing. This is a step waaay back for women: "Studies have found that private bargaining in family law tends to yield inferior results for many women.[118] In his study of factors that impact on negotiated spousal support outcomes Craig Martin found that "the support claimant is the party who will have the least resources and so will be least able to bear the transaction costs" associated with private bargaining. He also notes that "psychologically and culturally, support is still viewed as a favour given to dependent women, rather than a form of entitlement."[119] Indeed arbitrators will bring their own set of biases, which are seldom acknowledged, to their decision-making." WOMEN ARE INHERENTLY DISADVANTAGED WITH SHARIA LAW: "With no legal aid or mandatory legal representation, there are serious concerns as to whether women will be truly free in their choice to arbitrate. Gila Stopler has argued that unlike racially-, ethnically-, and religious-oppressed communities which strive to instill in their members the recognition of their own oppression, the oppression of women is compounded by societies that strive to deprive them of the recognition of gender based oppression and prevent them from creating the space and the cooperation required to form resistance.[123] Women may be susceptible to subtle but powerful compulsion by family members or may be the targets of coercion and pressure from religious leaders for whom there may be a financial interest in people seeking arbitration.[124] In the context of battered women and mediation, it has been noted that [t]he reality is that a battered woman is not free to choose. She is not free to elect or reject mediation if the batterer prefers it, nor free to identify and advocate for components essential to her autonomy and safety and that of her children… [125] This comment is equally relevant to battered women agreeing to arbitration. It is highly unlikely that a battered woman will be capable of negotiating the terms of an arbitration agreement in a way that is fair to her interests. New immigrant women from countries where Sharia law is practiced are particularly vulnerable because they may be unaware of their rights in Canada. These women may be complacent with the decision of a Sharia tribunal because arbitral awards may seem equal to or better than what might be available in their country of origin.[126] An immigrant woman who is sponsored by her husband is in an unequal relationship of power with her sponsor.[127] It may be impossible for a woman in this situation to refuse a request or order from a husband, making consent to arbitration illusory. Linguistic barriers will also disadvantage women who may be at the mercy of family or community members that may perpetuate deep-rooted patriarchal points of view. If a woman manages to access the court via judicial review or appeal, she may well be told that she "chose" the disadvantageous situation that she finds herself in, further entrenching her feelings of helplessness and inferiority. The consequences of family arbitration with few limits will seriously and detrimentally impact the lives of women. This gender-based impact will likely be felt widely and will have intersecting class, (dis)ability, race and cultural implications." There are other concerns as well, outlined in the original article, about legitimizing Sharia and its effects in the radicalized Muslim world.
Let me jump in on this point. Max has it right, as usual, but as a further background to this, Canada has always prided itself on being multicultural, as opposed to the US melting pot, so there is a greater effort to accommodate other cultures and consider the higher level purposes of some of our systems. You can trace this right back to this country’s origins, in fact. Quebec has a radically different legal system than the rest of the country. They don’t follow the principles of English common law at all. They follow the Civil Code, which is a derivative of the Napoleonic Code. (I’ll let Max explain the difference ). This general principle has been applied to other groups as well. In some places Sentencing Circles are used to determine the penalties for native people convicted of crimes. http://www.usask.ca/nativelaw/publications/jah/circle.html This is a relatively recent change and was enacted to address the reality that jail does not, generally speaking, accomplish the task of rehabilitating or deterring native offenders. There are a whole host of reason for this stemming from the differences in cultures. Sentencing circles are a group of elders from the offender’s community who talk to the offender and decide on a suitable punishment. One such proposed punishment was for a young man who committed an armed robbery on a gas station. The elders proposed that he serve 200 community hours … working at that same gas station! That’d be a dose of humility, it seems to me, as well as restitution. The victim has to be in agreement as well, and in this case I don’t think that happened. Other sentences have been to spend several months in isolation on an island in Northern Saskatchewan, checked up on periodically by the elders. These punishments have been shown to be much more culturally relevant and to be much more successful in terms of rehabilitation and deterrence.
totally agreed! public policy is a HUGE issue here as to whether or not these contracts are enforceable. but i'm not seeing the public policy concerns yet...mostly because i don't know what the remedies or regulations are in Islamic law. if we're just talking about how property is to be split or what happens on divorce, i don't see how that would so offend public policy as to mean these agreements aren't enforceable.
wow..that's even more than i'm talking about. that's changes in how natives are prosecuted for criminal offenses. this thing the Muslims are asking for is nowhere close to that.
Hayes -- the boiled down points relate to duress, specifically. muslim culture exists here too...muslim women choose to wear veils...they choose to subjugate themselves to their husbands because they find it pleasing to God. it offends the notions of our culture...i still find myself almost angry when I see a woman from a foreign culture carrying shopping bags out of a store while her fat ass husband walks in front of her, empty-handed. it offends my sense of equity from my own cultural background. i'm baffled how anyone could reject medical care, particularly blood transfusion, for religious reasons...but they do, and die in their beliefs. the candian courts could say, "hey...it's against public policy because Islam is hard on women and these women can't make decisions on their own. they can't enter into contracts on their own, willingly." and maybe that's the social condition that exists. but that wouldn't pass constitutional muster here, i don't believe. unless of course...stoning and the like were inherent. but as long as we're talking about the way property is divided upon divorce or the like...i don't think there is a reason to say they can't do this.
Note that this is not automatic, though. It’s an agreement between the parties involved, and there are other strings attached too. This is from the above link: --- When to Hold a Sentencing Circle The criteria come from a decision from Judge Fafard of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court [R. v. Joseyounen [1995] W.W.R. 438 at 442-46 or Ross Green's Justice in Aboriginal Communities at page 76.]: 1. The accused must agree to be referred to the sentencing circle. 2. The accused must have deep roots in the community in which the sentencing is held and from which the participants are drawn. 3. There are elders or respected non-political community leaders willing to participate. 4. The victim is willing to participate and has been subjected to no coercion or pressure in so agreeing. 5. The court should try to determine beforehand, as best it can, if the victim is subject to battered women's syndrome. If she is, then she should have counseling and be accompanied by a support team in the circle. 6. Disputed facts have been resolved in advance. 7. The case is one which a court would be willing to take a calculated risk and depart from the usual range of sentencing.
Generally speaking, it is reasonable and common for the government to limit the scope of what you can sign over in a contract. A quick googling of "Prenuptial agreements" reveals that there are many instances where such agreements, even when signed by both parties, are rendered invalid. Examples include agreements that would leave one party destitute, or agreements that make frivolous requests. You would also have to make sure that they weren't rushed into the decision or felt coerced. Specifically, I think of the many ways in which it is acknowledged that people in domestic abuse situations will not prosecute because of the peculiar pressures and aversion to discomforts that such a close relationship can generate. Is there a similar effect for women seeking divorce?
DD it is helpful is you go to a Muslim created site rather than Bible.com...for obvious reasons.... a recommended wibesite is for starters who need basic info: www.islamicity.com/education/understandingislamandmuslims/ to search specific question: www.islamicity.com/qa/ THIS SHOULD HELP YOUR UNDERSTANDING!!! I KNOW DD YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING THIS FOR A WHILE....WELL HERE IS YOUR ANSWER: Question: Is it true that the Black Stone in the Ka'aba, which marks the beginning of tawaf, was given to Adam on his fall from heaven, as mentioned in the Encyclopedia Brittanica . Or has it fallen from heaven by some other means? Answer: There is nothing in Islamic tradition to suggest the Black Stone was known to anyone on earth before Prophet Ibrahim, or before the building of the Ka'aba. This means that it was not given to Adam when he was sent down from the heaven. According to Islamic tradition, when Prophet Ibrahim and Ismail completed the building of the Ka'aba, Allah commanded them to do the tawaf. They could not count the rounds as they got confused with corners. Ibrahim prayed Allah to give him a mark to signal the beginning of each round. It is reported that Black Stone was given to Ibrahim by Archangel Gabriel. Obviously, Ibrahim could have used a mark of his own, but he wished that Allah would give a mark which remained for all time, so that all those who do the tawaf have the same signal. It should be clear to everyone that the Black Stone does not have any significance other than what I have just mentioned. It does not give any blessing to anyone. We simply kiss it at the beginning of tawaf because the Prophet kissed it when he did the tawaf. Our attitude to it is that of Umar ibn Al Khattab who said addressing the stone: "I do know that you are only a stone which can cause no benefit or harm to anyone. Had it not been for the fact that I have seen the Prophet kissing you, I would not have kissed you." Topic : Black Stone - Hajar (al) al-Aswad - Why Muslims kiss it and touch it? Question: Why do Muslims kiss the Black Stone in Kaabah? Your response is highly appreaciated because i have a Christian co-worker who asked me this and don't know what to say. Salaam Jimar Answer: Dear Br. J. As-salaamu alaykum. The real reason why Muslims kiss the Black Stone is to behave like prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did. However, this doesn't prevent us from trying to understand the possible reasons behind the act itself because every human being, by nature, desires to understand the wisdom behind his/her actions. As you know, the tradition among the Arab people was to shake hands when they reached an agreement among each other. This was a sign of trust, truthfulness, and sincerity. Therefore, when a Muslim touches or kisses the Black Stone that God has brought from Heaven, then it is a symbolic gesture that the Muslim is pledging to God his/her total submission and obedience. This is especially important since God is not tangible. Thank you for asking and God knows best.
1. 'Multiculturalism' - this is addressed by the muslim women who are protesting this movement. Simply put they didn't come to a place where rights are guaranteed by the state to go back to a rule of law that guarantees they DO NOT have equal rights. While Canada's pride in multiculturalism is fine, complete relativity should not override the core rights guaranteed to its citizens - which is also a source of pride for Canadians. In the Indian example above a push for multicultural openness screws the woman who gets THREE months of support upon divorce. Congratulations, that's fair. 2. 'They have to agree to it' - Coercion is inevitable. (a) The founder of the movement to get Sharia law adopted in Canada says himself that to NOT agree would make a Muslim a heretic. So submit or go to hell. In the current system there is not this option, women are protected by all Canadians settling these disputes in Canadian courts, which seek to provide an equitable forum and protect equal rights. (b) Overt pressure or fear of ostracism will force Muslim women to submit to these arbitrations. (c) Many Muslims are immigrants - and would be unfamiliar with Canadian law even IF they might abandon their culture and community, dooming them to accept Sharia based decisions. 3. 'Canadian law would protect them if arbitrators were to inequitable' - (a) This assumes that a women would go to the Canadian courts after 'agreeing' to arbitration. She is effectively forced to agree to the arbitration. If it goes badly she still faces the same ostracism and pressure to accept the decision. (b) This isn't an open process. In the courts the decision is open to public scrutiny. With Sharia arbitration it is not - further lessing the chance public scrutiny can even the playing field in an inherently unequal law structure. 4. 'Muslim women submit to oppression here in the States' - True, but disputes over divorce settlements and child custody are decided by the courts, not clerics. While oppression still exists the level of control is nowhere near what it would be in a situation where the men controlled the decisions insulated from the public eye. Basically it comes down to this: In the current system Muslim women have protection within the court system. Changing it increases the chance of women's oppression, while driving it out of the public eye and underground, out of public or governmental scrutiny. To support it you have to be willing to say you support the oppression of women - coercion be it overt or covert. Muslim women in Canada are saying these things - so to dismiss it seems insensitive at best.
An interesting read. It could read 'How we'll eventually subvert American culture and replace it with Shari'a law.' "This much said, it would be foolish to deny that the prospects for American acceptance of such institutions as stoning, or flogging or amputation are virtually nil, at least for the foreseeable future." But as Muslims gain more power and grow in population, as long as they refuse to assimilate and demand to function separately, they will eventually try to move us to such institutions as stoning. Well, Europe is now reaping the harvest that multiculturalism sows, and Canada appears to be following that track. Good luck, Canucks.
believe me. he's not in favor of such things. thats just his manner of speaking. he's a professor of islamic law at university of michigan by the way.
Well, I found the article very interesting reading, and I didn't see any insidious intent in what he was saying - didn't mean to imply that. But I have seen others write about a similar concern with the type of movement that this thread is discussing. Its easy to laugh off people who scream 'slippery slope' at times, but there is a natural progression that follows one step after another. While he points out that the 'harsher' side of Islam would not be acceptable here, what if Muslims had a greater role in the political process? With population rates going down in Europe, for example, and Muslim populations rising, what is to prevent things that are currently unacceptable from being voted in down the road? Now we have Canadians, good people at heart, accepting a system that guarantees inequity for women under the guise of multiculturalism.
well given that i am muslim. and i like politics. i'd hope we would and i dont think europe's troubles with islam are necessarily european muslims being more involved with islam. i think its frankly the racist underpinnings of europe. they love to criticize us for our race troubles but europe didn't have significant minority populations. and with minority populations you're inevitably going to come to such problems. it'll definitely be interesting how america goes with the rising hispanic populations. by the way have you read much of stephen carter? if not here is another fascinating article. i believe this is where many muslims feel that they agree more with the conservative wing. which is interesting...though personally im not much in favor of it essentially i think most of us are ok with people trying to promote their morals onto society via politics as long as its couched in secular terms. you can't say murder is illegal due to 'thou shall not kill' but obvious public policy reasons. etc.
Interesting that you brought that up. I was thinking of them yesterday. They're the only group keeping pace with Muslims as far as population growth, so I'm thinking they might be a bulwark against Shari'a in the US (since they're Catholic) in the future.
