Shariah in Canada: A Muslim Mum's Open Letter to the Premier of Ontario

Buyer Beware?
Since when was justice a consumer product?
A Muslim Woman's Open Letter to the Premier of Ontario

By Rizwana Jafri
MuslimWakeUp!
http://tinyurl.com/5p9zw

The Honourable Dalton McGuinty,
Premier
Government of Ontario.

Dear Premier McGuinty:

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Rizwana Jafri, a Muslim mother of two sons, Vice Principal of a Toronto High School, and President of the Muslim Canadian Congress, in which capacity I am writing to you.

As you are aware the 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.

For the record, the Muslim Canadian Congress is opposed to all religious courts and tribunals that trespass the public domain. Whether they are Rabbinical or Christian courts, Shariah-based Arbitration tribunals or any other religious-based quasi-judicial body, we believe that they cannot, and should not, be allowed to substitute our court and judicial system; a system based on laws created by parliamentarians like yourself, who are accountable to the electorate.

Recently, much to our shock, former Attorney General Marion Boyd recommended this practise not only be continued, but that "Muslim principles," which she failed to define, be allowed as a substitute to the Family Law Act. When asked to explain what parts of the Family Law Act were in conflict with "Muslim Principles," she refused to elaborate and evaded this question repeatedly.

As Muslims we believe that what Ms Boyd is recommending under the cover of "Muslim principles" is in fact "Shariah by stealth."

We believe Marion Boyd's report reflects her lack of understanding of the issues; the complexity of the religion; and the diversity of the Muslim communities. In addition, we believe that by invoking the "Buyer Beware" principle in matters of judiciary, Marion Boyd has reduced justice to a mere consumer commodity. This is antithetical to both Islamic and Canadian values, which are in essence one and the same. Justice is not a mere consumer product and citizens are more than retail consumers.

We also believe she had a serious conflict of interest in reviewing the very law that she had a hand in creating, as member of the Bob Rae cabinet, and should have refused to pass judgement on her own work.

I am asking you to please intervene and stop the implementation of the Marion Boyd Report, which also introduces an unprecedented attempt to privatise Ontario's Family Law and place it into the hands of private practitioners who have already started marketing their services as for-profit religious judges masquerading as alternate justice providers.

We are not alone in our opposition to introduction of Shariah into the Canadian judicial system. Many Muslim academics have voiced their concern as have some mosques and the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Professor Omid Safi who teaches Islamic Studies at Colgate University in New York has written:
"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."

Professor Safi, who is also Chair of the New York based Progressive Muslim Union of North America, adds another dimension to this controversy. He writes:
"We are also 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 Wahabism in Saudi Arabia and other countries will not use this to promote the viability of their oppressive visions."

One of Islam's leading scholars in Europe, Professor Tariq Ramadan of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland told an Egyptian magazine there was no need for Canadian Muslims to set up their own Shariah courts, saying they are "not necessary" and that demanding such courts "is another example of lack of creativity" among Muslims.

Here in Toronto, Professor Taj Hashmi, who teaches at the Centre for Asian Research in York University, has gone a step further and urged ordinary Canadians to speak out and oppose the proposal. He writes:
"The Government alone cannot stop the formation of the Sharia Board; civil society in general and liberal Muslims in particular should come forward to stop this vice, which is neither Islamic nor Canadian in character and spirit."

Some prominent Canadians have also voiced their concern. Canada's first Muslim member of the Senate, Senator Mobina Jaffer has expressed her opposition to the Marion Boyd report while former Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps has labelled Marion Boyd's proposal as "hogwash. Ms. Copps writes:
"The real question untouched in the Boyd report is why civil society would agree to religious arbitration -- Muslim, Jewish, Christian or anything else -- in the first place. Have we really done all we can to examine families' experiences since such processes were given the green light in Ontario, including how many arbitrations have resulted in decisions accepted by economic dependents with few real choices? Or is this really about finding a quick solution to the backlog in our courts?"

Sheila Copps has hit the nail on the head in asking the tough question. Is this about multiculturalism or is it about cost-cutting and privatisation?

We believe that mosques, churches, temples and synagogues have an important role to play in the community, but their role should be restricted to mediation and reconciliation, not interfering with the Canadian justice system and running a parallel private-sector judiciary with self-styled religious judges for hire.

But most importantly, we believe the 1991 amendment to the Arbitration Act that allowed family disputes to be settled outside the family Law Act, was unconstitutional.

This is why we are asking your government to refer the matter to the Ontario Court of Appeal to determine:

• Whether the Arbitration Act confers jurisdiction, outside the Family Law Act, to resolve disputes of property, children, inheritance and estates in the family context.
• If the Arbitration Act does confer such jurisdiction, whether this is constitutional.

I hope you will give serious thought to the concerns I have raised. The decision you and your cabinet will make will have a profound long-term impact on society. Just as you stood up for public education despite immense pressures from all religious lobbies, we hope that you will take the courageous decision to ensure that one law exists for all Ontarians, irrespective of the religion or race. Only then can we hope for a civic society where cohesiveness takes precedence over divisiveness.

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; specially the most vulnerable.

Toronto Star story on Marion Boyd's Shariah Report: Muslim critics say, it is 'betrayal' of women

Shariah in Canada
Report called 'betrayal' of women
Proposal backs use of Islamic principles in settling disputes
Ontario heading in 'dangerous direction,' opponents say

By CAROLINE MALLAN
Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com

A proposal to allow the use of Islamic principles in settling familydisputes in Ontario has been met with outrage by opponents of the plan.Former NDP attorney-general Marion Boyd made the recommendation yesterday ina 150-page report in which she also called for new safeguards to protect therights of women.But she ultimately concluded that "Muslim principles" should be consideredan acceptable method of religious arbitration as long as they do not violateCanadian law.

Boyd was asked by the provincial government to review the 1991 ArbitrationAct and assess whether a plan by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice touse the guiding principles of their faith in settling marital andinheritance disputes should be halted.

Catholics and Jews already have madeuse of the act, which is intended as a way of avoiding costly court fightswhen both parties to a dispute agree to do so. A divorcing couple could usethe act to decide on a division of property, for example.

Opponents were quick to condemn Boyd's report, calling it "naive" and abetrayal of women.Marilou McPhedran, counsel for the Canadian Council of Muslim Women,labelled Boyd's report "naive" in its assumptions that Muslim women wouldhave the same choices as other women.

McPhedran said many women who could beaffected are recent immigrants who might not speak English and are not givena true choice in how a divorce might be settled. "This is a dangerousdirection. It is the thin edge of the wedge. This has to be stopped now,"she said.

Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress said Boyd has lent credibilityto a system of law that has disadvantaged women in Muslim countries forcenturies."Marion Boyd today has given legitimacy and credibility to the right-wingracists who fundamentally are against equal rights for men and women," Fatah said of the endorsement of some form of sharia law.

"The proponents of sharia in Canada are not concerned about family law, they are concernedabout bringing justification for introducing sharia and legitimizing it."But Boyd repeatedly stressed that the term "sharia" is not what is being proposed by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, adding the1,400-year-old set of rules and laws covers criminal and civil matters andis often incompatible with Canadian law."We're being very clear, this is not sharia law," Boyd told a newsconference.

"This is Muslim religious principles within Canadian law." But, she conceded, in all cases of arbitration, whether religious or not, itis up to the people involved to stand up for their own rights. "It's a bit of consumer beware that I think is very real in this area."

Boyd also said in an interview later, "I'm not naïve enough to think this is the end ofit."

Although some critics are firmly opposed to the use of the Arbitration Actby any religious group, she said she couldn't "in good conscience" tell thegovernment to end it because "it would set back family law by 30 years."But anyone who interprets the report as giving priority to multiculturalismover female equality is "misreading" it: "It's a recognition that (shariaarbitrations) are already happening - the first one here was in 1982.

Butthere is no way to scrutinize them. "If they stay underground, Muslim womenwill be more vulnerable."Boyd also told the news conference she believes strengthening the existing system of arbitration, including mandating domestic violence awarenesstraining for arbitrators, will help reduce the number of informal,religious-based family dispute resolutions that happen without anyoversight.

Critics of any use of sharia law in Canada point to examples of what someMuslim societies consider to be acceptable levels of spousal support when amarriage ends - anywhere from three months to a year's worth of support -compared to a Canadian norm of much more long-term support for a formerspouse and children.

"I think Boyd made up her mind before she even started because she hasn'ttaken into consideration anything we said. It's like she didn't hear us,"said Alia Hogben, executive director of the 900-member Canadian Council ofMuslim Women.Boyd's report recommends a greater right of appeal for arbitrations, butputs the onus on Muslim women to take that step, said Hogben, "but how wouldmany women have the wherewithal to do that?"

"We just hope that the attorney-general freezes the report until a properinvestigation is done," said Homa Arjomand, head of the InternationalCampaign to Stop Sharia Courts in Canada. The campaign argued that while, technically, Muslim women will have accessto Canadian laws and court, and the legal system will undoubtedly rejectoppressive decisions, "the reality is that most women (will) be coercedsocially, economically or psychologically" into participating in shariatribunals.

Boyd's report calls on arbitrators to affirm that they have interviewed thecouple in dispute separately to determine that both parties areparticipating of their own free will and to rule out any possible domesticviolence issues.All of the groups opposed to any use of sharia said they will aggressivelypress the Liberal government and Attorney-General Michael Bryant to rejectBoyd's findings and put an end to arbitrations that rely on Muslim laws.

But Syed Mumtaz Ali, a lawyer for the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice,said he was "delighted" with Boyd's findings and added that many of the 46recommendations for strengthening the Arbitration Act came from him."It's a model for the whole world to see how sharia law can be used in aWestern society," Mumtaz Ali said in an interview. He added that whilesharia is a misnomer in terms of the type of family disputes at issue, he said it is the term most people recognize and associate with Muslim beliefsbeing applied through the law.Mumtaz Ali said Muslim principles require Muslims to believe in one God andto commit to obeying the law in the country where they live.

He said theadvantage of sharia-type arbitration is that participants are compelled bytheir religious beliefs to uphold the law, an extra onus that will make forfair treatment of all parties in the dispute."Canadian laws prevail, sharia law takes a backseat," he said of the plan heenvisions for arbitration.He said many people in the community are anxious to proceed withsharia-based arbitration and plans have been in limbo awaiting Boyd'sreport.

Len Rudner of the Canadian Jewish Congress said the group felt Boyd struck afair balance between the needs of the individuals and those of thecommunity. "She appears to have done a good job of that," he said.

Montreal's Egyptian-born Professor Nadia Khouri writes: "Keep mosque and state separate"

September 21, 2004

Keep mosque and state separate

By Nadia Khouri
National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com

The irony in the Ontario government's decision to consider allowing anIslamic shariah court is that many Muslims themselves oppose the idea.Muslims, like people of other faiths, routinely consult their spiritual leaders on a variety of matters.

It's an informal affair. But granting ashariah court the power to enforce binding arbitration means that those whoinnocently seek consultations with clerics may become trapped in legalities,with religious specialists settling disputes according to the law of divine command -- passing judgment according to what the faithful must do to please God, not what the state must do to protect citizens.

Since shariah is a comprehensive law covering the minutest details of publicand private life, many Muslims are concerned by the notion of Islamicscholars setting norms of behaviour for them, with the imprimatur of theirattorney general.

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women has urged fellow Canadians to fight theAct. Homa Arjomand, a former refugee from Iran's Islamic regime and aco-ordinator of the active International Campaign Against Shariah Court inCanada, has been warning in several forums that these tribunals will compelabused women to stay in abusive relationships. After all, Surah 4:34 in theKoran, a basis for shariah, clearly says: "Good women are obedient, guardingin secret that which God has guarded.

As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, then banish them to beds apart and strikethem."Many Muslims resent such separate-but-equal moral isolationism.

A strong denunciation came from Tarek Fatah, a founder of The Muslim CanadianCongress, who called the use of religious laws to settle legal matters racist. "When somebody tolerates my mistakes ... this is the racism of lowerexpectations."

The idea that all Muslims are bound by shariah is a misconception forced onthe public by Islamists. Nothing could be more attractive to them than theidea of legally binding Muslims to shariah via arbitration. In other nationswhere shariah is enforced -- whether as the state law, as in Saudi Arabia orIran, or as part of a dual system of religious and secular laws, as in Egypt or Jordan -- open opposition by reformers and secularists condemns them topersecution, imprisonment or death.Shariah courts have been abused in other countries and could be abused here.

How would a shariah court, for example, treat an accusation of apostasy --which, if found true, would mean the apostate could not be married to aMuslim and a divorce would be necessary?Would a shariah court uphold freedom of conscience and belief, guaranteedunder section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a principleat odds with a strict reading of shariah? Would it force the accused topublicly recant, hence going against the Charter? Would it counsel divorce?

Though polygamy is illegal in many Muslim countries, it is not invalid undershariah. A man can keep a wife in Canada and other ones in another countrywithout the Canadian wife, his Canadian-born children and Canadianauthorities being able to intervene in matters of divorce, alimony andcustody -- all of which are dealt with in different ways by the four Sunniand the two Shia schools of Islamic law.

Then there is the issue of Islam's conception of contractual, temporarymarriage "for pleasure," whose character is extensively codified especiallyby the Jaafari Shia school. How would Canadian family law interpret"temporary marriage" for the "temporary wife" who may be left with permanentchildren?Multiculturalism cannot be interpreted in a manner that trumps Charterequality guarantees and the universal human rights that underlie them. Humanrights are vested in the individual, not the group.

When special powers aregranted to groups rather than to individuals, conflicts between the groups'leaders and their members are sure to arise.Who is trying to persuade the Attorney General that these courts are thesuitable venues for arbitrating disputes among Muslims? A group of shariahadvocates led by Syed Mumtaz Ali of The Islamic Institute of Civil Justice.

For two decades, it has been quietly lobbying successive Ontario governmentsto enshrine in arbitration law an Islamic Court, known as Darul Qada. Theview of Canada from Darul Qada's Web site is that of a judicial wastelandwhere, we are told, "Muslim minorities are like wandering Bedouins," with nosay in the laws of the land.

The "wandering Bedouins" have wasted no time rebuttng Darul Qada'spresumptions and opposing a shariah court. Their concerns should be heeded.
-------------------
Nadia Khouri is an Egyptian-born Canadian who teaches humanities at DawsonCollege.

Muslim Opponents of Shariah Tribunals are accused of not being "Real Muslims"

Friends,

As the Shariah debate rages in Canada, one of the key proponents of the law has claimed that opponents of the Shariah are not 'real Muslims". Syed Mumtaz Ali told the Toronto Star:

"One cannot call oneself a real Muslim if one does not obey the Islamic law in such a comprehensive manner".

Adding to this, Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress, another supporter of introducing Shariah in Canada, told the Toronto Star, "non-religious Muslims have no right to tell religious people what to do."

Effectively telling Muslim opponents of Shariah that while he doesn't have a problem with non-Muslim Canadians debating the issue, he wants the rest of us shut out from challenging his position.

His dictatorial edict follows an astonishing revelation made by Elmasry on Friday. He told the National Post that there may only be ONE person in all of Canada who was an expert in Shariah. He was responding to the Muslim Canadian Congress who oppose the resolving family matters using Shariah-based Arbitration. The MCC believe such Shariah courts are not only unconstitutional, but also racist, as they will further ghettoize Muslims.

Mohammad Elmasry is reported as having said:
"...there are only a handful of scholars in Canada who are fully trained in interpreting and applying Shariah law -- and perhaps as few as one..."

He also provided a rare insight into the inner workings of this self-styled Shariah arbiter. He was quoted as saying:
"The arbitrators "use gut feeling, they use common sense, and in many cases they are successful," in that their decisions are not appealed to a court or overturned."

Justice based on "gut feeling"? Scary stuff.

These statements about defining "real Muslims" and suggesting that "non-religious Muslims" not have the right to participate in this debate, should alarm Canada's Arab and Muslim population. There should be no room in our narrative for dictatorial and authoritarian sermons loaded with religious blackmail of determining "good" and "bad" Muslims and deciding who is permitted to participate in the making of the laws of this land

Read and reflect.

Tarek Fatah
-----------------------
Aug. 28, 2004. 07:25 AM

Muslim group opposes sharia law

Argues it does not protect women
Islamic body presents case to Boyd

By Tarannum Kamlani and Nicholas Keung
The Toronto Star
http://tinyurl.com/5saeg

Marion Boyd is at the centre of a storm of debate surrounding proposals to use Islamic sharia law in family disputes. Ontario's former attorney-general has been hearing from both sides of the controversial proposal since she was appointed in June by the province to review the 1991 Arbitration Act.

Boyd's review began after a public outcry against the plan, introduced by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, which wants to use existing arbitration legislation to apply a form of sharia - a 1,400-year-old body of religious law - to settle disputes in the Muslim community.

The practice would be permitted under the Arbitration Act, which allows religious groups to resolve civil family disputes within their faith, providing everyone gives their consent and the outcomes respect Canadian law and human rights codes.

But the Muslim Canadian Congress doesn't think it will work that way.

Along with several legal and women's groups, the congress has argued that sharia is flawed because it does not view women as equal and therefore cannot provide equal justice to all parties in a dispute especially on issues of divorce, child custody and division of property.

"The weakest within the Muslim community, namely the women, will be coerced (into participating) by their community," said Tarek Fatah, founder of the congress during his group's submission to Boyd earlier this week.

The group, formed two years ago, claims to have approximately 200 members across Canada.
It is demanding the province suspend the ongoing review of the use of Islamic law to settle family disputes.

It wants Boyd to refer the matter to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Calling the sharia-based arbitration proposal by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice "racist and unconstitutional," congress lawyer Rocco Galati argued there is no such thing as a monolithic Islamic law. "No one has said what sharia law is supposed to be. There's 1.3 billion Muslims on five continents. There are many differences (among the groups)," Galati said. "There is a pretence that there is a Muslim law, just like saying there's an Asian law, an African law."
He told Boyd that "there is a confusion here between religious freedom and injecting religion into public disputes."

But Syed Mumtaz Ali, who made his presentation to Boyd on behalf of the institute, argues that freedom of religion as guaranteed under Canada's Constitution means not only freedom to practise and propagate religion but also to be able to be governed by one's religious laws in all aspects of one's life - spiritual as well as temporal, he noted.

Ali, a Canadian-trained lawyer, said the Muslim tribunal would use and apply only those provisions of the sharia, which do not clash or conflict with any Canadian law, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The use of the word "sharia" is a misnomer, he added.

"I must emphasize that we cannot, simply cannot, permit anyone to designate any Muslim arbitral tribunal as `sharia tribunal.' The name `The Muslim Court of Arbitration' (Darul Qada) is a registered business name. This was so registered primarily for the purpose of legally making it obligatory upon all not to call it `sharia Court,'" he explained in an e-mail response to the Star.
"This is very basic, fundamental and crucial to Muslims because in a faith-oriented, Islamic way of life, as distinct from a secular way of life, to obey the religious laws in this way is crucial," Ali wrote.

"One cannot call oneself a real Muslim if one does not obey the Islamic law in such a comprehensive manner. ... The Arbitration Act and the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice are not RACIAL because all races are equal under the Constitution."

Ali has received some support from the Canadian Islamic Congress, which met with Boyd 10 days ago. Its president, Dr. Mohamed Elmasry said the Muslim Canadian Congress as "non-religious Muslims have no right to tell religious people what to do."

Elmasry said religious Muslims in Canada are already using sharia to settle their disputes and the Institute proposal would add structure to the process.

"This should be viewed as an experiment," said Elmasry. In addition to an imam, Elmasry said there should be Canadian-trained lawyers, women and elders in the community represented on a panel involved with sharia-based arbitration. "The community and the government should audit the process - if it is perceived as anti-woman, it will die a natural death," he said.

Boyd will continue hearing submissions until next Friday.

Sheila Copps, Canada's former Deputy Prime Minister slams Marion Boyd's Shariah proposal. Calling her naive, says idea is "a danger to women"

Friends,

Sheila Copps is former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada who writes a regular column in the Toronto newspaper, The National Post. Ms. Copps is known as being on the Left of the current ruling Liberal Party and has had close working relationshipwith the Muslim community.

In her latest column, Sheila Copps has attacked the recent proposal tolegitimize Shariah base arbitration in Canada's largest province, Ontario.

She writes:
"The real question untouched in the Boyd report is why civil society wouldagree to religious arbitration -- Muslim, Jewish, Christian or anythingelse -- in the first place. Have we really done all we can to examine families' experiences since such processes were given the green light inOntario, including how many arbitrations have resulted in decisions acceptedby economic dependents with few real choices? Or is this really aboutfinding a quick solution to the backlog in our courts?"

Read and reflect.
Tarek Fatah
-----------------------------
December 24, 2004

Sharia law is a
danger to women

Sheila Copps
The National Post
http://tinyurl.com/5ac33

The report released this week recommending the use of Sharia law in Islamic family disputes in Ontario should send a shiver down the spines of women across the country.The report's author, former Ontario attorney-general Marion Boyd, recommends widening the scope of current arbitration legislation allowing consenting parties to avoid court by choosing mediation or arbitration.

Specifically, she advocates broadening the provisions of the provincial Family Law Act to allow religious arbitration including -- but not limited to -- principles drawn from Sharia law.Boyd has defended her recommendation on the basis that arbitration involving Christians, Jews and Ismaeli Muslims has been successful since the process was established 13 years ago.

But that argument would be a whole lot more convincing if allowing Sharia law wasn't opposed by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and spokespersons for the Muslim Canadian Congress.Boyd contends that it's offensive to suggest Muslim women are less capable of making choices than women of other faiths, and that because members of other religions have the option of mediation or arbitration, Muslims should not be excluded.

What's needed, she suggests, is public education to ensure Muslim women understand "the consequences of choices."What hogwash. The problem is not with women failing to know about or understand their choices -- it's with economic, religious and familial pressures depriving them of those choices in the first place.

Boyd has failed to examine whether religious arbitrations meet the test of fairness. Does she really believe that a penniless mother with four or five children, no Canadian work experience and limited English or French language skills has choices?

Is she naive enough to think there are choices when one party (usually male) holds all the economic power and the other party lives in a dependent situation? When marriages dissolve, that balance of power becomes even more precarious -- which is why a civilian legal system is critical.The real question untouched in the Boyd report is why civil society would agree to religious arbitration -- Muslim, Jewish, Christian or anything else -- in the first place.

Have we really done all we can to examine families' experiences since such processes were given the green light in Ontario, including how many arbitrations have resulted in decisions accepted by economic dependents with few real choices?

Or is this really about finding a quick solution to the backlog in our courts?Even aside from faith-based decisions and processes, secular society has hardly eliminated gender inequality: It starts when we're young and continues through all aspects of life, from the classroom to the boardroom and from the home to the House of Commons.

Throw in the volatile mix of religion and the law and you have a Molotov cocktail that could blow up at any time.A few months ago, I watched a powerful television documentary exploring the lives of women living in a British Columbia religious commune where their leader went through wives like hors d'oeuvres at a Christmas party. One woman fled and was working to save those left behind, but repeated attempts to engage authorities -- from the local police to the judiciary -- achieved little. All were sympathetic, but they were either unwilling or unable to save women from physical and sexual oppression in the name of religion.

A personal experience, too, offered ample evidence of the dangers of taking religious freedoms to the extreme. As a Member of Parliament, I was once involved in helping a woman whose children were spirited out of the country during a bitter divorce proceeding. Citing cultural and religious differences, her ex-husband fled with their children to his native Pakistan despite an outstanding Canadian court order requiring the children to remain in Canada.

Working with a private investigator and the Foreign Affairs Department, she tracked the children down and went to Pakistan to retrieve them. The only thing she received for her efforts was a severe beating at the hands of her husband's family.

A Canadian court decision could not protect the woman or her children. At the time, I wrote to two dozen family members who were in contact with the children, asking for their help in securing a safe return to Canada. But all of them, including the current president of a local Muslim organization, remained silent -- and that mother has never again seen her kids.

There is no sugar-coating it: Those children were kidnapped in the name of culture and religion.The B.C. commune and the ordeals of that mother are but two examples of how faith-based traditions and customs can clash with the values and principles our civil laws strive to defend.

With the scales of justice already weighted in favour of the family breadwinner, why risk a further erosion of women's rights in the name of religion?

Tariq Ramadan: Shariah courts are "not necessary". Making these demands reflects "lack of creatvity" among Muslims

Salaam Friends,

In Canada, many conservative Muslim organsiation and Mosque imams are clamouring to set up Shariah Courts to allow them to arbitrate in matters of Family Law. However, Professor Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna, and a doyen of the Muslim establishment in Europe, has come out against the Shariah Courts in Canada.

According to Dr. Ramadan there is no need for Canadian Muslims to set up their own Shariah courts, saying they are "not necessary" and that demanding such courts "is another example of lack of creativity" among Muslims.

In an interview with the Cairo magazine, Egypt Today, Tariq Ramadan said:

"The Muslims in Canada’s battle to set up shariah courts is another example of lack of creativity. Within the normative law in Canada, they have huge latitude for Muslims to propose an Islamic contract. These courts are not necessary; all they do is stress the fact that Muslims have specific laws and for the time being this is not how we want to be perceived. We need to show that our way of thinking is universal, that we can live with the law and there is no contradiction."

To read the full interview of Professor Tariq Ramadan, click here:http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2481

CBC's Natasha Fatah: Let us have "One Law for All"

One Law for All

By Natasha Fatah
CBC News Viewpoint
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_fatah/20040401.html

A few years ago, a good friend of mine living in Pakistan lost her father to cancer. She is the eldest sibling in the family and as she had done her whole life, she managed all the responsibilities for the family including the funeral arrangements.

However, my friend got a rude awakening when her father's inheritance was handed out and she found that everything – the business, the jewelry, the money and all the family assets – had been distributed to her younger brother. She got nothing. Why? Because under certain interpretations of Shariah law, men are entitled to more inheritance then their sisters or wives.

Today Shariah is finding a new home in Canada. In 1991, an amendment was made to Ontario's Arbitration Act, allowing parties to settle disputes outside the courts. This was supposed to ease the overly-burdened court system and save Ontario taxpayers some money.

What it also did was open the gates in Canada for Shariah law, and a small group of Muslims in Toronto has set up a Shariah arbitration court where the arbiters will make judgments on civil matters such as divorce, inheritance and child custody. After they come to a decision they'll send the finding to a provincial judge for a stamp of approval.

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on Shariah but, this is the most widely agreed upon definition: Shariah is a set of principles that a Muslim should use to guide decisions and affairs in his or her life. It's based on the Qur'an, Islam's holy book, and the Sunnah, sayings of Prophet Muhammad. This sounds OK – ease up the pressure on the provincial courts and promote freedom of religion, right? Wrong. There is something not quite kosher here.

These supposed arbiters of justice in the Shariah court – what qualifications do these men have to make decisions on legal matters in Canada? Absolutely none. This is a self-appointed House of Lords. They don't need to know the law, they don't need to know the rules, hell, they may not even need to know the Qur'an, because they are accountable to no one.

Furthermore, if these arbiters will send their rulings to a provincial judge for a stamp of approval, isn't that admitting that the Canadian system is a better measurement of justice? Sure, there are flaws in the Canadian judicial system but at least you can challenge the politicians that make the laws and the police and judges who enforce them.

There is no formal system through which you can challenge religious clerics, the masters of the Shariah universe. And if you do challenge them, get ready to be called a blasphemer.

Of course, I understand that for some people they feel better discussing difficult personal problems with those who share a common cultural background and common values. But, Alia Hogben from the Canadian Council of Muslim Women offers this suggestion, "Why can't it be just informal mediation? Why does it have to be a binding arbitration? A binding arbitration using Shariah law can, and has been historically detrimental to women. What is there that they can solve with Shariah that they can't with a secular Canadian court?"

Hogben conducts counselling and mediation for Muslim women but she insists that if it comes to legal matters, the women should turn to the Canadian justice system.

Besides, whose version of Shariah law are we going to accept? Afghanistan's? Where women are shrouded their whole lives. Saudi Arabia's? Where they cut off your body parts if you get caught stealing. Nigeria's? Where they'll stone you to death for committing adultery. These are extreme examples but they are the reality.

You see, there is no agreed upon interpretation of Shariah because in every country where it is practised, the interpretation is based on the opinion of the individual religious cleric. There are no international standards, there are no safeguards, and the system is too insecure.

Without consensus on the interpretation how can anyone feel safe going to these religious courts?

Raheel Raza of the Muslim Canadian Congress wrote in the Toronto Star last year: "Since Shariah has always been interpreted by men, they spend more time telling women how to be proper women, thus losing sight of the actual message."

I've lived in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two countries that practise Shariah law. I love the country of my birth, and the country of my youth, and now Canada, the country of my choice. And with that choice I've agreed to live by the laws of this land.

If Shariah is the system you want then I challenge you to live in Saudi Arabia. I challenge you to give up all the freedoms you enjoy here. No more freedom of movement, to go and live where you please. No more freedom to read or write or say what you like in public. No right to challenge authority. Yes, Saudi Arabia is an example of Shariah gone horribly awry but what is the guarantee that it won't happen here?

I'm not saying that Shariah is bad or wrong. It's not about good and bad or right and wrong. This is not about religious freedom and tolerance. This is about the struggle for power and the privatization of a public institution. The people who would have you believe that a separate religion-based legal system is a form of freedom of choice are the same people who want to have private religious schools, and yes, they want them funded with public money.

The saddest part of this whole thing is the level of divisiveness it's going to cause – divisiveness within the Muslim community about interpretation, and further divisiveness between Muslims and mainstream Canadians about equality.

There's a lot of debate whether Muslim values are compatible with western democracies. I say that they are compatible, but Shariah is the wrong way to go. If we are equal citizens in this country, then let us all be equally accountable under the law.

Niaz Salimi of the Muslim Canadian Congress responds to Toronto Star article on Shariah

The Editor,
The Toronto Star
One Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario

Re: Courts must have final say on arbitration
[http://tinyurl.com/5lvnh]

In his column of Tuesday, December 27, Thomas Walkom writes that "...the Muslim Canadian Congress have come out strongly against giving state sanction to Islamic rulings in family matters. As practised, they say, these rulings tend to be fundamentally unfair to women."

As far as the Muslim Canadian Congress is concerned, our opposition is not just to Shariah courts; rather, we are opposed to all religious courts irrespective whether they Rabbinical, Christian or Shariah.

We believe that if the Marion Boyd report is implemented, Ontario will enter the dangerous road of privatization of our judicial system, which will create a two-tiered level of citizenship. Like our healthcare system, the MCC believes our judicial system should also be free from for-profit operators masquerading as alternate service providers.

We also believe the 1991 amendment to the Arbitration Act that allowed family disputes to be settled outside the family Law Act, was unconstitutional.

This is why we are asking the Ontario government to refer the matter to the Ontario Court of Appeal to determine:

1. Whether the Arbitration Act confers jurisdiction, outside the Family Law Act, to resolve disputes of property, children, inheritance and estates in the family context.

2. If the Arbitration Act does confer such jurisdiction, whether this is constitutional.

We believe that mosques, churches, temples and synagogues have an important role to play in the community, but their role should be restricted to mediation and reconciliation, not interfering with the Canadian justice system and running a parallel private-sector judiciary with self-styled religious judges for hire.

Also, the MCC believes that by invoking the "Buyer Beware" principle in matters of judiciary, Marion Boyd has reduced justice to a mere consumer commodity. This is antithetical to both Islam and Canadian values, which are often one and the same.

Niaz Salimi
Secretary General
Muslim Canadian Congress

Toronto Star's Thomas Walkom: Religious Arbitration is "recipe for discrimination"

Dec. 28, 2004

Courts must have
final say on arbitration

By THOMAS WALKOM
The Toronto Star
http://tinyurl.com/698oz

Former Attorney General Marion Boyd's report on the use of Islamic law in Ontario has drawn considerable flak. Much of the reaction is ill-considered; some verges on hysteria. To some, the very idea of Islamic arbitrators solving civil disputes produces images of faithless wives being stoned.

In fact, a few Islamic "courts" already exist in Ontario and no one has been stoned yet. As well, other groups — particularly Orthodox and Conservative Jews — take advantage of Ontario's broadly written arbitration act to use their own religious rulings in civil disputes and to ensure that these rulings are legally enforced.

In effect, Boyd is asking: What's wrong with all Muslims doing the same thing?

Phrased that way, few can disagree. But the real issue has nothing to do with Muslims. Rather it has to do with a more fundamental question: Should different kinds of people living in the same province be governed by different kinds of laws?

The philosophy behind arbitration is laudable. Many private issues can be solved outside the courts. Ontario's 1991 Arbitration Act (passed when Boyd was minister responsible for women's issues in Bob Rae's New Democratic Party government) is built on this notion.

Its essence is this: In certain civil and family law disputes, disputants are permitted to settle matters under any set of laws they wish. If they want to use Roman Catholic canon law, that's fine. If they want to use Togo's commercial law, that's fine too.

There are two main restrictions. First, both sides must agree to the set of rules they choose to be bound by. Second, the arbitrator's remedy cannot be illegal in terms of Ontario secular law.
Hence, no stoning.

The key to the 1991 act, however, is that once delivered, a ruling is legally binding. Even if it is based on laws that have no status in Ontario, it is enforceable in Ontario courts.

For commercial disputes, this poses little problem. Family disputes, however, particularly those involving divorce, child custody and support payments, are trickier.

When passed in 1991, the act attracted little attention. Religious groups have long made use of religious law. But most disputes, such as annulments or religious divorces, are handled outside the act and are thus legally unenforceable.

A Catholic denied an annulment under canon law may still receive a secular divorce.
Jewish rabbinical courts make greater use of the act, Boyd writes. But even here, the numbers are small. In only about 30 cases a year do rabbinical courts issue edicts (usually on matters of property division and custody) that require secular court enforcement.

Islam's Ismaili sect has long had an organized arbitration system. And a Toronto Sunni mosque has operated tribunals based on Islamic law since 1982.

Given all of this, what's the problem?

Quite a bit, say some Muslims. Indeed, it has been the complaints of the faithful that have fired this controversy, not the prejudices of the ignorant. Both the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the Muslim Canadian Congress have come out strongly against giving state sanction to Islamic rulings in family matters. As practised, they say, these rulings tend to be fundamentally unfair to women.

These critics argue that Muslim women will be under tremendous pressure to accept Islamic court rulings even though, technically, they need not do so.

Boyd's response is that informal Islamic courts already make judgments, some of which are contrary to Canadian law (she cites cases of underage girls being forced to marry).

Better to regularize matters by bringing these courts under the general umbrella of the Arbitration Act, she says. To this end, she recommends keeping the principle of religious courts but strengthening the Arbitration Act to ensure that all are treated fairly.

For those who insist that religious rules must carry secular legal weight, this makes sense. For the rest of us though, it does not.

Boyd's report envisions a world in which people carry their own laws (she calls them personal laws) wherever they go. In her view, an immigrant to Canada is subject to both Canadian law and — if he wishes — to certain laws of his native land.

At a fuzzy, theoretical level, this may seem fair. Practically, however, it is a recipe for discrimination.

The Ontario government cannot ban Muslims from using the Arbitration Act. That in itself would be discriminatory. But it can follow Quebec's lead by amending the act to ensure that, in family matters at least, all religious tribunals confine themselves to mediation and give secular courts the final say.

No one disputes that different people have different traditions. But laws are not the same as traditions. Laws are the expression of the broadest community.

Salvation may come from God. In democracies, laws come from the people. They should be made by duly elected legislatures. In the final instance, they should be interpreted and judged by the courts those legislatures set up.

York University's Taj Hashmi: "Sharia Is Neither Islamic, nor Canadian"

Friends,

Prof. Taj Hashmi teaches at the Centre for Asian Research in York University, Toronto.

In this article, Prof. Hashmi argues that far from being a necessity for Muslims, Sharia is in fact "anti-Islamic". He is urging ordinary people to step forward in their opposition to the Marion Boyd Report. He writes:

"The Government alone cannot stop the formation of the Sharia Board; civil society in general and liberal Muslims in particular should come forward to stop this vice, which is neither Islamic nor Canadian in character and spirit."

Read and reflect.

Tarek Fatah
---------------------------------------
Sharia Is Neither
Islamic, nor Canadian

By Taj Hashmi
MuslimWakeup.Com
http://tinyurl.com/4zo4v

Of late the proposed introduction of a Sharia Arbitration Board in Ontario has created much controversy, among both Muslim and non-Muslim Canadians. Former attorney-general Marion Boyd's 150-page report favouring the introduction of Sharia, or "Muslim principles" (in her language), in the proposed Arbitration Board has become the proverbial last straw.

While the proponents justify the Sharia Board in the name of equal opportunity for the Muslim community, the opponents regard such a move as being contrary to Canadian constitution and anticipate gross violations of Muslim women's right to custody, inheritance and post-divorce alimony.

To the uninformed, Marion Boyd sounds quite "reasonable" in the way she has argued her case. In her view the "Muslim principles" should be considered an acceptable method of religious arbitration as long as they do not violate Canadian law - very similar to how Catholics, Jews and Ismailis have made use of a 1991 Act.

Surprisingly, she tells us: "We're being very clear, this is not Sharia law."

What is even more surprising is that Syed Mumtaz Ali, the main advocate of Sharia arbitrations in Ontario, is "delighted" with the Boyd Report given that many of the 46 recommendations of the Report came from him. Ali glorifies the proposed Board as "a model for the world to see how Sharia law can be used in a Western society." The ambivalence in Boyd’s and Ali’s statements on the true colour of the Report smacks of duplicity. It seems, Boyd is playing a hide and seek game with us, trying to introduce Sharia with a different name.

Although we cannot agree with the sensational view that some "fundamentalist" groups want the Sharia Board as a stepping-stone to eventually create an independent legal system for Canadian Muslims, we can agree that Canada’s adopting Sharia law may legitimize the excesses of Sharia committed elsewhere in the Muslim World.

Problematically, both the adherents and opponents of Sharia believe that the code was derived from the Quran and is as old as Islam itself. Ordinary Muslims also consider Sharia to be divine law. Contrary to these assumptions, Sharia is hardly Quranic in origin as the Quran contains 80-odd verses, which are prescriptive or regulative. The main sources of Sharia are thousands of spurious Hadiths or "sayings" of Prophet Muhammad, collected haphazardly more than 200 years after his death. Muslim jurists' legal opinions collected during the 8th and 12th centuries based on their understanding of the Quran, traditions of the Prophet, local customs and above all, common sense, are collectively known as the Sharia.

Once we consider the following facts, we come closer to resolving the Sharia debate:
1) Sharia is authoritative, not infallible;
2) The Sunni Sharia code went through major transformation and changes, but only up to the 16th century;
3) Shiite Sharia is still subject to changes and modifications; and,
4) The moral principles of the Quran outweigh its legal principles (for example, while slavery, concubinage and polygamy are tolerated in Islam for a specific historical era, the Quran does not promote or encourage these practices).

It is quite puzzling that secular Canada should toy with the idea of incorporating Sharia into its legal system while several Muslim countries are gradually replacing the Sharia with secular codes and some have already done away with it. Canada should be even more cautious about implementing Sharia, as there are very few Islamic scholars in the country, qualified enough to interpret the Quran and the teachings of Islam.

It is interesting that Dr Mohamed Elmasry (a mathematics professor at Waterloo University, not an Islamic scholar), controversial for his comments on Jews and his classification of anti-Sharia Muslims as "not religious", also thinks that there could be as few as "only one Muslim scholar in Canada" capable of interpreting the Sharia. Paradoxically, he is an ardent advocate of a Sharia Arbitration Board in Ontario.

Again, as it appears in Chapter 4 (Sura Nissa) of the Quran, only immediate family members of Muslim couples may arbitrate in matters relating to divorce and custody, there is no room for outsiders to arbitrate.

And again, whose Sharia are we talking about? There are at least four Sunni and scores of Shiite sects, each with its own Sharia code. While the Wahhabi and other Muslim sects sanction female genital mutilation in the name of Islam and Sharia, the official Iranian Shiism endorses temporary marriage (Muta or Segha) between a man and a woman for a day, week, month or year.

Some Muslims, on the basis of wrong interpretations of the Quran, justify polygamy and even consider wife beating permissible in Islam. Are Canadians willing to allow the implementation of these varying versions of Sharia in this country?

I think we should think carefully before taking such a rash move. Once we allow a Sharia Board to meddle with the conjugal problems of Muslim couples, the Ontario government would simply fail to protect half-educated, uninformed and dependent Muslim women from being abused in the name of Islam.

All concerned should learn that what the Quran has given to women, Sharia has taken away from them. Examples abound. While men and women are equally held responsible for adultery in the Quran, which prescribes 80 lashes for the offenders each, the Sharia is particularly harsh on the adulteress, prescribing the death penalty for both the offenders.

Since Sharia is not infallible and is subject to change and modifications, there is no need to rush for its implementation anywhere, let alone Ontario, until the emergence of a Muslim Martin Luther. Unless Islam goes through its Reformation and the Muslim World undergoes a total transformation to adapt to modern, liberal democratic, secular and urban cultures of enlightenment and tolerance, no one should advocate the cause of Sharia in Canada.

Marion Boyd and like minded non-Muslim well wishers of the Canadian Muslim community should learn more about Sharia, Islam and Muslims. The advocates of a Sharia Board should realise that Ontario Muslims do not have to have a religious arbitration board only because the Catholics, Jews and Ismailis have their own boards.

The Ontario government should not try to do "justice" to the Muslim community through comparison with the Catholics or other communities, as apples cannot be compared with oranges.

The Canadian government should not pay heed to the romantic and utopian views of the Muslim Diaspora, which is unaware of the anti-Islamic nature of the Sharia. Some members of the Diaspora, we have reasons to believe, want to come to the limelight as leaders of the Muslim community through the Sharia Board as advisers, arbitrators and "experts" of Sharia law.

However, the Government alone cannot stop the formation of the Sharia Board; civil society in general and liberal Muslims in particular should come forward to stop this vice, which is neither Islamic nor Canadian in character and spirit.
---------------------------
Dr. Taj Hashmi is a professor at the York Centre for Asian Research, York University, Toronto and a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Globe & Mail's Margaret Wente: "The state should not give its blessing to Muslim courts"

Thursday, December 23, 2004

The state should not give
its blessing to Muslim courts

By MARGARET WENTE
Globe and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/3ref6

I could have sworn we had separation between church and state in Canada. I could have even sworn we had one law for all. But I was wrong. Because if you're a Muslim woman in Ontario, your divorce and custody arrangements may soon be decided by your friendly local imam -- with the full blessing of the state.

Pinch me, quick. What century is this, anyway? I thought the case against sharia courts was so obvious that this wretched idea would quickly expire. But I was wrong. This week a former NDP politician named Marion Boyd recommended that the province go ahead with them. She told us not to worry, because this is really all about "protecting choice." And since Ms. Boyd has impeccable feminist credentials, Muslim courts must be a good thing for Muslim women.

Alia Hogben thinks not. She is president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. She thinks Ms. Boyd is being naive. Perhaps that's because Ms. Hogben knows a great deal more about Muslim women than Ms. Boyd does. "We're all for religious rights," she says. "But we want a balance between religious rights and women's equality rights."

Ms. Boyd was responsible for Ontario's Arbitration Act, which was passed in 1991, so I suppose you can't blame her for defending it. It allows people to bypass the public court system by using private arbitration -- including private religious courts -- to settle civil and family-law disputes. Theoretically, these courts must conform with the law of the land, and their decisions can be appealed. But theory is one thing, and reality is something else.

Imagine, for example, an immigrant Pakistani woman who has limited education, speaks no English, and is utterly dependent on her husband. Imagine she and her husband divorce. In Muslim family law, the husband usually gets custody of the kids. He may stop supporting her entirely after a short time and keep nearly all the family assets. He may send her back to Pakistan and keep the kids here. All this is okay under the law, so long as she agrees to it.

Ms. Boyd has promised all sorts of safeguards so that a woman can appeal a decision she thinks is unfair. All the woman has to do is overcome the immense social pressure to conform, and withstand the shame and ostracism she will experience if she tries to defy the spiritual leaders of the community and her entire family.

To address this power imbalance, Ms. Boyd has promised to "ensure that our public legal education helps all women understand the consequences of choices." How enlightened.

The Arbitration Act has already been used by Jewish, Catholic and Ismaili Muslim courts, without incident. But chances are that women in these groups are more assimilated into Canadian life than your average newcomer from Pakistan. As well, Western religions have accepted the separation of church and state for quite some time now. Islam has never done any such thing.

The person leading the movement for private sharia-based courts is a man named Syed Mumtaz Ali, who heads the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice. He has made various contradictory comments about how binding he expects these private rulings to be. He once said that "a Muslim who would choose to opt out at this stage [after a private court's decision] would be guilty of a far greater crime than a mere breach of contract -- this could be tantamount to blasphemy-apostasy."

How equal are Muslim women in their own communities? Well, they're not allowed to pray alongside men. They're not allowed to preach or lead prayers. Last month, a liberal mosque in Toronto, whose members are from Guyana and the Caribbean, broke new ground by allowing a woman to preach a 10-minute sermon to celebrate the end of Ramadan. But other mosques aren't even thinking of it. "No mosque in Canada would have a female giving a sermon," said a spokesman for the Islamic Imams Council of Canada.

For what it's worth, most women are firmly on Ms. Hogben's side of this issue, not Ms. Boyd's -- including the YWCA. Since last spring, when the sharia controversy broke, Ms. Hogben's phone has been ringing off the hook. "We are getting calls from all over the world saying, 'What's going on there?' " she says.

Like other people who are worried about women's and children's rights, Ms. Hogben thinks that family issues involving divorce and custody are too important to be settled in private. "We want to say to all our fellow Canadians: Write the government and say what you think," she pleads.
Here's what I think: Religious laws have no place in the legal system.

One Canadian law should be good enough for all. Period. Full stop.

Sharia Controversy in Canada makes it to Pakistani newspaper. Daily Times reports from Washington

December 22, 2004

Controversy rages
in Canada over Sharia

By Khalid Hasan
The Daily Times, Lahore
http://tinyurl.com/3k6u6

WASHINGTON: A battle between progressive and conservative Muslim groups isunderway in the Canadian province of Ontario where the latter are demandinglegal cover for arbitration of disputes under Sharia law.The move is bitterly opposed by the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Tarek Fatah, one of its founding members and a leading voice in Canada for progressiveIslam, said were arbitration under Sharia to become law, it would be a"Christmas gift to the Mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia who will berejoicing this decision and using it to validate their own oppressivegovernments."

He said the recommendation that Sharia become law governing arbitrationamong Muslims in Ontario was given by a former Canadian politician Ms MarionBoyd in a 150-page report that amounted to "succumbing to pressures from themost right-wing religious conservatives in Canada." He said, "On the coldest day of the year, she has thrown a wet blanket over the hopes of millions ofMuslims worldwide who are struggling to free themselves from religious oppression and misogyny being practised in the name of Islam by using Sharia."

He called the move "racist and unconstitutional," stressing thatthe Arbitration Act should not continue to allow disputes to be arbitratedusing religious law.The Muslim Canadian Congress said in a statement that it "demands that theOntario government reject Marion Boyd's recommendation and refer the matterof Sharia-based Arbitration to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Such a referenceshould ask the Court to determine whether the Arbitration Act confersjurisdiction, outside the Family Law legislation in disputes of property,children, inheritance and estates in the family context. And, if it does,whether it is constitutional."

Tarek Fatah told Daily Times in a phone interview, "Behind the guise of religious tolerance and accommodation, the Muslim community is facing discriminatory ghettoisation and marginalisation. Establishing a substandard multi-tiered judicial process in matters of family law, is racist and unconstitutional.

The Muslim Canadian Congress feels that authorising andgiving an official stamp of approval to Sharia-based tribunals will deprivethe Muslim community of its share in Canadian society." He said in itssubmission to Ms Boyd last August, the Congress had stated that by placingthe Muslim community "out of sight" the government only plays into the handsof the extremist political agenda of a certain sector of Muslim Canadians who are proponents of "Muslim Law", an uncodified system, much of which is antithetical to Islam and the Canadian Constitution.

Furthermore, it plays equally into the hands of the intolerant and otherwise racist segments ofCanadian non-Muslim society who want nothing better than to exclude Muslims from the mainstream.

In her report, Ms Barry also called for new safeguards to protect the rightsof women, while recommending that "Muslim principles" should be considered an acceptable method of religious arbitration as long as they do not violateCanadian law.

She was asked by the Ontario provincial government to reviewthe 1991 Arbitration Act and assess whether a plan by the Islamic Institutefor Civil Justice to use the guiding principles of their faith in settlingmarital and inheritance disputes should be halted.

Catholics and Jews already have made use of the act, which is intended as a way of avoidingcostly court fights when both parties to a dispute agree to do so. Adivorcing couple could use the act to decide on a division of property.

Marilou McPhedran, counsel for the Canadian Council of Muslim Women,labelled Boyd's report "naive" in its assumptions that Muslim women wouldhave the same choices as other women. She said many women who could beaffected are recent immigrants who might not speak English and are not givena true choice in how a divorce might be settled. "This is a dangerousdirection. It is the thin edge of the wedge. This has to be stopped now," she added.

Ms Boyd reacted to the criticism by asserting that the term"Sharia" is not what is being proposed by the Islamic Institute for CivilJustice, adding that the 1,400-year-old set of rules and laws covers criminal and civil matters and is often incompatible with Canadian law.

"We're being very clear, this is not Sharia law. This is Muslim religious principles within Canadian law," she pointed out. Although some critics are firmly opposed to the use of the Arbitration Act by any religious group, she said she couldn't "in good conscience" tell the government to end it because "it would set back family law by 30 years."

She said, "It's a recognitionthat (Sharia arbitrations) are already happening - the first one here was in1982. But there is no way to scrutinize them. "If they stay underground,Muslim women will be more vulnerable."

Syed Mumtaz Ali, a lawyer for the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, expressed delight with the Boyd findings and claimed that many of the 46 recommendations for strengthening the Arbitration Act had come from him. "It's a model for the whole world to see how Sharia law can be used in aWestern society," Mumtaz Ali said in a newspaper interview, adding that while Sharia is a misnomer in terms of the type of family disputes at issue, it is the term most people recognise and associate with Muslim beliefs being applied through the law.

Muslim principles, he argued, require Muslims to believe in one God and to commit to obeying the law in the country where they live. He said the advantage of Sharia-type arbitration is that participants are compelled by their religious beliefs to uphold the law, an extra onus that will make for fair treatment of all parties in the dispute."