February 02, 2005
Ontario must say 'no' to Sharia
By Mona Eltahawy
Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0202/p09s01-coop.html
NEW YORK – In January last year, the US-backed Iraqi Governing Council incurred the wrath of Iraqi women by ordering that Islamic law, or sharia, replace the civil code that had governed family and divorce law since the 1950s. Women from Iraq's different religious sects denounced the decision in street protests and conferences that eventually led to sharia being listed as just one of several sources of legislation in Iraq's temporary constitution.
It is that image of Iraqi women braving the streets of occupied Baghdad to protest sharia that makes it impossible to understand what former Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd was thinking when she recommended Jan. 17 that the province allow sharia tribunals to settle family disputes for Muslims. Her report examining the issue was commissioned by current Attorney General Michael Bryant, as Ontario considers whether to let Islamic law be used in private arbitration of civil and family-law disputes when all parties agree to it.
As a Muslim woman who is familiar with the many ways sharia is abused and used against women in my own country, Egypt, and in several other Muslim countries I have reported from, I urge Mr. Bryant and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to reject Ms. Boyd's recommendations.
Many Canadian Muslims agree. The Canadian Council for Muslim Women has called Boyd's recommendations naive. A coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada has warned that these tribunals will compel women to stay in abusive relationships. Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, denounced the former attorney general's report as "multiculturalism run amok."
Boyd's recommendations seem to be aimed at compensating Muslims for the ugly Islamophobia that has surfaced in North America in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But women must not pay the price for liberal guilt.
According to most interpretations of sharia, women are not treated equally to men. For example, a woman inherits half of what a male relative does. Even more problematic, there is no consensus on sharia, which is derived from the Koran and the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammad.
So whose interpretation of sharia would Ontario Muslims follow? And who would have the authority to decide?
Would it be the Canadian Council of Muslim Theologians, for example, which in answer to a question on their website about women drivers, said, "To the extent of necessity, it is permissible for a woman to drive ... driving will not be permissible for leisure and going around unnecessarily."
Remember - this is in Canada, not Saudi Arabia.
No wonder Mr. Fatah termed Boyd's recommendation "the racism of lower expectations where under the garb of diversity, Muslims are being encouraged to ghettoize and withdraw from the mainstream."
Sharia tribunals would be set up under the Arbitration Act of 1991, which Boyd helped devise. The act allows people to forgo Canada's public court system by using private arbitration to settle civil and family-law disputes. Jews and Catholics have used the Arbitration Act for some time, but this in itself is problematic because it leads to an effectual privatization of the judicial system and strengthens the role of clergy in minority communities.
But what is wrong with Canadian civil law that religious Canadians must look elsewhere? And why is the Canadian court system shirking its responsibility to its citizens?
On the books, such religious courts are predicated on mutual consent of the parties and the condition that their outcomes respect Canadian law and human rights codes. That is easier said than done and Boyd knows it: She has said the arbitration she recommends for Muslims is "very much a case of buyer beware."
With sharia tribunals in place in Ontario, it isn't difficult to imagine the pressure that would be exerted on Muslim women to choose them over civil courts. Syed Mumtaz Ali of the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, who has promoted the idea of such tribunals for years, has already denounced Muslim opponents of sharia as not "real Muslims."
There are reports that some Muslims groups in British Columbia are awaiting the green light in Ontario before they lobby their province for sharia tribunals.
Ontario must say "no" to sharia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey Mr. Fatah!
I too wrote something about this issue that you may want to hear about. Also, i am not someone with a political/rligious agenda like the articles on your blog (christian science monitor talking about sharia?? A bit too bias??) my thoughts are posted in my blog, but also I am attaching it here!
The Law of The Land
Well, through my journeys it seems that in order to improve the legal system one must challenge it. Through challenging it, legal system is strengthened and this provides a more fair and just system. Recently, Ms. Marion Boyd (former NDP minister) has stated that it is possible for a family arbitration system based on Muslim principles to be used in Ontario as long as all parties involved consent to this legal system and it isn't contradictory to Canadian Law. This to me seems feasible, and I have nothing against such a system being set up, as long as there are checks and balances to keep it from going out of control. Heck, even the Canadian Jewish Congress supported Boyd’s decision, if only different faith groups could unite on other issues.
But on a serious note there are still those who oppose it, primarily Tarek Fatah (a well known NDP supporter and the President of Canadian Muslim Congress) and Alia Hogben (President of Canadian Council of Muslim Women). I am not sure whether they oppose only laws based on Muslim beliefs or the concept of religious arbitration all together. I mean Fatah has stated that he practices Sharia (laws based on Muslim beliefs) and he has stated that he doesn't support two tier legal systems (counterspin, 2004). I respect his views I have nothing against people who don't like the idea of having two tier services. What I do object to is the assumption that all forms of Sharia are inherently unjust. Well, to be honest Muslim’s in the modern era have had many problems implementing a legal system based on their beliefs, and in my opinion it is primarily based on a mixing of cultural traditions and due to authoritarian regimes that use Islam as a means to oppress others. Those are situations where Sharia can be seen in a bad light, however it is important to understand that Sharia and laws of any kind in general is not a monolithic force. It changes due to different circumstances. And like all laws it takes different situations into account differently. And in its very basic form it seems that Sharia is just a way of implementing any type of Muslim belief into a legal system. Therefore based on my understanding of Islam, I can honestly say that this legal system has the possibility to work in Ontario as long as there are checks and balances.
Now the question arises of the misuse of Sharia... It is possible, but like I said before if there are checks and balances then there shouldn't be a problem. Also, two important things should be pointed out now, the first is that Sharia is already practiced (unofficially) in Ontario. There are religious leaders giving legal opinions on various issues, with the set up of a centralized court, there will be a more public and transparent form of Sharia being practiced, instead of it happening in an unregulated environment, with the potential for misuse. The second point is that the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (the organization pushing for an arbitration court) is primarily made up of men and women who were educated in the Canadian legal system and are themselves moderate Muslims. The most well known members of this organization are Syed Mumtaz Ali (first Canadian lawyer to swear on the Qu'ran) and Faisal Kutty (Son of scholar Shaykh Ahmed Kutty). Therefore it seems like it isn't the Taliban who is coming to Canada, it is just a group of regular Muslims who want the same rights that are given to the Jewish, Catholic and Ismaili communities.
Overall, there I am not opposed to having people have their own laws to govern themselves, as long as those laws are just. However at the same time I do encourage the critics to continue their crusade against the establishment of this court, because it is my hope that their opposition will improve and strengthen the Muslim legal system and hopefully Muslim law in Canada will be a beacon of hope to all Muslims around the world!
Most Muslims want to live under Shariah laws, curly. No one is forcing it on non-Muslims, so take a hike you ignorant slime balls.
Hey Fatah, since when did you become Mr.Muslim Canada ? Who's dog died and made you boss ? You dont speak for me you anti-Muslim hypocrite.
Post a Comment