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.