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.
February 4, 2005
January 20, 2005
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:
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.
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.
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.
January 15, 2005
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
