Sharia: It's about religious freedom

Toronto Star ^ | 12/22/04 | Raheel Raza

[Pikamax]

Sharia: It's about religious freedom There is room in Canada for religious arbitration and secular law, says Raheel Raza

Before I could read the final report by Marion Boyd released yesterday, Dispute Resolution in Family Law: Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion, I received a voice mail from a TV reporter saying, " I'd like your comments against sharia law and how it discriminates against Muslim women's rights." I called back and said, "It's rather presumptuous of you to assume that I'm against sharia; if you call me back, I can tell you the positive aspects of sharia."

I wasn't surprised that she didn't phone back.

Within 24 hours of the report being released, I've heard a slew of uninformed and biased ideas ranging from calling anyone in favour of religious arbitration a fundamentalist, to labelling Marion Boyd a white racist. The groups opposing the establishment of a Muslim tribunal have effectively fanned the flames of Islamophobia.

Since the hot debate on the establishment of a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal started almost a year ago, I've been concerned about where this is taking us.

Everywhere I've been invited to speak on Islam, concern has been expressed about Canada supporting a Taliban-like regime. The fact of the matter is that Ismaili Muslims have been successfully using arbitration and mediation for some time, just like our counterparts in the Jewish and Catholic communities.

The public doesn't focus on the fact that this is not about sharia but about religious freedom.

Unfortunately, the word sharia has been grossly misused. Dr. Lynda Clarke, professor of Religion at Concordia University, explains, "Islamic law as an ideal pattern of life desired by God is known as sharia, i.e. `the way.' All Muslims aspire toward sharia; but it can never fully be known by the limited human intellect.

"Islamic law as understood and applied is therefore called fiqh. Fiqh means understanding. This understanding is acknowledged to be human, fallible, diverse, and to an extent (it's disputed) flexible and changeable," Clarke continues.

"Consequently, there is a wide range of understanding of law in the Muslim tradition, and different applications of law in the Muslim world."

To me, sharia is also the core value system for Muslims; it's a code of moral and ethical values that we implement in our daily lives in many different ways. In terms of birth, death and marriage, even secular Muslims often fall back on sharia.

Regarding women's rights, a study of Islamic law shows sharia gave Muslim women rights, based on knowledge of the society they lived in. One thousand four hundred years ago, sharia gave women rights to inheritance, voting, and decisions in marriage and divorce.

Judith Tucker's book, In The House Of The Law highlights how sharia courts were favourable to women during the Ottoman rule.

I understand and appreciate the fears of women who have been subjected to male patriarchal injustice in countries that use sharia as a crutch to legitimize their oppression of women. This is why it's imperative to separate culture and politics from the faith, and take a balanced approach without resorting to polemics.

As a person keenly involved in the development of Canadian Muslims and being on record as having spoken out against gender apartheid, I'm not blindly supporting the Muslim tribunal.

As Clarke argues, "For any group to claim that their fiqh (understanding) amounts fully and unmistakably to sharia is, in my view, contrary to the workings and spirit of the Islamic legal tradition."

Therefore, I believe it's imperative for the tribunal to reflect the diversity and flexibility of Islamic law. To achieve this, much work has to be done to create awareness and educate the Muslim community.

One relevant issue raised by the opponents of the tribunal is that uneducated immigrant Muslim women may not know their rights under Islam, and might be coerced into decisions that go against them. However, these women probably don't know what their rights are under Canadian law — a challenge faced by most immigrant communities.

Herein lies a unique opportunity to educate, inform and bring about that change. We can enlist help from enlightened Muslims as well as the Canadian government so that values and respect of both systems are put in place. This will help ensure we don't fall into the same pattern as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran.

Let's not allow sharia and Islam to be presented as murky and invite prejudice that lurks below the surface of Canadian society. There is room in Canada for religious arbitration and secular law without encroaching on each other.

Most of all, let's remember it's a personal choice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raheel Raza is a media consultant and freelance writer

[Dallas59]

I'd like to see the argument of a lib Canadian women called before an Islamic Court to defend herself against not wearing a veil, voting, speaking to men not of her family, avoiding a beating from her husband, listening to Western Music, Speaking to a Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Spiritualist, Homosexual, unbeliever.....

[MarkL]

There shouldn't be any sort of problem with having muslims dealing with their religious laws, any more than those of the Jewish or Catholic faiths. In the case of Jews, most major Jewish communities have a "Bet Din," which is, in effect, a religious, Jewish "court." They handle things like the religious parts of weddings and divorces.

The key here is that these "Bet Dins" work in conjunction with the secular laws and courts. To the best of my knowledge, a decision of a "Bet Din" is not recognized by the state. So, according to the State, if you get a "Jewish divorce," as granted by the "Bet Din," you're still married. However, if you get a state sanctioned divorce, without going through the "Bet Din," according to the State, you're divorced, but religiously, you're still considered to be married.

The problem is when one of these religious "courts" attempts to become the "Law of the Land," and unfortunately, far too many islamists want their religious law to override all other laws.

Mark

[FairfaxVA]

"The public doesn't focus on the fact that this is not about sharia but about religious freedom."

Uh, right. I love it when they play the 'religion card' in their attempt to stamp out all others faiths. Don't be fooled by the rouse of religious freedom. The last thing muslims want is religious freedom. To quote a tagline I saw recently, "Islam is as Islam does". Sadly, because this is looney left Canada, it will probably pass.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I understand and appreciate the fears of women who have been subjected to male patriarchal injustice in countries that use sharia as a crutch to legitimize their oppression of women. This is why it's imperative to separate culture and politics from the faith, and take a balanced approach without resorting to polemics."

"The problem is when one of these religious "courts" attempts to become the "Law of the Land," and unfortunately, far too many islamists want their religious law to override all other laws."

Hear, hear!

Religious freedom is being free to follow whatever dogma you personally wish to follow, unfortunately, Muslim extremists don't want religious freedom.

I see that at least some people get the difference.

[Conservative Canuck]

You are correct. However, the current Arbitration Act allows for Christian and Jewish mediation and settlement, and both of these faiths have a tradition of equal treatment of women, as well as being the foundation of our Common Law. Sharia is only workable within an insulated culture, evidenced by the inheritance laws, which heavily favour males as do most things in Sahria, and Islam). The ostensible reason for this is, in Islamic culture it is the males' responsibility to care for the women. However, outside the insular culture, where families may be separated by thousands of miles, the system breaks down because it is entirely predicated on community infrastucture and cohesion. In addition, it must be remembered that many people, men and women alike, have fled to Canada from regimes which practice oppressive Sharia law, and have no wish to be bound or subjected to it in any way. Cultural pressure can be overwhelming, especially for women who are conditioned to subservience to men. So while they may attend Mosque and practice their faith here in Canada, if the option of Sharia mediation is available, they may be subjected to cultural pressure which would not be a factor if it was not an option.

For me, I have no problem if Muslims want to use Sharia law to settle disputes which are not covered by our Common Law; that is, grave violations of religious edicts, much as the Roman Catholics do now. However, any Sharia law which contravenes or does not confrom to Canadian law should not be allowed, and enforcement of religious judgements would have to hold no force in Canadian law. Even then, it's still a slippery slope, but the Liberals and Socialists have already taken us down so many of those, it hardly matters anymore.

And if they don't like it, they can leave.

[abc1]

Sharia - Do what we say and nobody gets hurt.

[DTA]

>>>>>Most of all, let's remember it's a personal choice. <<<<< A perfect excample of Al Taqiyah at work.

Author knows to well that any Muslim (i.e. "one who is under submission") who dares to refuse Islamic law is guilty of APOSTASY, punishable by DEATH.

Yet, he brazenly lies about it.

If Sharia becomes operational, Canadian Muslims will have NO PERSONAL CHOICE but to obey Sharia or face being killed if they leave Canadian soil.

Allowing Sharia in Canada is an act of TREASON.

I wonder if there is a way to press criminal charges against Ms. Boyd and others involved in this criminal activity.

[Paul Ross]

Actually, they don't like it, and it is all the rest of Canada they expect to "leave" at the point of their beheading sword. Convert or die, this is the true creed of Mohammed.

“Sharia law is not compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it does not allow freedom to choose and change religion; you can become a Muslim, but if you stop being a Muslim and you convert out, you run the risk of the death sentence for apostasy. It does not permit equality before the law, as between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims.” --Baroness Cox

[Paul Ross]

This case continues on, despite there being no official Kuwaiti law for enforcement against Apostasy, although expressly stating in the Kuwait Constitution that the "Right of Freedom of Belief is Absolute"...it then also says that only Muslims can be citizens, and that Muslims may not change religions. H'mmm.

---

[RPD 1406 Friday, June 28, 1996 5:08pm]

Mission board denounces ruling of death to Kuwaiti Christian

By Marty Croll (Baptist Press)

RICHMOND, Va. (BP)--The Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board has joined a rising cacophony of voices protesting an Islamic court's recent ruling that Kuwaiti Christian Robert Hussein should be killed for his faith.

  Board President Jerry Rankin June 27 denounced the ruling as a "miscarriage of justice" and appealed to all "freedom-loving Americans" to raise a cry. "We are asking believers in the United States to petition God with prayer and petition the Kuwaiti government for Mr. Hussein's safety," he said.

  Human rights advocates see Hussein's case as precedent-setting in Kuwait and have called on people worldwide to mount a letter-writing campaign to Shaikh Saad Al-Sabah, Kuwait's crown prince and prime minister, and Mohammed Sabah Al-Slim, its ambassador to the United States.

  Hussein, 45 -- a small, almost frail man in stature -- is in hiding. "We find it ironic that the very freedoms American soldiers sought to protect in the Gulf War are being violated through this ruthless act of intimidation by those who most benefited from our involvement in the war," Rankin said.

  At the close of Hussein's May 29 hearing, Judge Jaafar Al-Qazveeni denied Hussein's assertion that his life was in danger. But in a verdict released June 8, Jaafar clearly stated Hussein should be executed by a Muslim religious leader for apostasy.

  In February the court had ruled Hussein should lose his wife and custody of his two children, ages 8 and 11, at least four houses, his contractor's business and about $4 million in assets and inheritance. It gave him until May to repent. His refusal to renounce Jesus Christ -- claiming freedom of religion based on the Kuwaiti constitution -- led to the Islamic judge's latest ruling.

  In recent days, a deluge of faxes has churned into Kuwaiti government offices, signed by members of parliaments in Canada and throughout Europe, and from congressmen in the United States. All are protesting the ruling, saying it violates international standards for individual freedom. Human rights advocates also have asked former President George Bush to discuss the matter with Crown Prince Shaikh Saad, his personal friend.

  "Human rights represent a seamless garment in this world," said Don R. Kammerdiener, the Foreign Mission Board's executive vice president. "It's not possible for human rights to be violated in one part of the world without diminishing the concept in all of the world."

  Maurice Graham, a former Foreign Mission Board missionary to Kuwait, called on Kuwait to defend freedom of conscience. "The Kuwaiti court needs to support its own constitution," said Graham, who first met Hussein in March.

  For a short period before the Persian Gulf crisis in 1990, Graham worked with the only evangelical congregation in Kuwait. He was among American hostages holed up in the U.S. Embassy compound for four months after Saddam Hussein took over Kuwait.

  Since 1992, the Islamic wing of Parliament in Kuwait has fought for the total adoption of sharia (Muslim law). If he is able to stay alive, Hussein might appeal his case to government courts. That appeal would test whether Kuwait will apply its constitution over sharia -- and protect by law a Muslim who changes religions. It would determine the future of the hundreds, or thousands, of closet Christians in Kuwait, and possibly in other countries.

  Nations throughout the world are facing the dilemma of appeasing a loudening minority cry from extremist Muslims who reject the Western view of human rights and seek to rule by force. In the extremist Muslim mind-set, the government and the practice of Islam are one and the same.

  "My experience with Kuwaitis is that they are people who really believe in freedom," Graham said. "That's why I feel like if it was left up to the people there, they would choose the right thing to do, human rights. It is not an extreme country. I appeal to Kuwaiti people that they would uphold their own constitution."

  Hussein is a lone exception to the pattern in Kuwait that Christians remain quiet about their faith. "He felt God is issuing to him that he couldn't be a silent Christian," Graham said. "He has made it an issue. He wears a cross and carries a Bible. But he feels like it's his right as a Kuwaiti."

  So far, Hussein has been unable to find a lawyer in Kuwait who will dare to take his case. Human rights advocates are asking the government to supply him with one. Meantime, they have secured lawyers outside Kuwait to help him prepare a legal appeal.

  Editors' note: Interested people should address protests to: His Highness Shaikh Saad Al-Sabah, Crown Prince and Prime Minister, The State of Kuwait, P.O. Box 4, Safat, Kuwait 13001, and fax 965-539-7791; and Mohammed Sabah Al-Salim, The State of Kuwait, Chancery, 2940 Tilden St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008, fax 202-966-0517 and phone 202-966-0702.

---

Back to: Robert Hussein's Page   Urgent Action Needed   Main Page

[Paul Ross]

---

[RPD 1406 Friday, June 28, 1996 5:08pm]

Mission board denounces ruling of death to Kuwaiti Christian

By Marty Croll (Baptist Press)

RICHMOND, Va. (BP)--The Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board has joined a rising cacophony of voices protesting an Islamic court's recent ruling that Kuwaiti Christian Robert Hussein should be killed for his faith.

  Board President Jerry Rankin June 27 denounced the ruling as a "miscarriage of justice" and appealed to all "freedom-loving Americans" to raise a cry. "We are asking believers in the United States to petition God with prayer and petition the Kuwaiti government for Mr. Hussein's safety," he said.

  Human rights advocates see Hussein's case as precedent-setting in Kuwait and have called on people worldwide to mount a letter-writing campaign to Shaikh Saad Al-Sabah, Kuwait's crown prince and prime minister, and Mohammed Sabah Al-Slim, its ambassador to the United States.

  Hussein, 45 -- a small, almost frail man in stature -- is in hiding. "We find it ironic that the very freedoms American soldiers sought to protect in the Gulf War are being violated through this ruthless act of intimidation by those who most benefited from our involvement in the war," Rankin said.

  At the close of Hussein's May 29 hearing, Judge Jaafar Al-Qazveeni denied Hussein's assertion that his life was in danger. But in a verdict released June 8, Jaafar clearly stated Hussein should be executed by a Muslim religious leader for apostasy.

  In February the court had ruled Hussein should lose his wife and custody of his two children, ages 8 and 11, at least four houses, his contractor's business and about $4 million in assets and inheritance. It gave him until May to repent. His refusal to renounce Jesus Christ -- claiming freedom of religion based on the Kuwaiti constitution -- led to the Islamic judge's latest ruling.

  In recent days, a deluge of faxes has churned into Kuwaiti government offices, signed by members of parliaments in Canada and throughout Europe, and from congressmen in the United States. All are protesting the ruling, saying it violates international standards for individual freedom. Human rights advocates also have asked former President George Bush to discuss the matter with Crown Prince Shaikh Saad, his personal friend.

  "Human rights represent a seamless garment in this world," said Don R. Kammerdiener, the Foreign Mission Board's executive vice president. "It's not possible for human rights to be violated in one part of the world without diminishing the concept in all of the world."

  Maurice Graham, a former Foreign Mission Board missionary to Kuwait, called on Kuwait to defend freedom of conscience. "The Kuwaiti court needs to support its own constitution," said Graham, who first met Hussein in March.

  For a short period before the Persian Gulf crisis in 1990, Graham worked with the only evangelical congregation in Kuwait. He was among American hostages holed up in the U.S. Embassy compound for four months after Saddam Hussein took over Kuwait.

  Since 1992, the Islamic wing of Parliament in Kuwait has fought for the total adoption of sharia (Muslim law). If he is able to stay alive, Hussein might appeal his case to government courts. That appeal would test whether Kuwait will apply its constitution over sharia -- and protect by law a Muslim who changes religions. It would determine the future of the hundreds, or thousands, of closet Christians in Kuwait, and possibly in other countries.

  Nations throughout the world are facing the dilemma of appeasing a loudening minority cry from extremist Muslims who reject the Western view of human rights and seek to rule by force. In the extremist Muslim mind-set, the government and the practice of Islam are one and the same.

  "My experience with Kuwaitis is that they are people who really believe in freedom," Graham said. "That's why I feel like if it was left up to the people there, they would choose the right thing to do, human rights. It is not an extreme country. I appeal to Kuwaiti people that they would uphold their own constitution."

  Hussein is a lone exception to the pattern in Kuwait that Christians remain quiet about their faith. "He felt God is issuing to him that he couldn't be a silent Christian," Graham said. "He has made it an issue. He wears a cross and carries a Bible. But he feels like it's his right as a Kuwaiti."

  So far, Hussein has been unable to find a lawyer in Kuwait who will dare to take his case. Human rights advocates are asking the government to supply him with one. Meantime, they have secured lawyers outside Kuwait to help him prepare a legal appeal.

  Editors' note: Interested people should address protests to: His Highness Shaikh Saad Al-Sabah, Crown Prince and Prime Minister, The State of Kuwait, P.O. Box 4, Safat, Kuwait 13001, and fax 965-539-7791; and Mohammed Sabah Al-Salim, The State of Kuwait, Chancery, 2940 Tilden St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008, fax 202-966-0517 and phone 202-966-0702.

---

Back to: Robert Hussein's Page   Urgent Action Needed   Main Page

[beaver fever]

Sharia Law will not become the 'law of the land' in Canada nor will you see Islamic Courts or Tribunals. Neither of these options are on the table.

Sharia is only being proposed as a means for muslims to settle civil disputes before an arbitrator, usually a judge appointed by the provincial court. In cases where there is a failure to come to a settlement the matter is referred to provincial court where the judge rules on the basis of Canada's Civil Code.

Sharia will have no jurisdiction over criminal cases and all the corporal penalties being cited here; beheading, stoning, the cutting off of limbs are illegal under Canadian Law. We don't have a death penalty here and corporal punishment of prisoners is barred. Canadian convicts can't even be put in isolation cells.

Having said that these comments are interesting; "One relevant issue raised by the opponents of the tribunal is that uneducated immigrant Muslim women may not know their rights under Islam, and might be coerced into decisions that go against them. However, these women probably don't know what their rights are under Canadian law — a challenge faced by most immigrant communities.

Herein lies a unique opportunity to educate, inform and bring about that change. We can enlist help from enlightened Muslims as well as the Canadian government so that values and respect of both systems are put in place. This will help ensure we don't fall into the same pattern as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran."

I am beginning to come to the conclusion that the author makes a good point; that this whole issue is a clever way of preventing extreme muslim fundamentalists from filing discrimination complaints under the Charter of Rights. By allowing Sharia but restricting it's application, muslim women will be able to defend their rights under Canadian Law.

However Sharia is applied it will not have the force of law and Sharia judgements won't be the last word.

If a woman believes she is the victim of a discriminatory ruling under Sharia, she can refuse to accept it and appeal the ruling to the provincial court. It must be pointed out that we are talking about a panel of arbitration note a court.

Will a muslim woman put herself in physical danger if she refuses to have her case arbitrated according to Sharia? Well, it's quite possible but also illegal and the perpetrator would be charged and convicted in Criminal Court.

It should also be noted the mistreatment and abuse of women is a problem with other closed religious societies. Recently a Sikh man and his wife were charged with murder in an honor killing case in Vancouver and a Mormon splinter group in BC is being investigated for kidnapping and practicing polygamy.

Whether these initiatives succeed in helping women in close societies defend their rights is an open question. Personally I'm pessimistic but it'll be interesting to see how this issue develops.

[kimosabe31]

Regarding women's rights, a study of Islamic law shows sharia gave Muslim women rights, based on knowledge of the society they lived in. One thousand four hundred years ago, sharia gave women rights to inheritance, voting, and decisions in marriage and divorce.

What planet is this guy from??

[kimosabe31]

Herein lies a unique opportunity to educate, inform and bring about that change. We can enlist help from enlightened Muslims as well as the Canadian government so that values and respect of both systems are put in place. This will help ensure we don't fall into the same pattern as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran."

Why bother? Just deport all muslims that wish to be under sharia or any other fundamentalist islamofascist form of code. Islam is not a religion any more than the aztec practice of human sacrifice. It is a demonic cult focused on a pedophile fake prophet. Wake up people. You accord the islamofascists the status of a religion while they persue their objective of slitting your throats.

[Thywillnotmine]

As I understand it, Canada's Arbitration Act already allows for arbitration to take place on any terms people are willing to accept, including Sharia, although no action can be agreed upon which would contravene existing
Canadian law. It appears that Canadian Muslim men and women are looking for the opportunity to unify this process with trained Islamic arbitrators in an open and communal process rather than the secretive one it now appears to be. (This was told to me by a Muslim woman at an information meeting in Kitchener last night.) If this is all it is, what's the big deal?

[Thywillnotmine]

Again, a spin-off from this info meeting in Kitchener last night: according to lawyer who was present, there is no provision for appeal for rulings which bounce off the Arbitration Act, which was designed for big business, not family law.