A CANADIAN OBJECTION TO SHARIA UNDER THE ARBITRATION ACT by Elka Enola
If you are concerned about the Muslim Sharia law becoming legal in Canada and the rest of the Western world, then read on. There have been a number of articles in the Vancouver Sun about this, and is a major concern to us. If you are not interested, this could be considered spam and you should delete this e-mail.
Enjoy the free life,
Ord.
A
CANADIAN OBJECTION TO SHARIA UNDER THE ARBITRATION
ACT by Elka
Enola
Elka
Enola from HAT made a presentation on March 24, 2004, at a meeting between a
group of concerned citizens and the Crown Counsel in his office in Toronto. Below
is her presentation which has been edited for length:
As
a Canadian-born secular
Humanist I am deeply concerned about the possibility of legalizing decisions
made under Sharia law. Like most liberal-minded Canadians, I regarded as extreme
and alarmist claims that, in Western democracies such as Canada and England,
girls as young as 12 years old are forced to marry and have sex with men over 40
years old and that that practice is sanctioned by Islam. I tended to pooh pooh
concerns about Sharia in Canada. Then I read the article in the Observer-Guardian
of England about child-brides.
I
have few contacts with the liberal/secular Muslim community and none
whatsoever with the fundamentalist Muslim community. When I first tried to find
out who was behind the initiative of The Islamic Institute of Civil Justice
(Canada) and how far the process to government recognition had gone, I hit
blank wall after blank wall. In retrospect, I suspect that those involved
wished to keep
it,
as much as possible, out of public awareness in order to minimize any objection
until the
Darul-Qada
is a legal reality. At first, I started to investigate translations and
interpre- ,
tations
of the Qur'an but soon realized that, like the Bible, it could be used to justify
or oppose just about anything.
So,
I then asked myself, "What is the motivation to establish a Sharia
Tribunal?
What
do the proponents themselves say?"
Syed
Mumtaz AIi, President of The Canadian Society of Muslims, presided over
the
convention that established the 30-member council charged with getting legal
recognition for
the
Sharia tribunal. The quotes that follow are from articles written or edited by
him and can be found at http://muslim-canada.org. The comments in italics are
mine.
"As
for Muslim's (sic) living in
non-Muslim countries like Canada, for instance, the Prophet p.b.u.h., has laid
down the law that they are to be considered as if they are non-resident
Bedouins. Such Muslims, therefore, have to observe the Divine Law of Islam, no
matter where they live. [They must] establish a Darul Qada-a judicial tribunal
that will, in effect, operate as a private Islamic Court of Justice..."
[I think that it is significant that only the Muslims call their tribunal
a ' court1
"...apply
our own Muslim Personal law, including family law (e.g. marriage, khula,
divorce, custody, guardianship, mehr, divisiono:of property, wills and
inheritance, gifts, waqf etc)."
It is interesting that the specific examples selected are all ones in
which the Muslim law discriminates against females.
The only way that can be done in the context of
Canadian
law and values is to coerce females into accepting the Islamic decisions without
recourse to secular law and, I would guess, without awareness of their right to
the more favourable secular law of the land.
On
the web site http://www.muslim_canada.org/apostasy.htm we find a schematic
comparison of some very significant legal differences between Canadian law and
Sharia. These must be understood in order to see the direction which
decisions under Sharia would take. We have to keep in mind that it is the
obligation of Muslims to make every attempt to create an environment where they
live which is as much under Sharia law as possible.
On
the same website we read, "According to Islam, as a consequence of this
philosophy, despite the various ethnic, racial and other differences,
non-Muslims, too, are treated collectively as one people, one community, one
nation, one Ummah, vis-a-vis the Muslim community, technically known as Dar al-Harb."
So much for the Muslim understanding of the Canadian concept of
Multiculturalism. This is entirely a we-they view of the world.
"Blasphemy-it
includes a denial of any of the essential principles of Islam. A Muslim
convicted of blasphemy is sentenced to death in Muhammadan countries... If an
underage boy apostatizes, he is not to be put to death, but to be imprisoned
until he comes to full age, when, if he continues in the state of unbelief, he
must be put to death."
"The
apostate has to choose between Islam and the sword; he cannot be given quarter,
nor will he be allowed to become a dhimmi, i.e. a resident non-Muslim subject of
the Muslim State, on payment of the yearly protection-tax."
S0
much for the open-arm acceptance of non-Muslims. Non-Muslims can practice
their
own customs as long as
a)
they do it in the privacy of their homes or
compounds and
b)
they pay a head tax. Once out in public, non-Muslim women must be accompanied by
a man, must be covered up, cannot drive a car and cannot allow a male doctor to
even see their body, let
alone
touch them. Those born into Muslim households are forever considered to be
Muslim and to be under Muslim law. Not exactly the Canadian way.
"Every
civilisation-not the least the modern Western one-both in the communistic and
capitalistic manifestations, has provided capital punishment against violating
the integrity of what it considers its very raison d'etre; and one cannot deny
that right to Islam. As an independent organic community, Islam will
have the liberty to determine what points should be dearer to it: colour of
one's skin, language spoken by its subjects, or ideology which animates its
existence." The reference to 'communistic and capitalistic
manifestations' clearly shows that the idea of killing blasphemers is not taken
out of context from discussions applying to centuries ago, but rather is
intended to be applied in our contemporary society... if only the Muslims get
the chance.
"It
is well known that Islam provides a complete system for regulating every aspect
of human life. The rules, obligations, injunctions and prohibitions laid down
by or derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah produce a complete picture of the
Muslim community, from which no part can be removed without the rest being
damaged."
It
is clear that Muslims such as those proposing the application of Sharia law
operate under the restrictions of Canadian law with great difficulty. They truly
believe they are doing something sinful. They truly would do anything to
be allowed to live under full Sharia.
"The
following additional differences and distinctions between the Islamic and
Western ideologies, philosophies of life and legal systems (including systems of
punishment) deserve particular attention:
"Islam
does not believe in the principle of separation of the spiritual and the
temporal, the sacred and the profane nor
the church and the state." Worth repeating.
Islam does not believe in the separation of church and state.
"Similarly,
unlike in the Western system, Islam does not separate the treatment of the moral
and the legal. Islamic law is essentially a code of moral standards which are to
be observed in a Muslim Society and the function of the law is to enforce these
moral standards even by punishments. Islamic Society's standard of morality is
indeed very much higher and stricter than those of other societies."
"Sexual
immorality is considered particularly reprehensible in Islam for two of the
five Hadd punishments are related to the sexual offenses of fornication,
adultery and false accusation of chastity. "
"Islam
makes no distinction between private and public morality. The Islamic concept of
PERSONAL FREEDOM is the complete opposite of contemporary Western thought.
According to Islam, personal freedom is available and permissible only in
respect to matters which are NOT REGULATED by the injunctions and prohibitions
laid down by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, for these are expressions of the
inherent Divine Wisdom manifested through the Divine Will."
"Finally,
the most important point of all is the concept of Sovereignty and legislative
authority. A proper understanding of the Islamic concept of Sovereignty and
its paramount significance (which permeates every aspect of human life) will
help explain many differences between the Islamic legal systems and Western
legal systems: In Islam all (political, legal and popular) sovereignty belongs
to God alone. Every Muslim is bound by his faith to acknowledge God as the sovereign
in all spheres of life-moral, social, cultural, economic and political. Islam
repudiates entirely the latest version of the philosophy of Western democracy
in which the West accepts the absolute sovereignty of the people, the absolute
powers of legislation rest in the hands of the people, lawmaking is their
prerogative and legislation must correspond to the mood and temper of their
opinion."
This,
too, bears repeating: Islam repudiates entirely the latest version of the
philosophy of Western democracy in which the West accepts the absolute
sovereignty of the people, the absolute powers of legislation rest in the
hands of the people, lawmaking
is the prerogative of the people and legislation must correspond to the mood and
temper of the opinion of the people. It gets even worse. While Canadian law
changes as needs change,
under Islam the laws are ancient
and immutable.
"Simply
put, Western constitutions are amendable, although with very rigid rules' for
very special circumstances. In Islam, however, the Shariah (Le. the Qur'an and
the Sunnah of the Prophet) which may be regarded as a parallel to the Western
style of constitutional law, is not amendable,
period." So,
how does Syed Mumtez Ali view his adopted country of Canada?
"In
practice, the alleged liberal-mindedness of Canadians and their claim to world
leadership as international brokers of peace and peace-keeping or as champions
of fairness and equality, etc., etc., amounts to mere platitudes meant only for
foreign consumption and packaged to please the ears of the international
community."
When laws are enacted, they are structured to deal not only with the most common and predictable events but also to deal with the less predictable worst-case scenarios. I do not believe our laws and regulations are able to deal with my Worst Case (but probable) Scenario which is based on what the proponents of The Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada) say publicly. In fact, I believe our laws are such that they can, and will, be twisted and turned upon us so that the outcome will be one that damages Canadian values.
STAGE
ONE: Under the Arbitration Act, the Sharia courts get legal sanction and many
women and gays feel socially, economically and psychologically pressured to
participate in and accept the decisions of the Sharia court.
STAGE
Two: Multiculturalism is used as a vehicle for demands such as state-financed
Muslim schools where girls and boys are kept totally separate from each other
from Kindergarten on and are given different curricula. This will guarantee that
they will not grow up into the Canadian expectation of adults able to exist in
egalitarian relationships whether in marriage, friendship or at work.
STAGE
THREE: Muslims now outnumber Christians and the majority rule of democracy is
turned on its head as the majority Muslims make Shari a the law of the land.
We
must protect Canada from such a scenario.
We
must list all the points in Sharia and match them
with
the appropriate statutes of Canadian law. Then each Canadian law must be
evaluated to ascertain if it is structured well enough to resist being
hijacked by Sharia. If it is not, then it must be amended, rewritten, or
replaced. Any point under Sharia that does not have a corresponding Canadian law
to control it, must have such a Canadian law put in place.
I love this country ... my home and native land no … Please protect it