Should We Say No To Shariah Courts?

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Should We Say No To Shariah Courts? I think we should, but what do you think?

To: Media in Canada and USA

December 31, 2003

Join the International Campaign against setting up Shari’a court in Canada!

To: All progressive organizations and individuals

On October 21st 2003, Muslim leaders in Canada elected 30 member council to establish a judicial tribunal for Muslims known as “ the Islamic Institute of Civic Justice”. The move is designed to persuade Canadian court to uphold decisions made under the Muslim Law.

The International Campaign for the Defense of Women’s Rights in Iran is running an International Campaign against this new move in Canada.

We strongly believe that this move is anti women’s move and will push back women in the society in general. In the past 20 years, women’s rights have been increasingly under attack by the Islamic governments and groups. Women are subject to abuse for disobeying social Islamic standards. Daily degradation of women, prohibition from many forms of employment, field of study and sports, sexual segregation in buses, schools and public places, Stoning to death of women or murdering them for sexual relations outside marriage, acid-throwing in the faces of women, and flogging for transgressing Islamic laws for improper behavior have been imposed on women under Islamic influence not only in countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan but also in Western countries.

The women’s rights movement has fought this reactionary movement and many paid a price in doing so. . As part of this radical movement, we believe that all people who live in Canada are citizens with equal rights, and should live according to same social laws and norms. We do not divide society into cultural, religious, national and racial majorities and minorities. We stand for equal and universal laws and freedoms for all humanity, which should embrace all, irrespective of sex, race, ethnicity, etc.
We now are calling on all individuals and progressive organizations to oppose the proposed tribunal for legal recognition of settlements according to Shari’a. This proposal is anti-freedom, anti-women, misogynist and anti-modernism and is strongly racist.

We therefore have the following demands:

  1. Religion to be declared private affair of the individual. And complete
    separation of religion from education for children under the age 16.

  2. Prohibition of violent and inhuman religious ceremonies, practice and any form of religious activities that is incompatible with people’s
    civil rights and liberties and the principle of the equality of all.

  3. Prohibition of teaching religions subjects and dogmas or religions interpretation in schools and educational establishments or in general any law and regulation that breaches the principle of secular non- religious

By signing this petition, you defend the universal rights of human beings. Your support will strengthen the radical movement for secularism.

Homa Arjomand
The coordinator
[email protected]

Name

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

2

Shariah Courts in Canada wow news to me.

Excellent news respect to muslim community in Canada. :k:

secularism is for suckas!

3

i guess it would please that kafira that we start praying in masjid togther too with out any seperation between sexes ? males standing next to females. man it sure would increase the attendance of teenagers people would be lining to pray with their lovers..

4

"Progressive Muslims" or just naam ke Musalman..

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MMughal: *
Should We Say No To Shariah Courts?
We therefore have the following demands:

  1. Religion to be declared private affair of the individual. And complete separation of religion from education for children under the age 16.
    [/QUOTE]

This demand is utterly stupid and a massive put down of the human rights of all kids. Why should this proposal be undertook anywayz.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
...
secularism is for suckas!
[/QUOTE]

I agree. Although one can look at something with both secular and religious insight.

6

Ahmed I totally agree with you. This is outrageous. I mean the best time to inculcate any knowledge about one's religion is when someone is still in the afore mentioned age group. I wonder what the writer was thinking when she came up with these demands.

7

Im not in canada but the BBC world service had a report on this a while back. From my understanding the individual will have a choice of going through a religious court (shariah or jewish court maybe aswell) or the law of the country as now.

Most of these west talks about secularism in goverment and its instutions (i.e. France) but ask yourself why is Christams public holiday, christmas trees normally inside our outside goverment buildings. All symbols of christinaity.

8

Islamism & Multi-culturalism: A United Camp against Universal Human Rights in Canada

By Azam Kamguian

In my speech, I will argue against the Islamic tribunals and will discuss how the Islamic Sharia law brutally violates human and women’s rights. I will try to demonstrate how Islamism and multi - culturalism are a united camp against universal human rights in Canada. At the end, I will emphasise the urgency of stopping the Islamic tribunals in Canada.

As we all know, Islamists in Canada have recently set up an Islamic Institute of Civil Justice to oversee tribunals that would arbitrate family disputes and other civil matters between people from Muslim origin on the basis of the Islamic Sharia law. This is the first time in any western country that the medieval precepts of the Sharia have been given any validity. One can imagine that the Islamists will use this as a lever to work for similar recognition in many other western countries. After all, if Canada is prepared to recognise Sharia law in this way why not every other country in the west.

This move is yet another effort by Islamists to impose the barbaric Sharia law, but this time on the people in the west. This move belongs to political Islam, a major force that has brutally suppressed people’s rights and freedom in general and women’s rights in particular in the Middle East. It is a political movement that came to the fore against the secular and progressive movements for liberation and egalitarianism in the Middle East. In Iran, the Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Islamic regimes proceeded to transform women's homes into prison houses, where confinement of women, their exclusion from many fields of work and education, and their brutal treatment became the law of the land.

Sadly and unfortunately, the setting up of the Sharia tribunals in Canada will be given validity, due to the reactionary politics of multi-culturalism. This is yet another fruit of a policy that causes fragmentation; apartheid based legal system and racism. Of course, this politics of fragmentation and apartheid suits the purpose of Islamists best. Mr. Mohamed El Masry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, has argued that Canada needs "a multiplicity of laws" to accommodate different groups when their moral standards clash. Mr. El Masry says the tribunals, which would include imams, elders and lawyers, will provide Muslims with the means to settle civil disputes out of court according to their beliefs.

Advocates for the Islamic tribunals have argued that one of the beauties of free and open societies in the west is their flexibility. But the very same ‘flexibility” provides the Islamists with the opportunity to impose their own rigid and oppressive rules on a specific community in the society. Mr. Momtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, and a leading proponent of the Islamic tribunals has said: "It - the Islamic tribunal - offers not only a variety of choices, but shows the real spirit of our multicultural society," The very same Mr. Ali also says: “…On religious grounds, a Muslim who would choose to opt out … would be guilty of a far greater crime than a mere breach of contract – and this would be tantamount to blasphemy or apostasy”. You are aware that blasphemy and apostasy are among the worst crimes in Islam, in many countries punishable by death.

This project is against the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender. Such equality does not exist under the Islamic Sharia law. Sharia tribunals effectively establish a parallel legal system based on religion, which I believe will lead to an apartheid-based legal system. The principles of individual freedom and equality before the law should take precedence over any collective goals that members of a particular group might claim for themselves.

Many people from Muslim origin will be pressured into accepting arbitration by the Islamic Institute on matters of civil and family law. This presents a serious problem for the rights of particularly women living in Canada. The decisions of the tribunal will be final and binding and will be upheld by the Canadian courts. The Institute will be applying Islamic Sharia law which is totally against impartiality of the legal systems. For example, a woman's testimony under the Sharia counts only as half that of a man. So in straight disagreements between husband and wife, the husband's testimony will normally prevail. In questions of inheritance, whilst under Canadian law sons and daughters would be treated equally, under the Sharia daughters receive only half the portion of sons. If the Institute were to have jurisdiction in custody cases, the man will automatically be awarded custody once the children have reached an age of between seven and nine years. Given this inequality it is particularly worrying that there will be no right of appeal to the Canadian courts. The principle being that if both parties in a dispute willingly submit to Islamic arbitration, they can't complain when they lose.

The problem here is the word "willing". Too many women from Muslin origin living in the west still live in Islamic and patriarchal environments where the man's word and pressure from the community is law. It will take a brave woman to defy her husband, and to refuse to have her dispute settled under Islamic law when her refusal could be equated with hostility to the religion and apostasy. To this is added the problem that going to a Canadian court will take longer and cost more. There is no reason however why arbitration service under Canadian law could not be used instead. The danger is that once these tribunals are set up people from Muslim origin will be pressured to use them, thereby being deprived of many of the rights that people in the west have fought for centuries.

In virtually every western country with a sizeable Muslim minority there is pressure from Islamists for a separate civil and criminal law. They seek to establish their own state to oppress people, legally and officially. There must be no state within a state. Yet this is precisely the objective that the Islamic advocates are pursuing. They argue that it is their duty as good Muslims to work for precisely this end. And this end precisely leads to more forced marriages, more honour killings, more Islamic schools, more FGM-s done secretly, and more harassment and intimidation towards women and girls in ghettos.

9

In Islam, as Mr. Momtaz Ali has said, there is no separation between religion and the law. But in the contemporary civilisation, laws are seen as the work of man and as such can be changed in the light of changing circumstances. In Islam, the law is against universal women and human rights, but is God’s law, and change is impossible.

Islamic Sharia law should be opposed by everyone who believes in universal human rights, women's civil rights and individual freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and belief and freedom from religion. Islamic law developed in the first few centuries of Islam and incorporated Middle Eastern pre - Islamic misogynist and tribal customs and traditions. We may ask how a law whose elements were first laid down over 1000 years ago can be relevant in the 21st century. The Sharia only reflects the social and economic conditions of the time of Abbasid and has grown out of touch with all the human's social, economic, cultural and moral developments. The principles of the Sharia are inimical to human's moral progress and civilised values.

Islamic law forcefully opposes free thought, freedom of expression and freedom of action. Accusations of impurity, of apostasy are waiting to silence any voice of dissent. Suppression and injustice shapes the lives of all free minded people. One is borne and labelled Muslim, and one is forced to stay Muslim to the end of their life. Islamic law denies the rights of women and non- - Muslim religious minorities. Non -believers are shown no tolerance: death or conversion. Jews and Christians are treated as second - class citizens.

Under the Sharia, for over two decades, millions around the world have fallen victim: countless people have been executed, beheaded, stoned to death, had their limbs cut off, flogged and maimed, bombed to pieces and routed. In countries which have proclaimed an Islamic state, such as Iran, the Sudan, Pakistan, some states in Northern Nigeria, and Afghanistan, we have already seen the pernicious effects of the Sharia.

Human rights and the Sharia are definitely and irremediably irreconcilable and antagonistic. Universal human rights are essential to ensure a certain standard of living for people across the globe. It is not acceptable to let governments and authorities away with many of the abuses by using multi - culturalism as an excuse. We cannot let multi-culturalism becomes the last refuge of repression. To accept religion as a justification for human rights abuses is to discriminate against the abused and to send the message that they are un-deserving of human rights protection.

Multi-culturalism is a cover to create a comprehensive social, legal, intellectual, emotional, and civil apartheid based on distinctions of race, ethnicity, religion and gender. This complete system of apartheid attacks women’s basic rights and freedom and justifies misogynist rule inflicted on women by Islamists. Any attempt to restrict human and women rights in the name of religion and culture, or defining freedom and equality according to different cultures and religions is racist.

Our contemporary society is far larger, diverse and complex than the small primitive tribal society in Arabia, 1400 years ago, from which Islam emerged. It is time to abandon the idea that anyone should live under the Sharia. More than ever before, people need a secular state as well as a secular society that respects freedom from and of religion, and human rights founded on the principle that power belongs to the people and not to God. It is crucial to oppose the Islamic Sharia law and to subordinate Islam to secularism and secular states.

I call upon all secularist forces and freedom-lovers to stand up and protest against the setting up of Islamic tribunals in Canada. All progressive people should make a joint effort to stop Islamism and multi – cultural politics of the Canadian authorities from violating the universal human rights and our civilised values.

Adapted from a speech delivered by Azam Kamguian at a panel discussion and debate on “The Sharia Courts & Women’s Rights in Canada”, on 7th March 2004 in Toronto – Canada, and also at a seminar in the commemoration of the International women’s day on March 14 2004, in Birmingham – U.K

Azam Kamguian is the editor of the Bulletin of the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East.

10

awesome, thanks for posting it. now i have proof that so called "moderate muslims" are kafirs and are not musilms at all.

any one who degrades islamic law in such a manner simply should not be even regarded as muslim.

11

I’m all in favour of Shariah courts. :k:

Muslims who don’t feel comfortable taking their cases to Shariah courts can always take their cases to regular Canadian courts.

12

I'm all up for a law system based properly on shariah. One of the fundemental beliefs of my religion. You either except the word of god or you dont no in between.

Some of the laws here in the UK are silly a pedophile who abuses young children gets 18 months in prison and then back in the general public and has his identity hidden. Anyone caught hacking into a pay tv system gets 5 years in prison. I dont see how sentences are determined.

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by risc: *
I'm all up for a law system based properly on shariah. One of the fundemental beliefs of my religion. You either except the word of god or you dont no in between.

Some of the laws here in the UK are silly a pedophile who abuses young children gets 18 months in prison and then back in the general public and has his identity hidden. Anyone caught hacking into a pay tv system gets 5 years in prison. I dont see how sentences are determined.
[/QUOTE]

why british or chinese should adopt sharia law they are not even
muslim country.

14

Islamic laws is implemented on all people not just muslims. If islamic law is establihsed in a state it is applicable to every people regardless of there religion or ideals!

as for shariah laws in canada it is interesting experiment, but it won't be workable because Islamic shariah only works when it is fully implemented, to make just a few laws here and there based on islam is similar to what is happening in pakistan already it just does'nt work brecause you have a clash of the secualr laws mixed in with islamic laws and they are not compatible, you either do it fully or don't do it at all.

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *

why british or chinese should adopt sharia law they are not even
muslim country.
[/QUOTE]

And where did I say UK and chinese should adapt shariah law over their legal consitution ?

I believe if shariah is implemented properly it is a very fair system. The nearest being the Saudi law system although it does have it's problems mainly down to old tribal prejudices.

16

GOVERNMENT THEOCRATIC OR DEMOCRATIC

It is important to realise why we need to know this. We need to know this because it is a matter which can make a fundamental difference in our daily lives between prosperity and poverty, Justice and injustice, peace and war, flexibility and intolerance, cooperation and hindrance, and progress and retardation, development and destruction. Just think about human origin. We too were like other animals in our daily lives ie very, very simple. We like babies hesitated, distrusted and suspected anything and everything. We began by exploring things and people that were close to us. If we thought a response was not threatening but safe and favorable we moved on a bit more and then a bit more. Like a baby we tested the waters for depth, we became familiar with our very close relatives or environment then a bit less close and then our far relatives etc and so on. As soon as we step into unfamiliar place or situation or amongst strange people all of us feel nervous, a bit curious or suspicious and a little bit frightened. This is natural and so we found our security amongst familiar people and in familiar places. In times long ago people did not travel to very far away places as we do today because they had all sorts of fears and hesitations. They were highly superstitious and lawless people like clans of apes. Originally they only migrated as small families, small clans or small tribes for food and water etc like apes, nomads or gypsies. However later they also traveled for wars, robberies, spying and seeking knowledge of others etc. Nowadays we travel for holidays as well beside being economic migrants.

In olden times individuals were bound by family laws then by tribal laws and then by kingdom laws and thereafter by religious laws. Now they are bound together by nationstate laws and international laws. Each people were in some sense a single community ie all people belonged to same family, clan, tribe, religion or country etc etc. Each tribal or religious people had an agreement with others whereby they could pass through each others area or territory etc. So the ruling or governing system of those people was either tribal based, kingdom based or religion based. The joining of tribes gave rise to small kingdoms and then to larger and even larger kingdoms. That kind of governments are now not possible. This is so because now people are divided into nationstates as individuals ie people are divided into individual independent countries with a mixture of different kinds of people. Moreover due to means of travelling and explosion of knowledge over a time people have travelled in such a way that by now one will find a variety of people living in each and every state or country. For example, India is full of people of different races, cultures, nationalities, religions and colours etc etc. The same is true of almost all the countries in the world. This means the mixture of people is such in every state that it is no longer possible to have or to create single religion, single culture, single tribe or single race based governments. If you do try to create such states it causes international problems due to global links and media networks. For example, if you hurt a black person in a white dominated country then all black people will protest not only in that state but all over the world and vice versa. The very same is true regarding religion, race, sex and nationality etc.

This means each of us has to tolerate the other at least to avoid worldwide condemnation or at most an all out world war between races, genders, sects or religion etc. This situation has evolved into what it is and no one could be blamed for creating it. Since we now find ourselves in this situation, can we reverse it? I think not. So what do we do? I think we must change our attitudes and learn to live with this situation, for it is a change for the betterment of mankind. This is the situation where tolerant governments are needed which could cope and satisfy everyone's needs in their own countries. This is the situation where intolerant government is simply impossible. Since religions do not tolerate each other and are not prepared to accept each other as equally valid, so what kind of government is a necessity? The answer is a secular democratic government. It can allow people to live side by side in peace and prosper. It has no hesitation in accepting all religions, cultures and nationalities equally valid and all individuals equal ie men, women, muslims, christians, blacks and whites etc etc. The way forward now is only and only compromise, flexibility, tolerance, cooperation and unity on the basis of progress, fairness, peace and prosperity. The reason is obvious that if one tries to divide people into different groups on the basis of sex, colour, creed, race etc etc, one will end up with massive groups of people through out the world. For example, let us divide people along the gender line.

One will see that half of the world population is male and the other half is female. If men stick together and women stick together, we end up with two huge groups of people. Now if these two groups became confrontational and therefore destructive instead of cooperational and constructive, what will happen? Likewise if we divide people on the basis of religion, colour or race etc etc, we end up with huge groups. If these groups did not take aboard the attitude of compromise, tolerance, cooperation and unity for sake of progress, fairness, peace and prosperity then they will end up confronting each other and so they will all end up destroying each other. The secular democratic governments in all the states in the world are therefore a necessity of the time in order to avoid destruction and to progress instead and prosper. Only and only on that basis people will be able to attain fairness, peace and stability, which is a necessity for progress and prosperity. Secular democratic governments can only work if people realise what I have explained other wise they cannot and nor can any other kind of governments in that case. It is the situation as at present, in our time, that does not allow olden kinds of governments based on single tribes, kingdoms or religions etc and if we do not let secular democratic governments work then what are we looking for? Global troubles and wholesale destructions or prosperity?

17

Think it this way that people on this globe are a family or like a family. Now if family wishes to survive and prosper then all its individual members must compromise with each other, tolerate each other, cooperate with each other and unite for that purpose otherwise if they fight with each other, the family will be destroyed. It is simple as that. The secular democratic government will have its limits, for it cannot be everything for everyone but it can ensure fairness in order to keep the peace and stability ie what it allows for one person whether black or white it should allow for the other. What it allows for one religion it must allow the other. If it stops people of one religion or culture from doing something then it must do the same in respect of the others. For example, if it allows one religion to preach then it must allow the others as well. If it stops one religion from preaching then it must do the same in case of others. If it helps one religion it must help the others etc etc. In short it must ensure majority and minority equal rights. It is important because a people may be a minority in one country but they may well be a majority in another country. So if a minority is treated bad in one state then where those people are in majority they will not sit idle instead they will protest and may even treat their minority similarly which is linked with the majority of the other country that is at fault. So mechanisms of power must be understood clearly at least for sake of keeping peace and stability, not only locally but nationally and internationally.

Civil war can turn any state into chaos no matter how powerful it may be. No state is powerful enough to suppress a people unfairly. Just as members of a family cannot be suppressed forcibly by the family no matter how powerful the family may appear to be likewise it would be stupid to assume you can oppress and eliminate a group of people globally just because you must get your way. Compromise, tolerance and cooperation is the only way forward. And to show that you are willing to participate positively you must support secular democratic governments. Just saying you want tolerance, cooperation, peace, equality, justice, progress, fairness, prosperity etc etc is not enough you must be consistent in what you are saying and doing. If you want peace and you support inequality and unfairness by supporting undemocratic, unelected, nonsecular government then ask yourself what are you really doing? So if you want good things in life support those who wish to create those things not those who wish to destroy everything.

This is why unacceptable religious, cultural or nationalist extremism from any quarter must be kept in check and under control through out the world by each and every state. It is necessary because intolerant people must not be tolerated as a matter of principle. The future must exclude all unacceptable ideologies, systems, practices, attitudes and behaviours, so that a new tolerant, flexible and inclusive societies could emerge everywhere. We must learn the causes of such problems and try and eliminate them as quickly and efficiently as possible. We must never let forces of evil takeover anything anywhere because if the evil gets its foothold anywhere it will have serious repercussions for humanity everywhere. It is time people took pride in good things not evil. People must learn to respect those who fight for freedom of individuals and not those who oppress and suppress it or those who wish to recreate tribal and religious imperialism and promote it. Democracy is not about undermining goods things in life but to promote humanitarian values and fairness between individuals as well as individuals and states.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MMughal: *
Islamism & Multi-culturalism: A United Camp against Universal Human Rights in Canada

By Azam Kamguian

In my speech, I will argue against the Islamic tribunals and will discuss how the Islamic Sharia law brutally violates human and women’s rights. I will try to demonstrate how Islamism and multi - culturalism are a united camp against universal human rights in Canada. At the end, I will emphasise the urgency of stopping the Islamic tribunals in Canada.
.
[/QUOTE]

How on earth does the Shariah law violate human and women's rights in any way?

19

For those not familiar, there are two separate human rights declarations ie one by the UN since 1948 and the other by the muslims since 1981.

See http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

And Thomas Paine’s Reflections on Dreams and Biblical Prophecies

It was the case because the UN version was found not compatible with islam or if you like humanitarian values were found to be in conflict with islamic teachings by the then muslim scholars.

Islam does not give equal rights where possible to the people in less fortunate positions eg the weak or the poor ie women, children or nonmuslims etc.

A woman is not allowed to become a leader despite being as competent as a man in an islamic state. The case is same for a nonmuslim living in an islamic state. Slavery remains lawful in islam etc etc etc.

20

Islam has done more for woman rights than anyone else. Remember at the time when the Quran was revealed if a father had a daughter she would be buried alive.

A good read is:
http://www.irf.net/womens_right_in_islam_I.doc
http://www.irf.net/womens_right_in_islam_II.doc