Shariah, part two: It's a 'No'
Premier McGuinty has decided to reject the idea of introducing Islamic law-based arbitration on family disputes in Ontario. It seems Cathlics, Mennonites, Jews, aboriginals and Jehovah’s Witnesses will have to forgo faith-based tribunals as well, as McGuinty declares his intention to ban all religious arbitration in the province, which he says 'threaten our common ground'.
“There will be no Sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.”Is that good or bad? I'm not completely sure at this point.
Update, September 12, 8:15 PM: Safiyyah Ally has explained her idea of Islamic arbitration in the context of Ontario's Arbitration Act of 1991 in one of her recent posts, for those who are interested. Also worth reading: a comment in the Star about what might have led Dalton McGuinty to proceed the way he did.
8 comments:
Assalaamu Alaykum. I think McGuinty made this hasty decision out of fear more than anything else. I've written extensively on the idea of faith-based alternative dispute resolution on my blog. Would be interested in getting your perspective.
WAA Safiyyah,
It certainly does appear that McGuinty has buckled under the pressure and hype that was generated, largely unnecessarily I think, around this issue.
I have taken a quick glance at your thoughts on faith-based ADR. Hopefully should be able to supply my input later (if I think I have something worthwhile to say).
Now all these religious groups can't have religious tribunals because Muslims can't have their's. i suppose that's fair, if one group can't have them, then no group should.
The problem i have is where was all the fuss when Catholics and Jews wanted their tribunals? If the grounds are that shariah tribunals will take advantage of women, then i would say that Jews and Catholics also have a history of oppressing women. Women are not allowed to be priests in the Catholic tradition, but there is all this fuss when a few Muslims object to a women leading prayer.
Haroon Siddiqui made an interesting point in his last column, saying that if we believe that shariah tribunals will lead to Taliban/Saudi/Iranian-like practices; if we believe that through these tribunals Muslims will only import practices from back home, then it is just as logical to believe that Serb-Canadians may conduct another Bosnia, Crotia, or Kosovo right here in Canada.
i believe that this whole shariah fiasco really shows the Islamophobia and blatant racism that exists even in Canada.
Omair, is there racism and Islamophobia in Canada? Sure. Was the provincial government party to Islamophobia in its decision? I certainly don't think so.
I personally think its pure Islamaphobia that exists in Canada. Anything "Islam" these days is not "in" and considered backwards and fundamentalist.
After wathcing the recent news coverage on this decision, I am even more sickened. It seems these "secular" Muslim groups (which will remain nameless, but we all know who they are) suddenly speak for all Muslims.
All this decision means is that religious arbitration will still go on, but will not be standardized, hence, increasing the probability of unfair decisions. So, who wins in all of this?
Islamophobia indeed exists among many Canadians, non-Muslim and Muslim alike.
At the protest against shariah tribunals, most of the protestors were non-Muslim. Why do they care? Shariah tribunals will have no affect on them. i will agree that their opposition is based partly on the fact that they believe shariah (in any form) is anti-women, but i think the opposition from non-Muslims is based even more on the fact that it is ISLAMIC law. They really don't want anything (especially Islam) to interfere with their customs, even if their opposition leads to rights being taken away from other citizens.
As for the "secular" Muslim groups, they too are Islamophobic. They forget, or conveniently ignore, that the tribunals are voluntary, and if they do not want to participate, then it is their choice and their right not to do so. They are perhaps worse. Simply because they've witnessed some inhumane acts done by governments in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc., who purport to practice the Shariah properly, they see Islam and Muslims as a monolith (i don't know if that makes sense), that we are all the same, everywhere we are, that we all think the same, act the same, and our mission is to make Canada (and the whole world) into an Islamic state.
i've been thinking about something for a couple of days now. i admit that i criticize Muslims from certain groups (Deobandi, in particular). But i would take them over our non-Muslim Muslim types, like Tarek Fatah, anyday of the week and twice on Sundays. When we see people, like Tarek Fatah, admit to not doing fundamental acts like praying, etc., how can any Muslim accept his/her opinion on Islamic issues? But when we see those, who i even call, perhaps wrongly, 'extremist' and 'backwards' pray five times a day, in the masjid as much as they can be, up for fajr everyday and most days even in the masjid for it, how can any Muslim not accept his/her opinion over the people described above? Whose side is Allah on? Of course, Allah knows best, but i know where my loyalties lie.
Omair, I am aware of the 'conflict' you talk about between accepting opinions of practicising Muslims versus less practising or secular ones.
However, and while I attest to, how shall I say it, the superiority of the former in terms of piety (ان اكرمكم عندالله اتقكم), I don't know whether that in itself is sufficient to consider their opinions on an issue (and I mean pragmatic social/political matters and not issues of Islamic jurisprudence, for example) at the expense of the latter types.
I believe in judging such opinions based on the merit of their content, not on who or where they are coming from. Of course in situations where I don't consider myself qualified or knowledgeable enough to judge I would go to someone who is an expert in the particular area.
(By the way, I think Tarek Fatah and co. were out to lunch on this one, as they seem to be on most issues concerning Islam.)
To put my comments a little more concisely:
faith/practice != intellect, knowledge
(!= means "is not equal to")
Post a Comment