Val McQueen in FrontPage on Sharia in Canada (thanks to DC Watson and Nicolei):
"It's something nobody can change and we must follow," said Suad Almad at her women’s group in Toronto. "We come to Canada and we become lost . . . We need our own court and we need our own law.” The speaker, a Somalian, was admitted to Canada as a refugee, thanks to the generosity of the citizenry of Canada, twelve years ago. But that wasn’t enough. Now she has decided that Canada’s tradition of one law applied equally to everyone isn’t to her taste.According to the Washington Post Foreign Service, up piped another woman at the same meeting, who also thinks Muslims should be judged according to their own beliefs. “No stealing, no drugs, no sex without marriage. No pork. This is our law. A man may take a second or third wife if he is able to support them financially. Yes, there is jealousy, but it is allowed under Sharia. We are Somali and we are Muslim. When we go to court, the judge understands the secular system, but doesn't understand Sharia law.”
So after 12 years in the country, they apparently haven’t had the will to commit themselves to Canadian citizenship, although they do have the impudence to suggest that Canada amend its laws to suit them.
Well, we all thought the Netherlands or France would be the first to adopt some form of Sharia law as the thin end of the wedge of catering to Muslim immigrants who universally appear unable to fit in with their host societies. Yet the Netherlands has just put a four-year moratorium on all immigration, including “asylum seekers”, has stopped schooling Muslim children in the home language of their parents/grandparents, and has closed down many of its Muslim community centers. And France is banning the headscarf on school property and is shoveling undesirable imams out of the country at a rate of knots.
So Canada has become the first country in the West to kowtow to immigrant Islamic demands that they not only have a right to settle in the country and be free to practice their religion unhindered, but also the right to bring their own laws with them.
Syed Mumtaz Ali, the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, began lobbying for a Sharia court around two years ago. He claims that the tribunals would allow Muslims to practice freedom of religion, as though they couldn’t before. “Muslim minorities living in non-Muslim countries like Canada are like wandering Bedouins.
“Although they are free to live according to the Divine Law to practice their faith unhindered in their homes and mosques, they have practically no say in the making of the laws of the land and governmental institutions do not cater to their needs.” This, of course, is because we in the West have people we call “elected representatives” to formulate laws, after proper debate. If you can’t get elected, you are not a lawmaker.
At the moment, the Sharia tribunals will be only for settling civil disputes between Muslims.
Human Rights Announcements notes: “Firstly, this is an issue of law and not religion per se.
Secondly, the scope of such a court is only in the sphere of personal family law so do not entertain thoughts on the criminal law aspects of the Sharia.” Yet. Point number three begs the question, where have we heard that one before? “Third, there are legal safeguards in place to ensure abuses of power do not occur.” “Fourth, there is already legal precedent for this such as the Sentencing Circles of Canadian Aboriginal peoples.”
World News Net, however, does not take such a sunny view, saying, “Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in adultery.” This may sound a little panicky right now, but how many people 20 years ago would have believed that a civilized Western country would one day tack a Koran-dictated law into its system? How many people 20 years ago had even heard of the Koran?
Among other Canadians who have retained their sanity, there are some Muslim women concerned that they will not be treated fairly in civil disputes with males. Under Sharia, “a woman's testimony ... 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.”
Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario attorney general, said a 1991 Ontario arbitration law permits such arbitration according to religious principles, just as rabbis in Jewish communities and priests in Christian communities help to resolve civil disputes.
“People can agree to resolve disputes any way acceptable. If they decide to resolve disputes using principles of Sharia and using an imam as an arbitrator, that is perfectly acceptable under the arbitration act.” He added that both parties to a dispute had to enter into arbitration on a voluntary basis.
The system with rabbis as arbitrators to which Crawley refers is the Beit Din, which can settle civil disputes between Jews (and, as it happens, anyone else who asks for its help). As these courts have been contributing to the peaceful settlement of civil disputes in Toronto, for example, for a couple of hundred years, they are regarded as benign and highly respectable. In fact, there are instances of gentiles asking for their help and agreeing to be bound on decisions based on Jewish law. Sharia tribunals are being ushered in camouflaged by the well-earned respectability of Beit Din.
Among Canada’s 600,000 Muslims, however, not everyone welcomes this move and fears that Muslim women, who only count as half a man under Sharia, have been addressed by nothing but platitudes of the “trust us” variety. One of these is to train some Muslim women as arbitrators, although, given the above beliefs, it follows that a Muslim man would presumably be able to dispute a decision arrived at by a female arbitrator as her decision would only count for half as much as a decision from a male arbitrator.
There is disquiet about this move within Ontario’s Muslim community itself. According to the Washington Post Foreign Service, Alia Hogben, a board member of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said she opposes the religious tribunals. “It is difficult to speak up because we don't want to feed into anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic stuff that is developing now. We are religious Muslim women. We don't want to come across as anti-Muslim. On the other hand, we cannot be quiet about something that worries us.”
The same Syed Mumtaz Ali quoted above quickly moved to play the multiculti card, saying, “It offers not only a variety of choices, but shows the real spirit of our multicultural society.” But blogger Instapundit notes, there is no free choice being offered Muslims. Once these sharia courts exist, a Muslim cannot simply opt to go to a normal arbitration tribunal instead. “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.” As Instapundit adds, “You are aware that blasphemy and apostasy are among the worst crimes in Islam, in many countries punishable by death.”
Canada has a rational, just, internationally respected legal system, put in place by elected representatives over the course of 200 years with the consent of its citizenry. The introduction of a primitive form of law based not on justice, but on superstition, must be regarded by everyone outside the country as important proof that Canada has lost its moorings. Airy protests to the contrary, they have handed Muslim immigrants the thin end of the wedge. If we know anything about the attitudes of Islamic immigrants to the West, this will evolve over the ensuing years, under the banner of “religious freedom” (which they deny to everyone but themselves), into a full scale parallel legal system for Muslims within Canada. And how long after that until, like an aggressive virus, it begins to eat into the body of its host?
Who would have guessed the first Western country to set its feet on the path of dhimmitude would be in the New World and not the old?
Dhimmi Watch defines dhimmitude as: “The status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, ‘protected people’, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they ‘feel themselves subdued’ (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race. The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.'
Oh, Canada!
Here are some examples of Shariah law:
1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;
2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;
3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;
4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;
5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;
6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;
7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;
8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;
9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;
10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;
11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;
12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;
13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;
14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;
15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;
16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;
17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;
18. Laughing too much is forbidden;
19. Musical instruments are unlawful;
20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden;
21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory;
22. Slavery is permitted;
23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;
24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and,
25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad).
If you want a more detailed explanation of these examples, including references and the actual legal clauses from which I have excerpted these examples, I invite you to click on the following link to the Boston Indymedia network on which I have posted this information:
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475
At the risk of sounding Xenophobic, If you don't like your new country's law system and way of life, why not go back home? Is it possinle that the reason is because the system in your home country doesn't work? Other than evangilization or only being a temporary resident, why more to a new society and not try to integrate?
Because the goal is to have these "laws" and "religion" implemented worldwide.
mentat thanks for the link just got my printer working and going to print that out for Q and A later
The dual legal system has worked so well in Nigeria, so why not Canada? *sigh*
There's that most annoying of buzzwords again: multiculturalism.
Basically they're saying, "We aren't Canadian, but we want your economic, education, and healthcare benefits. We are not interested in assimilating into Canadian society, and since your infidel judges don't understand us, we demand that we live by our own laws."
Insanity. I don't think it's necessarily symptomatic of some sort of global Islamic conspiracy to control the world (although there are certainly plenty of Islamists who freely pursue this goal). It *is* symtomatic of a religion in which intolerance and inflexibility go hand in hand. If Islam can't reform from within, we're in for a long, long struggle.
With reference to Eric's comment, do you think the dual systems works in Nigeria? Have you ever been to Nigeria before? Are you a Nigerian? Well, I think you're just saying what you see or what you are told which is far from the simple truth.
Sharia has never worked anywhere successfully. I am a Nigerian and I know how difficult and impossible it is for two legal systems to work, most especially with a terrible law as sharia. Sharia has not only led to killing, it is archaic, barbaric, and intolerable.
It is a law that even the Saudi Arabia’s government are now opting for reformation.
Also, in Nigeria sharia has never being applied to the rich or people in government, there was a time in which one of the house of representative members of the sharia state in Nigeria was caught with a girl of age less than 18 years, the other was caught embezzling money, and many others like that, when caught they said they will never be tried in the sharia court and said that they should be tried in the English law. One of them even went as far as hiring a Christian lawyer for defence. (facts!) I will like to ask those clamouring for sharia to understand these.
Eric, try to get your facts clearly before posting anything about a wicked law online.
SHARIA IS A WICKED LAW. There will be no fundamental human rights, women will be isolated, arms will be cut, people will be stoned to death etc.
I think the people saying that they want sharia law should think and be reasonable.
Take the cutting of the American head by the so-called sharia people, that is how they plan to cut anybody's head that does not believe in the sharia i.e., islam, it is an hidden agenda by every moslem. I was trained in muslim school during my early years and I know how terrible the mallams(Islamic teachers) are. They will never say this out they keep it to themselves and know it as facts.
Stop sharia now before it spoils your children's future! Time and Nature will never forgive us if we allow such barbaric law to reign or even exist. Everybody must stand against the Jihadist using sharia as a cover to propagate a dangerous religion.
DASE!!! Calm yourself!
Eric was OBVIOUSLY kidding; he spoke in jest!
rase
good post might i add as an american ive bitched e-mailed etc... to our leaders the plight of nigerian and sudanese christians that are being slowly wiped out in a genocidal fassion. what i dont understand is why the holy seat [the pope] does not act on this, hopefully the next pope will be african
As a Canadian I see the self-appointed leaders
in the Muslim population trying to set the stage for creation of an Islamic state within Canada.
This special court is just one step towards their goal,another is the constance screams of Muslim-bashing and Islamophobia,these unfounded fears are being used to force the teaching of the Quran and Islam in the public schools.
The University of Toronto has posted a request for non-Muslims to wear clothes that cover most of your body as part of a effort to help Muslim females feel inclusive in the sports departments
gym programs.
A public school allowed a Muslim only use of the swimming pool,but were they happy,no,the lifeguard had to be a female and was ordered to cover herself according to Islamic dress codes.
The French are deemed bigots for not allowing the Hijab worn in public schools,but now I think they are very smart,this ban will stop any chance of Muslims demanding all students ware a hijab as not to offend Muslim students.
Wake-up to the new reality in Canada,were next to the USA and Militant Islam would love to get a foothold here to launch attacks,of course once we have fulfilled our purpose they'll start slaughtering Canadians.
With reference to keithjoy's comment. I think this is a very serious matter and it does not warrant any joke or jesting. These people (Jihadists)will never joke with such issue at all! Take the issue of Miss. World in Nigeria, it was only a comment by a journalist that led to the death of many innocent people (christians) because one unreasonable guy has implemented a political sharia law.
Although I am not a politician, but I must state categorically that I shall not in any way hesitate to speak out CLEARLY against anything that will infringe my fundamental human rights,or the rights of my generation or any body I cherish or my fellow human beings. If you've had a close friend or family killed by this people before, it is then you will know how serious it is(although I don't pray for such for anyone).
One thing I know is that it will be in record, that someone spoke against it (i.e., me) if eventually the evil should happen (which i strongly don't pray for).
I rest my case.
There is a law in Ontario that allows women to be topless in public (anyhwere a man can be topless) bet this offends muslims...they have opened a huge can of worms...the native americans (who were there WAY before the muslims) will want their own court system, to say nothing of quebec which wants to be a seperate country...i think once this crazy islamic law starts to infringe on regular canadians it will be history (my husband is canadian and is furious about this) Lets hope so anyhow....as for her comment "we came to canada and now we are lost"..why the hell did they come to canada...and canada is (for now anyway) a free country, they would not stop her from leaving...so GO BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY!!!
If Canadians don't like the thought of Sharia Law in Canada, stop voting for the Liberal Party of Canada. Otherwise stop whining about it and learn to love the Burka.
The numbers of Muslims has increased dramatically in the past few years in Canada. Therefore this appeasement should ensure future votes. That's all it's about. Votes.
I just finished reading an article in April's Vanity Fair, about how little choice and freedom Muslim women have in France, how they live in fear of their male relatives for being too "French". They call themselves "les invisibles". No translation required. So this Canadian stupidity will ensure that not only will Canadian Muslim women be invisible, but denied the basic equality that other Canadian women enjoy. What choice will they really have? It all sounds very nice on paper, so diverse, so multicultural, so sensitive, so la la la. But would a Muslim woman really have a choice to seek justice in the Canadian system? I doubt it. The French Muslim women are forced into marriages and denied basic freedom of movement around their own city, and live a life of fear of harsh punishment, even death, at the hands of their male relatives. Add sharia to the mix, and you have a living hell for a Muslim women in a supposedly free and equal Western society. She has nowhere to go to be truly free and equal. It's crazy. All for a few votes.
I have mixed feelings about Sharia courts dealing with matters of personal law for Muslims. The Chasidim in New York have what they call Bes Din, which handle matters of personal conduct inside the community. Many more conservative Christian communities use their boards of elders and deacons for judging matters of doctrine of practice that may be deemed detrimental to their communities; and sometimes mediate disputes. Of course, none of these courts seek jurisdiction over criminal cases.
On the other hand, when Oriana Fallaci rages against the Islamization of Europe, I believe that a backlash against a too-militant Islam in the West may be coming. Sooner or later, any society protects itself.
Dase:
What I said was not to make light of the situation in Nigeria, but rather to emphasize that it's *not* impossible to envision the same thing happening somewhere else (even in Canada). The comment was ironic in tone, but that was simply to make this point: Canadians could very well find themselves in the same situation as Nigerians.
I *completely* agree with your view of the horrific effect Sharia law has had on Nigeria. It's divisive, backwards-thinking, violent, unfair, unjust, cruel, and incompatible with modern Nigerian society. You sum it up quite clearly with one sentence, which I'll repeat for emphasis:
SHARIA IS A WICKED LAW.
You're right, Dase. And yes, it is a *deadly* serious subject, but sometimes an ironic comment helps to make a point. Don't mistake irony for a lack of concern about the issue! I most definitely don't think that it's had anything but a disastrous effect on Nigeria. Thus the warning for Canada.
...and no, I've never visited Nigeria. Some day!
Thanks a lot Eric.
"Canadian Government has lost it's Moorings" is an understatement. I really don't think these liberals understand what sharia law is, or have any understanding of Islam at all. Fortunately, the majority of Muslims in Canada are in the Ontario/Quebec region, but still this is an uacceptable move to the concept of law in Canada.
All the more reason that this Government must be removed. Failing that, western separation becomes all the more front and centre. Western acceptance of annexation by the USA is even becomming more popular. There is a deepening rift developing between the west and eart of Canada, such that many West coast BC'ers don't even consider themselves part of Canada. The prairies, Manitoba westward, "Western Dominions of Canada" is becomming more a popular phraise.
Anyone interested in Canadian western views, should visit Freedominion.ca a popular Blog for western Conservatives
The introduction of sharia law in Ontario is allowed due to the Arbitration Act which was passed with the intent of allowing religious/cultural groups to manage civil affairs within their own communities (don't you love how multiculturalism brings us all together!).
I urge all residents of Ontario to write your MPP to express your distaste for the introduction of sharia law, a system of tribal Arabic rules which oppress women and non-muslims. Canada has an excellent set of case law as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which gaurantee all citizens EQUAL treatment.
Write your MPP (you can find your MPP and his/her address here: http://olaap.ontla.on.ca/mpp/contact.jsp)
Other Canadians: write your MP and demand they take a stand against the introduction of sharia in Ontario! Current members of parliament are listed here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/SenatorsMembers_house.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=3&Sect=hoccur
Richard, Toronto, Canada
Sorry for the bad link for Ontario MPs...try this one: http://olaap.ontla.on.ca/mpp/index.jsp
Richard