Sharia gains a foothold in Canada in advance of the Bryant report, despite the best efforts of Muslim women. Bravo, Homa Arjomand. "Islamic law course hears opening arguments," from the Globe and Mail, with thanks to Diana West:
Islamic law is coming to the University of Toronto.Not in the form of sharia tribunals for cheaters or strict dress codes for female students, but in the form of two professors hired to teach the subject at the university's law school.
While students are excited about the opportunity to learn about another legal tradition, especially one that's often in the headlines, groups fighting to keep sharia out of Canada's legal system worry that the hirings are a setback to their efforts.
Bringing in Anver Emon, 34, and Mohammad Fadel, 38, to teach courses in Islamic law is part of a push for a more global focus that students are embracing, says acting law school dean Lorne Sossin. Having two full-time professors will give the law school a bigger concentration on Islamic law than anywhere else in Canada.
"The early indications are that students are going to be beating down the doors, and it's a testament to the timeliness of it, with Islamic fundamentalism in the news abroad and of course the sharia debate in Ontario just this last year bringing these issues close to home," Mr. Sossin says.
Too close to home for Homa Arjomand, who heads the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, and Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.
Ms. Arjomand has been campaigning to keep Islamic law out of the Canadian system because in other parts of the world, such as Afghanistan or Nigeria, women have suffered under strict and violent interpretations of Islamic law. The hirings are "like a green light for sharia," Ms. Arjomand says. "I'm so mad."
Ms. Hogben says she's "concerned about the motivation." Canada's law system should be totally secular so the university shouldn't be seen doing anything to prepare for the possibility that sharia law may make inroads, she says.
The issue of sharia law hit the headlines in Ontario in 2003, after a Muslim lawyer founded the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice to settle family-law and inheritance-law disputes. The move was perfectly legal under Ontario's Arbitration Act, which allows people to voluntarily settle arguments outside the court system using an arbitrator of their choice. The outcomes are binding.
Amid an outcry that raised the spectre of Muslim women in Ontario living under the same restrictions as those under the Taliban, where adultery allegations could lead to summary executions, the Ontario government did what governments do. It commissioned a report.
Marion Boyd, a former Ontario cabinet minister who works as a mediator, spent six months researching the issue before recommending that religious law keep a place in family arbitration as long as safeguards are built in to protect women and children. Ontario's Attorney-General, Michael Bryant, plans to respond in the fall.
Let me get this straight. Marion Boyd read that hateful, violent sharia jurisprudence with all its stoning, beheading, and cutting off fingers, hands and feet, putting out eyes and cutting off ears, misogynistic domestic laws, and THEN she thought it has merit. I am speechless. Oh, Marion, the way Islam works is by getting a 'crack of legitimacy.' And then they start working crack making a hole. And then...
Isn't it funny how Canda just passed gay marriage, which is the most liberal act any country can pass other than having multiple wives (wait a minute..), and in the opposite extreme, let Sharia law, as though it deserves legitimate study in their universities.
I'm sure the Muslim students are all signing up, such demand.
aside: on my blog site, I have posted a jpg of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, 1944, passing the Muslim Nazi troops. It should be a collector item if you don't already have it saved on your PC.
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com
P.I.
As Alexander Pope knew:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing..."
But everyone forgets the second, more important line:
"Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring."
I think Canada, in "drinking deep", (however naively or inadvertantly, at first) of the bitter cup of Sharia Law, will only help the anti-jihadist cause.
Who will be charmed by its neanderthal patriarchal patronizing pulings?
Even the most expert Islamic apologist and taqiyya-master will be hard pressed to soften the horrors inherent in its tenets.
GO FOR IT, Maple Leafers!
Learn the unpleasant truth while you are still allowed to.
To end with another bit of wisdom by Pope:
"Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see,
Thinks what never was, nor is, nor ever shall be."
Maybe this is a good thing if any pro-Western, non-muslim students sign up for classes. I find it hard to believe that non-muslims would have any interest in Islamic law, but I could be wrong. A few lessons in Sharia might really open some multicultural eyes.
This course is probably the result of pressure from C.A.I.R. Canada and is intended for muslims. Sharia has absolutely no relevance in a Western democracy and it should be illegal in the West in all forms. If muslims want to live under Sharia, they shouldn't leave their Elysian homelands. This will only encourage them to continue pushing for its implementation in Canada.
Few Western professors of law seem to understand that the phrase "Islamic law" does not mean anything like the kind of legal systems, whether common law or statutory law (or a mix of the two). There is no legislature; there is Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and out of these have been teased a System of Total Regulation, that it would make more sense to consider as a brand of theology rather than law. Few American law schools would consider appointing a full-time professor of theology; they make a grave error in letting propagandists for Islam -- and any Muslim (and some non-Muslim) hired to teach something likely to be completely misunderstood by the non-Muslim faculty and students, but which comes under the name "Islamic law," will inevitably be such an apologist.
Posts on law school faculties are few, and precious. There are serious matters that are under-represented. There is a need for more attention to environmental law, more attention to what might be called, somewhat awkwardly, elder law, and many more subjects. But "Islamic law" which is theology, should be taught only by those who have thoroughly immersed themselves, as non-apologists, in the subject -- and only as part of a larger course in problems that confront all non-Muslim legal systems when Muslims attempt to substitute for the local laws their own theology, their own system of Total Regulation.
Faculty members at American and Canadian law schools should be wary of rushing enthusiastically to hire "Islamic law" specialists. They seldom realize what that term means, or what those they hire understand as their duty -- which is advocacy and apologetics and even dissimulatin (taqiyya, kitman) on behalf of Islam. And this will inevitably come into courses. If "Islamic law" must be taught -- and why should it be given preference over, say, Hindu law (which Sir William Jones found so fascinating), or any other non-Western kind of law -- it should either by an ex-Muslim, or someone who is not a Muslim. For the assumption that a "Muslim" scholar is capable of objectivity in the Western sense has always and everywhere been proven to be false. It simply cannot be, for a Believer, to be "objective" about Islam. And if the law school cares about its students, it will be very wary in the selection of those who might treat this subject, which is in fact of quite minor significance, fortunately, in the advanced world -- which has its own far more presssing matters that cry out for study.
This is the Time 08/10/2005.
This is the Faith:
This Religion is Truth and This Church is Freedom
This can be prayed as many, one, or none.
This has no name and can be given any name.
This has created everything.
This creatures are all pure and sacred and all deserve the same rights.
This needs no prophet and raised no prophet: all these are inventions of evil.
This needs no book and inspired no book: all these are inventions of evil
Human union is between one woman and one man.
A human child has the right to have one mother and one father.
evil name is lie, child of jealousy and envy.
The wicked lost their ability to distinguish Good from evil and became evil slaves.
We will burn the wicked in the fire of Truth as only This can fight evil.
This is the Prayer:
I acknowleged the nature of evil.
I will spread the Faith on Earth with all my might.
I will fight the wicked till they come back to the path of Truth or die.
Then peace will come to Earth and This will will be accomplished
While we might be overly concerned with UofT's decision to start teaching Sharia law, it is important to realize that due to Canadian sympathy for Muslims in the Middle East, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Bosnia, and because of the political strength of the Muslim community in Canada, Islamic law is likely to be taught sympathetically and taught from the perspective of Muslim men.
Sadly, it is unlikely that there will be any attempt to critique Islamic law. And there are unlikely to be any attempts to reform it.
Islamic law has been in need of reform since its inception. While it can be argued that the severeness of Sharia is one of the reasons that Islam is so successful, it is important to realize that it oppresses women and non-Muslims and justifies intolerance in the name of Allah.
I think that any law that treats individuals so categorically unfairly must be radically reformed. But since Muslims are unlikely to do it, and reformers are targets of fatwas, who is going to spearhead it?
Barry Kumar
Off topic but perhaps of interest to everyone here on Dhimmi Watch. You may recall from December 7th 2004, the comments of a (Dr) Denis MacEoin in the comments of an item about controversy in Italy regarding banning Jesus from a Christmas Carol:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004187.php#comments (scroll down a bit).
The good scholar deplored the abusive tone of some of the comments posted here at Dhimmi Watch. As a result of this, he was going to cancel his subscription to DW. One of his quotes was:
"My advice to most of those posting messages here is simple: learn something solid about Islam before you set yourselves up as judges and juries to condemn Muslims. ".
You may be interested to learn that Dr MacEoin has written a letter to the Guardian newspaper in London today (10th August):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1545760,00.html#article_continue
"As another scholar (in Islamic studies), I would challenge Nick Megoran's almost benign view of Hizb ut-Tahrir (Letters, August 9). It may not encourage immediate violence, but it certainly creates an ideology that must inevitably lead to it. It expressly argues that offensive jihad is a duty for Muslims, it derides democracy as a western evil, rejects interfaith dialogue as a conspiracy against Islam, describes compromise as un-Islamic, advocates an all-or-nothing solution to conflicts, speaks of the inevitably of a clash of civilisations, justifies the execution of apostates, recommends war against Jews, Christians and polytheists until the world is a single Islamic state, and says that "a bloody struggle [will continue] alongside the intellectual struggle". Is it so hard to see how a young radical might move from their extremism to acts of violence?
Dr Denis MacEoin
Newcastle upon Tyne"
Is this a case of a Damascene conversion?
I suggest you go to the University of Toronto website, faculty of law, and check the list of law courses. It is highly instructive. I have not made an actual count, but I would say that anything between a fourth and a third of all courses are only tangentially to do with law and are rooted in an aggressively PC world view. On the other, one cannot say that courses on Sharia law are completely out of keeping there, since they teach Jewish and Chinese law. (Aboriginal law is another matter, being native to Canada.) But in the light of the mentality revealed by the course list, it is still worrying.
Don't Canadian lawyers have to pass a type of bar exam in order to practice?
In the US, law students are most concerned with taking mainstream courses that will give them the best chance of passing the bar exam (no questions on sharia law there) and that will lead to actually getting a job. I don't know how the Canadian system works.
A good prayer, Ila. I shall think of it as I fight islam.
For if islam be not evil, what is?
Imam Geoff
susanp;
"maybe this is a good thing..."
would that it were. i agree with your hope but, if this campus is anything like the other leftist-soaked schools in north america, i think the class content will come across as just the most wonderful thing since sliced infidels.
students today are programmed, not taught. witness the moonbat minions at campus rallys/protests. most haven't been alive long enough to form a carefully considered opinion, they are sheep. i know, not everyone, painting with a broad brush and all that, and i'm sure the average age of a law student is higher than a typical freshman/sophmore/etc, but the al-aclu get their recruits from somewhere.
also, will women be allowed, will they be segregated , if a muslim cleric declares that sharia classes are only for men, fatwa style?
barry;
exactly.
pedestrian infidel;
thanks for the new background. "in your face"
education for the passers-by.
re post;
"recommending religious law maintain a place in family arbitrations so long as safeguards are built in to protect women and children..."
you can't have it both ways. building in safeguards(rules) forces muslims to obey other than allah, which is heresy/apostasy. sharia "comes" from allah, safeguards come from man. oil and water. besides, how many abusive husbands trample a restraining order and kill their wives anyway? and these are men who grew up in this society. what do you think the odds are of a muslim agreeing to go against his god?
if he even pretends to go along, chances are he'll cap her as soon as they get home. honor, don'cha know. he's a "good" muslim.
additionally, are these 2 profs advocates/adherents of islam or are they objective investigators/researchers?
When I had my first anti-islamic blog I remember receiving an email from miss Arjomand. This was six or seven months ago, and I at the time I was happily surprised to notice the bravery and motivation of that great lady.
The balance of this great struggle for the survival of everything good that resulted from the western civilization, may well lie in the enlightenment of Muslim women. Once they realise that they are entitled to a lot more than a life of serfdom, rest assured that they will fight for their rights.
Hugh as usual goes right to the heart of the issue in his comment. What could possibly be the point of teaching a whole course in Islamic Law at a Canadian Law school? And even worse by Muslim professors who are probably more interested in Dawaa than objective inquiry?
All Canadian lawyers need to know about Sharia could be taught to them in ten minutes by someone like Robert Spencer. By offering the course, the U of T Law School is just helping to legitimize the Sharia as a field of legal study and paving the way for its application in Canada.
cruzado;
absolutely, the key is the women of the islamic world. nobody has more to gain.
There is now an institution called The University of East London. When I was at school these were a number of local technical colleges offering secretarial and catering courses, which amalgamated during the 70s into one polytechnic (and a good one) offering degree courses and which now has university status. And although I am a graduate of the older University of London, as an East Londoner I feel some pride that we now have our own university. Except, should I wish to do any post graduate qualification (which 30 years after graduation would be highly impractical) this is what my home facilty has to offer. http://www.uel.ac.uk/law/programmes/postgraduate/index.htm
I doubt that I would be considered.
I have made this point about 3 times before but it remains valid. There are 2 main legal systems in the world. English Common Law, as used in the US and most Commonwealth countries. And the Napoleonic Code which was based on Roman Law and is used by Europe (including Scotland and Russia) and many countries with a European influence in their history. Canada has had both influences but, as in the UK they can be combined. Sharia is not a contendor for a third way. It barely stands as a specialised theological system. You just cannot compare the Rabbinical Courts, Canon Law or the Consistory courts of the Church of England with Sharia. The first three spring from the same Judeo/Christian/classical roots as the English Common Law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Napoleonic Code (based on Roman Law) of Scotland. Sharia Law rises from something completely incompatible.
t-ham:
"Most wonderful thing since sliced infidels..."
Niiiice one. I hope someone's collecting all these.
Imam Geoff
Granny, very good perspective on English and Napoleonic law as THE two principle legal systems.
I spent a summer studying international law in London in the 1980's, and had a Japanese classmate. I came to find out that some (much?) Japanese law is derived from Germany, dating back to the time when Japan and Germany were allies during World War II.
Texas derives most of its law from England, having adopted the common law system at the time of our independence, but we also have some community property law (marital property) that gave women equal property rights (!!) and was derived from Mexico, as Texas was Mexican territory until we took this land in a fair fight against a Mexican dictator in 1836.
Back on thread. The horror of muslim law making inroads in Canada, and eventually in the USA, is not so far-fetched. I do not think the criminal law and its penalties, and other laws that we normally think of a belonging to sharia, are not the laws that are going to be pressed first. Accordingly, our outcries of alarm are likely to fall on deaf ears. In fact, our outcries will only seem to be insincere or "crying wolf," because the real infiltration will come from another direction. That direction will be commercial transactions, and family and probate law.
In the USA (and I believe, in Canada) private parties can mediate or arbitrate disputes. If the parties agree to a settlement through an arbitrator or mediator, then either party can submit that agreement to the Court and demand judgment in accord with it. This is how I see islamic law being introduced.
There are many areas open to this. Loan and interest disputes. Division of property on death (which does not even require a dispute, only the agreement of the heirs) to follow islamic law. Child custody and support. Pre-marital "islamic" agreements. Landlord-tenant and other real property relationships.
Once courts have experience with implementing voluntary agreements arrived at in an "islamic arbitration" or "islamic mediaton" then those successes will be pointed to. Islamic law can expand from there, a little at a time.
Right now, we do not need any law courses in any university for islamic law to be implemented just as I have outlined above. It scares me to death.
God save the Queen.
Remember the Alamo!
Texan
I had one, (thankfully only one) attempt when I was a full time official 10+ years ago, of trying to get my head round sharia as it impacted on the annullment proceedings of a potentially poygamous marriage. I can't say more for obvious reasons. The 2 imams consulted disagreed and each had their own agenda. On several occasions I knew of Jewish women with civil divorces who wanted a get and the involvement of the Rabbinical court was a different kettle of fish entirely.
OT again that is interesting about Japan and the German influence. Within living memory in England the drafting of leases in Kent was different to the rest of the country, because Kent was settled in the 7th century by Jutes, while elsewhere was settled by Angles and Saxons.
texan;
made me grin to see your texan hackles start to rise, last sentance of para 3. good defensive positioning. you cut that one off at the roots before it even had a chance to get started.
go get'em.
on a serious note, isn't there some moonbat group out of mexico looking to rebuild the aztec nation or some such swill. call themselves MESA or something?
texan;
made me grin to see your texan hackles start to rise, last sentance of para 3. good defensive positioning. you cut that one off at the roots before it even had a chance to get started.
go get'em.
on a serious note, isn't there some moonbat group out of mexico looking to rebuild the aztec nation or some such swill. call themselves MESA or something?
I knew of Jewish women with civil divorces who wanted a get and the involvement of the Rabbinical court was a different kettle of fish entirely.
A 'get' is like a circumcision only this time you get rid of the whole schmuck.
My brother-in-law studied sharia as part of his law degree, and shows no danger of converting to Islam. I tend to think that the more people know about sharia law the better, though of course it should not be taught by apologists.
t-ham
Yes, there is at least one group which has stated its intent on taking back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, etc., basically all the lands claimed by the Spanish explorers. The idea is to re-colonize the southwestern USA, and, dammit, it looks like they're doing it.
MESA, I think, is one of the organizations, but I haven't googled it yet. I did hear on the news this morning that Texas is now 50.8% "minorities." I guess that means I am in the 49.2% majority (??!)
This is a very serious matter. The problem of illegal aliens is just terrible. They clog the courts, schools, and hospitals. Most are Mexican, but increasingly we see illegals from Guatemala, El Salvador, and other countries of Central America. When the cross into Mexico, the Mexican gov't often helps them go north to the US border.
Recently it came to light that the Mexican government has produced a publication telling its people how and where to cross the border into the US, how to evade capture, how to apply for services, etc., baiscally a complete guide on how to infiltrate the US.
Many of the illegals are criminals. And they commit crimes in the US, too. If they murder someone they often flee back to Mexico. Since Texas has the death penalty for some murders, and Mexico does not, Mexico will not extradite the murderer even if he is captured in Mexico.
About ten years ago, I kept track of all the murders in our area for about six months. In that time, well over half of the murders were committed by hispanics. At that time, hispanics constituted about 25 percent of the population.
And, to make matters worse, the bookstore at the local mosque offers its literature in Spanish. Big sign in the window says so.