Replies

Does this mean what I think it means? That civil Canadian courts will be bound by decisions of a Muslim Shariah council?

It's just binding arbitration. We have the same thing here. When two contending parties agree to accept an arbitrator, they enter into a contract that they will accept as final and binding whatever the arbitrator decides.

If both parties agree in advance to the arbitrator, and the criteria the arbitrator will use, the arbitrator can make his decision according to Sharia Law, Talmudic Law, private organizational rules, or by reading the entrails of a goat.

The key is that both parties must agree in advance to accept the arbitrator's authority, otherwise the manner gets handled in regular civil court. Normally, this is a free decision. In an Islamic community, however, refusal to accept a Sharia arbitrator would be an offense against Islamic authority. Bad things would happen to you.

Whoever controls the Sharia arbitration council would control all business in the Muslim community. Expect the battles for control to be "spirited"

"It's just binding arbitration. We have the same thing here."

We use binding arbitration for civil matters- child support, child custody, contract disputes, etc. Its a whole 'nother ballgame when an arbitor deems that a limb be cut off or a person stoned to death. I don't see this happening. Look at all the negative PR that Nigeria got.

I understand your point, but I don't share your detachment, given the oft-repeated goal of establishing Shariah law in the West, and the nature of Islam. If the conditions include the agreement of both parties, who will judge whether "agreement" is freely given, especially if such arbitration by religious law becomes mandatory in the Islamic community? I can foresee the Canadian courts not daring to inquire, for fear of offending the sensibilities of the Islamic community.

We already have a hint of future trouble in the mention in this article of the reticence of women to participate.