Posted on 04/27/2004 10:26:20 PM PDT by quidnunc
Toronto – Suad Almad, her head wrapped in a blue silk scarf, was discussing her beliefs with a group of friends. She said fervently that she thought the lives of all Muslims should be governed by Islamic law, known as sharia.
"It's something nobody can change and we must follow," said Almad, who came to Canada from Somalia, then engulfed by war, more than 12 years ago. "We come to Canada and we become lost … We need our own court and we need our own law," she said, her voice strong and certain. "That's what I believe."
Almad and thousands of other Muslims, taking advantage of a provision of the law in the province of Ontario, can now decide some civil disputes under sharia, including family disagreements and inheritance, business and divorce issues, using tribunals that include imams, Muslim elders and lawyers. While it is less than full implementation of sharia, local leaders consider it a significant step.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yes! Eventually!
My first inclination was the same. It's just like the AAA:
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, said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario attorney general.
"People can agree to resolve disputes any way acceptable," Crawley said in an interview. "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."
... Jewish courts, using the same methods, have been operating in Ontario for years. Such a court, called a Beit Din, deals with monetary, business and family disputes, but no criminal matters. "Jewish courts have been operating in Toronto for as long as Jews have been here, hundreds of years," said Rabbi Reuven Tradburks, secretary of the Beit Din of Toronto. He said he had not heard of cases decided by arbitrators in Jewish courts that had been overturned.
"A court will not enforce a decision in violation of the Charter of Rights," Crawley said, referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the nation's constitution. He also said there were limits to arbitrators' powers. They cannot, for example, rule on matters regarding third parties. "The rights of children cannot be arbitrated," he said.
However, it is the Muslim subculture we're talking about - and specifically the Muslim immigrant subculture. As a practical matter, I see this as another tool for the immigrant Muslim power structure to keep their control over their women even while they live in a free country. And of course this is being pushed as merely a first step towards ... something. They want it to be the camel's nose under the tent.
Aw, heck, I'll just say it: If any religion could make me rethink the 1st Amendment protection of religion as a consistent principle, Islam can!
Living under Sharia law is central to Islam. A Muslim who rejects Sharia law is an apostate. Under Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death.
Even if such a person is not killed, he or she would be barred from entering a mosque, and fellow Muslims would be barred from associating with him or doing business with him
I think that will be the day after Canada has their 1st muslim "HONOR KILLING".
Or Ithaca.
Now, how the West is going to have two different standards for civilized behaviors?
Say, a guy goes and cut his son's head off, and claim that God asked him to do it like he asked Abraham? Or a guy stones his daughter to death after he learned that she had sex before marriage? The entire law and order in the West can be compromised. Confusing old religion scriptures and barbaric behaviors in this day and age is a joke.
Take for example the idea of having the Moslem prayers five times a day loudly announced on loudspeakers in Michigan! Proclaiming “no God but Allah”! This Jesus thing – he was no god! You stupid Christian majority; forget ringing your church bells because it offends people! But these Moslem minorities MUST scream their prayers on loud speakers. Now did they have loud speakers in the year 600? How is it possible to accept such noise throughout the city at 4 am, while most people are sleeping? Why don’t they set their alarm to get up at 4 am for prayers instead of waking up the whole city? Where are the noise ordinances? Where is the separation of church and state? Where “religion is something PRIVATE”? Right in the middle of anger in the hearts of America over the orchestrated Islamic campaign of terror all over the world, these losers come up with such proposal, and there is enough STUPID Americans who listen to them.
And if a Catholic person violates various Church laws, he or she would be barred from Communion. If an Amish person violates various religious or community laws, he or she would be shunned. What's the difference?
The article makes clear that criminal acts would not be covered by Sharia law. As long as that distinction is maintained, I don't see a problem. If a Muslim is physically harmed or killed for rejecting Sharia (or for leaving the religion altogether), then that must be prosecuted by the government as assault or murder. And if the physical harm is either sanctioned or instigated by the Sharia court, then everyone involved is an accomplice.
Precisely. They consider it a "step", not the end of the process.
Aw, heck, I'll just say it: If any religion could make me rethink the 1st Amendment protection of religion as a consistent principle, Islam can! -(jennyp)
Islam is more than a religion. It is a seamless theology. It requires all adherents, the government and the civil laws adhere to the Koran. They present no other choice.
They are no different than Communists, except they claim some false god named "Allah" whereas the Communists rejected any god except themselves. Frankly, I can hardly tell the difference between either as far as means and ends.
Islam is alien and completely totalitarian, even instructing you in detail the proper way to wipe your @$$. It is dangerous and in opposition to all which the American culture, government, law, people and Constitution hold dear.
Muslims need to be treated like Communists were, not cluckingly approved of because they are a "religion". This is not the sort of "religion" which our Founders envisioned here which should be tolerated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.