The main criticism seems to be that some Muslims, especially women, may be pressured into accepting the Sharia courts. Of course the same criticism is often made of the AAA, namely that big businesses are able to impose arbitration agreements on customers or employees due to their unequal bargaining leverage.
Quite frankly, I don't feel that sorry for a Muslim who voluntarily agrees to Sharia proceedings and then isn't happy with the outcome. Part of the price of freedom is responsibility. If you can't withstand peer pressure, then you will just have to accept the consequences of your lack of gumption.
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