Canadians Allow Islamic Courts To Decide Disputes

W Post ^ | April 28, 2004 | DeNeen L. Brown

[swilhelm73]

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.

Muslim promoters of sharia arbitration said that no cases had been decided but that the process is set. Islamic leaders created an Islamic Court of Civil Justice last fall and that organization, in turn, has chosen arbitrators, who have undergone training in sharia and Canadian civil law, according to organizers and participants.

[ZULU]

This is INSANE!!

I thought this was all settled back with Thomas a Becket and Henry II!!!

Just when it appears western man couldn't possiblt sink any lower, some country surprises me!!

[valkyrieanne]

So women whose husbands are treating them like cattle don't go before a regular Canadian family court, but go before a *sharia* court?

Canada is one step away from a complete dictatorship. Blame Canada!

[Arpege92]

"For decades, Orthodox Jews have voluntarilly been submitting disputes to Rabbinic courts rather than litigating in the secular court system."

Yes but these Orthodox Jews aren't part of an organization that is causing destruction and death all over this world.

[lainde]

---Coming soon to Detriot and a city near you----.

Aren't they going to start ringing "call to prayer" bells five times a day in some city in Michigan?

[Paul_B]

> local leaders consider it a significant step

backward.

[philosofy123]

If that is the case, and Moslems are not willing to obey the laws of the land, then, it would be legal to FORBID them from entering our country. Not as an immigrant, not even as a visitor.

[Alouette]

Nonetheless, U.S. courts routinely enforce the decrees of these Rabbinic tribunals.

What I think actually happens is that when the beth din hands down a verdict and the guilty party does not want to abide by the decision, the same dispute is then brought before a civil court as a new case.

The U.S. courts have no business acting as enforcers for the beis din. I know that in New York state there was or maybe is a law giving the state power to enforce the conditions of a divorce granted by a beth din in matters of custody, division of property, and so forth.

IIRC, it was liberals and feminists who were trying to get this law passed, claiming that women were being unfairly treated by the religious divorce courts while religious Jews were against it, claiming it was giving the state control over the religious courts.

[Sender]

Think the abortion marchers will suit up to protest about how the Islamics want them to dress?

They can't see that their poor oppressed 'heroes' such as the Palestinians and the Afghans would put them all in burqas or hijabs, forbid them an education and keep them barefoot and pregnant at home.

[ought-six]

"First Muslims immigrate into a country and put down roots. Then they fight to have 'unquestionable' Muslim practices accepted as law such as wearing the hijab, etc. Then we get to the real Twinkie...shari'a law."

The jihadists have always said that immigration is the Trojan Horse to be used in the ultimate conquest of the West. Their goal is to move in, grow exponentially, and take over. They admit it!

[ought-six]

Cautiously agreeing, if it only applies to civil cases what's the difference between this and people here going on 'Judge Judy'?"

"Judge Judy" applies American law.

[ought-six]

"In the U.S., Louisiana operates under French Civil law while the rest of the states operate under English common law (with some civil law influence on the property laws of some states, especially Texas and California)."

WRONG! Napoleonic code was codified and ratified by the Louisiana legislature, and its application is almost wholly confined to issues of inheritance. Since the Louisiana legislature ratified the law, it's an American law. If the Canadian Parliament ratifies sharia, than that would become the Canadian law.

[expatguy]

We must all learn to CELEBRATE DIVERSITY.

In all honesty, you will become more like them.

[Sender]

That is exactly why the Palestinians will always insist on the "right of return of Palestinian refugees" into Israel. It's a very simple plan: Millions of Arabs claiming to be "Palestinian refugees" flood into Israel. Then they just hold an election, should we call the country Israel or Palestine? Should it remain a Jewish state or become Islamic under the shari'at?

With the Jews then in the minority, they would be powerless to stop the "democratic process". Game over.

[Sender]

If that is the case, and Moslems are not willing to obey the laws of the land, then, it would be legal to FORBID them from entering our country. Not as an immigrant, not even as a visitor.

I believe it true Islam it is written that they are only subject to the shari'at, strictly Islamic law, and are not subject to western laws nor should they follow our laws if we contradict any principle of Islamic laws.

However there is the 'jihad loophole' which is widely interpreted to mean that true Muslims can cheat, lie, kill, disguise their identities, enjoy drunken sexual abandon and do most anything else that is normally haraam as long as it is the means to the end of jihad and Islamic domination.

[philosofy123]

I was thinking about the ACLU and liberal bastards as I was contemplating a “legal” way to stop Moslems from entering the US, as immigrants or as visitors. The LEGAL way to shut the liberals would be that Moslems do not believe in separation of church and state. They do not accept our laws, hence they cannot be allowed in the US. The citizenship oath specifies that a citizen must have loyalty “only” to the US, and to obey “all” US laws. They, by definition, fail to fulfill such prerequisites.

France expelled a Moslem cleric for permitting husbands to beat their wives. How are we going to have a nation that has two seperate standards for men behaviors towards their women?

[DannyTN]

"Foot in the door."

Hand on the floor.

[Lurking Libertarian]

What I think actually happens is that when the beth din hands down a verdict and the guilty party does not want to abide by the decision, the same dispute is then brought before a civil court as a new case.

No, for the most part, the decision of the beth din is enforced as an arbitration award. The cases are collected here.

[Sender]

You're absolutely right, the ACLU should be hysterical against Islam because it is the ultimate example of combining church and state, and because they are not subject to our laws (in their minds).

However the separation of church and state the ACLU refers to only applies to Christians, apparently. The ACLU never met an anti-Christian cause it didn't like.

[Made In The USA]

Dear Canda:

WTF?

Sincerely,
Your neighbor across the lake.

[philosofy123]

The ACLU is suing churches right and left because they don't like to hear their bells ring. Now in Michigan, Moslems are going to broadcast their prayer calling on loudspeakers five times per day starting at 4 am! Screaming that "there is no god but Allah"! The worthless ACLU is not anywhere objecting to that. This tells me that the ACLU is simply anti-Christians.