Amid a furor over a proposal to allow sharia law to settle civil disputes, more than a year ago Attorney General Michael Bryant issued a press release saying proposed amendments to the Abitration Act would mean there would be "one law for all Ontarians."
Oddly, although the changes were passed Feb. 14, 2006 and given royal assent shortly thereafter, they have not formally been proclaimed into law.
Bill 27 said, among other things, that third party arbitrators could only serve as advisers in civil cases. Some parts of the bill have been made law, but the key provision outlawing religious arbitration have not. In 2005, pressure was building to allow sharia law, a 1,400-year-old set of Islamic laws covering legal and family issues, be used to settle civil disputes -- including family law settlements -- in this province. Women's groups protested that sharia law is often oppressive towards women and they worried in the power imbalance that often occurs when religion is allowed to dictate law, the rights of women and children would be trampled. And moderate Muslims feared the power of the imams they had come to Canada to avoid would follow them even in this country.
"There is one family law for all Ontarians and that is Canadian law," Bryant said in a press release dated Nov. 15, 2005.
Given the foot-dragging that's happened since then, Niagara Centre MPP Peter Kormos questions the government's commitment to these changes.
"I am not sure that the government really was that enthusiastic about their proposal that they said was going to protect women," Kormos said in a recent interview.
"The elephant in the room was sharia law, but you never heard those words come from Mr. McGuinty's mouth. It's a strange thing, then, that Mr. Bryant would bask in the spotlight a year ago, but be nowhere to be seen 12 months later," Kormos said.
A spokesman for the Muslim Canadian Congress, (MCC) a group that opposes sharia law, said he is surprised and alarmed that the law hasn't been enacted.
"All over the Muslim world, people want to get away from it, (sharia law)" said Tarek Fatah in a telephone interview yesterday.
"The nurturing and the appeasement of Islamists by all political parties has come to the stage where people can come around and demand that these laws be enacted and I was hoping that Premier Dalton McGuinty's and Attorney General Michael Bryant's brave decision would have ended the issue, but it alarms me there is still some chance of these people doing what they do," Fateh said.
Fateh says MCC opposes sharia law primarily because it doesn't believe in laws that can't be debated in Parliament.
"We would have no problem with religious laws if religious laws were subject to parliamentary discourse." Instead, he says, changes in sharia law can only be made by Islamic scholars.
Other religions already have in place their own faith tribunals, and those, too, would be shut down by the changes.
A spokesman for Bryant said the law hasn't been proclaimed because the "nuts and bolts of the regulations" are still being worked out with religious leaders.
"They will be signed, sealed and delivered this spring," said Greg Crone.
"No family arbitrations based on religious principles have been brought to any Ontario court in the interim period."
Well, let's hope the amendments get proclaimed before the election writ is dropped -- and everything dies on the order paper.
It was the NDP who, in 1991, allowed individuals to negotiate civil disputes through faith-based tribunals. Frankly, it is one thing for parents to inculcate religious beliefs and values in their children. It's quite another for them to live by separate rules. In a modern society, all children should be afforded the same protection of the law. You can't have some kids governed by a court of law while other children have their fates dictated by faith-based rules that date to the Dark Ages -- whether they be Catholic, Jewish, fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. And in faiths dominated by priests, rabbis and imams, women are often intimidated into making deals they may later regret.
That is why we have the rule of law in this country. And it should apply evenly and fairly to all."
Now, in 2008, islamists are trying to sneak sharia in through the back door, through sharia-compliant banking, among other things. But having only a little bit of sharia is like being a little bit pregnant. And here are some of the punishments meted out under sharia law:
By James N. Arlandson at The American Thinker:
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.
In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.
In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation. In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiance. In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.
A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.
In its 1991 Constitution, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy. In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.
On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.'
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
Fornication: In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex. This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law.
Adultery: In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped. She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.
In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.
In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.
Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.
And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies:
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. Rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions:
(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture.
(2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this.
(3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.
4) Old men and monks could be killed.
(5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.
(6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim.
(7) Civilian property may be confiscated, and homes destroyed.
(8) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.
(9) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax.
Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices. Therefore, Islam is violent—unjustly and aggressively.
Conclusion
The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform?
In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.
Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.
Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.
One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.
It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.
Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.
Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom. Let's keep it out of Canada!
Thanks to James M. Arlandson at The American Thinker for this article.
