NATASHA FATAH:
One law for all
CBC News Viewpoint | April 1, 2004 | More from Natasha Fatah
A few years ago, a good friend of mine living in Pakistan lost her father to cancer. She is the eldest sibling in the family and as she had done her whole life, she managed all the responsibilities for the family including the funeral arrangements.
However, my friend got a rude awakening when her father's inheritance was handed out and she found that everything – the business, the jewelry, the money and all the family assets – had been distributed to her younger brother. She got nothing. Why? Because under certain interpretations of Shariah law, men are entitled to more inheritance then their sisters or wives.
Today Shariah is finding a new home in Canada. In 1991, an amendment was made to Ontario's Arbitration Act, allowing parties to settle disputes outside the courts. This was supposed to ease the overly-burdened court system and save Ontario taxpayers some money.
What it also did was open the gates in Canada for Shariah law, and a small group of Muslims in Toronto has set up a Shariah arbitration court where the arbiters will make judgments on civil matters such as divorce, inheritance and child custody. After they come to a decision they'll send the finding to a provincial judge for a stamp of approval.
Now, I don't claim to be an expert on Shariah but, this is the most widely agreed upon definition: Shariah is a set of principles that a Muslim should use to guide decisions and affairs in his or her life. It's based on the Qur'an, Islam's holy book, and the Sunnah, sayings of Prophet Muhammad. This sounds OK – ease up the pressure on the provincial courts and promote freedom of religion, right? Wrong. There is something not quite kosher here.
These supposed arbiters of justice in the Shariah court – what qualifications do these men have to make decisions on legal matters in Canada? Absolutely none. This is a self-appointed House of Lords. They don't need to know the law, they don't need to know the rules, hell, they may not even need to know the Qur'an, because they are accountable to no one.
Furthermore, if these arbiters will send their rulings to a provincial judge for a stamp of approval, isn't that admitting that the Canadian system is a better measurement of justice? Sure, there are flaws in the Canadian judicial system but at least you can challenge the politicians that make the laws and the police and judges who enforce them.
There is no formal system through which you can challenge religious clerics, the masters of the Shariah universe. And if you do challenge them, get ready to be called a blasphemer.
Of course, I understand that for some people they feel better discussing difficult personal problems with those who share a common cultural background and common values. But, Alia Hogben from the Canadian Council of Muslim Women offers this suggestion, "Why can't it be just informal mediation? Why does it have to be a binding arbitration? A binding arbitration using Shariah law can, and has been historically detrimental to women. What is there that they can solve with Shariah that they can't with a secular Canadian court?"
Hogben conducts counselling and mediation for Muslim women but she insists that if it comes to legal matters, the women should turn to the Canadian justice system.
Besides, whose version of Shariah law are we going to accept? Afghanistan's? Where women are shrouded their whole lives. Saudi Arabia's? Where they cut off your body parts if you get caught stealing. Nigeria's? Where they'll stone you to death for committing adultery. These are extreme examples but they are the reality.
You see, there is no agreed upon interpretation of Shariah because in every country where it is practised, the interpretation is based on the opinion of the individual religious cleric. There are no international standards, there are no safeguards, and the system is too insecure. Without consensus on the interpretation how can anyone feel safe going to these religious courts?
Raheel Raza of the Muslim Canadian Congress wrote in the Toronto Star last year: "Since Shariah has always been interpreted by men, they spend more time telling women how to be proper women, thus losing sight of the actual message."
I've lived in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two countries that practise Shariah law. I love the country of my birth, and the country of my youth, and now Canada, the country of my choice. And with that choice I've agreed to live by the laws of this land.
If Shariah is the system you want then I challenge you to live in Saudi Arabia. I challenge you to give up all the freedoms you enjoy here. No more freedom of movement, to go and live where you please. No more freedom to read or write or say what you like in public. No right to challenge authority. Yes, Saudi Arabia is an example of Shariah gone horribly awry but what is the guarantee that it won't happen here?
I'm not saying that Shariah is bad or wrong. It's not about good and bad or right and wrong. This is not about religious freedom and tolerance. This is about the struggle for power and the privatization of a public institution. The people who would have you believe that a separate religion-based legal system is a form of freedom of choice are the same people who want to have private religious schools, and yes, they want them funded with public money.
The saddest part of this whole thing is the level of divisiveness it's going to cause – divisiveness within the Muslim community about interpretation, and further divisiveness between Muslims and mainstream Canadians about equality.
There's a lot of debate whether Muslim values are compatible with western democracies. I say that they are compatible, but Shariah is the wrong way to go. If we are equal citizens in this country, then let us all be equally accountable under the law.
LETTERS:
Thank you for your wise comments and analysis
Natasha. As a Canadian muslim who has lived in Pakistan
and Saudi Arabia for a long period of time I tend to
fear the outcome of sharia law (at least the most
widely practiced version of it) being introduced in
Canada.
I agree that Islam is compatible with western
democracy, however installing any type of sharia is not
the manner to prove it.
Arshia Azam | Toronto
While I am sympathetic to Ms. Fatah's concerns
regarding the possibility of Shariah law in Ontario, I
find her criticism tends towards fear mongering and
her
argument a tirade rather than a well argued opinion
piece. Surely all Canadians, Muslim or otherwise,
wish
to see Canada remain free of the human rights abuses
of
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan under the Taliban
regime, among other "Muslim" states practicing Shariah
law. However, as Ms. Fatah points out, its the
application that counts. As she says "Saudi Arabia is
an example of Shariah gone horribly awry...". I found
Ms. Fatah's railings akin to a poorly written social
studies paper when she uses rhetorical questions such
as:
"Besides, whose version of Shariah law are we going to
whole lives. Saudi Arabia's? Where they cut off your
body parts if you get caught stealing. Nigeria's?
where
they'll stone you to death for committing adultery"
Certainly Ms. Fatah raises concerns for any secular
legal system, yet her method of doing so conflates so
many issues, most supporters of Shariah will reject it
out of hand for being inflammatory and worse, most
Canadians who have very little knowledge of Islam may
have their media induced prejudices solidified. For
example, as far I as I am aware, the Ontario
government
is not considering criminal law be downloaded to
arbitration bodies, indeed the Federal government
(under our constitution) will be responsible if Canada
slides down the slippery slope to public stonings and
summary executions. What Ontario has done is to open
up arbitration for civil matters and more importantly,
any individuals who enter this process, say using
Shariah as a platform, do so voluntarily. For those
who
disagree with any part of the process, the
"traditional" legal system is still open to them.
Ms. Fatah's immature rant is likely
to increase the alienation that religious persons feel
from secular society. I would say that intolerance towards
this group may lead to their feeling disenfranchised
from it altogether.
Nick Ward | Montreal
^TOP
|
|
 |
 MENU |
|
|
| ABOUT VIEWPOINT: |
Viewpoint is CBC.ca's place for informed opinion and commentary. Our goal is to provide a range of informed perspectives from around the world and here at home on issues of interest to Canadians. All material published in the Viewpoint section is subject to CBC’s journalistic policy, standards and practices.
Writing for Viewpoint
We accept queries from people with significant expertise in their field and previous writing experience. We are interested in domestic and international contributions. We do not accept unsolicited finished pieces.
If you want to contribute to Viewpoint, please send your query to letters@cbc.ca with VIEWPOINT in the subject line and please include three samples of your published work. Columns are typically 800 words in length and focus on timely issues, events or personal stories with wide appeal. Please familiarize yourself with our content before submitting your ideas. Only those accepted will be contacted.
|
|
| FEEDBACK: |
|
|
| BIOGRAPHY: |
NATASHA FATAH
FREELANCE WRITER
Natasha Fatah graduated this spring from Ryerson University with a Journalism degree. She also completed a Specialist degree in Political Science from the University of Toronto.
She has lectured on anti-racism, politics and media studies at elementary and secondary schools around the Greater Toronto Area.
In 1996, she was the host of 'News from the Muslim World' on Vision TV. Today she is an occasional guest host on CTS Network's current affairs show 'The Muslim Chronicle.'
|
|
| MORE: |
|
|
|
