Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Sharia Law in Canada

09:32 / 09.09.04

I had heard about plans to allow Sharia law to stand in civil cases in parts of Canada, and it looks like the province of Ontario has approved plans to bring this about.

I have a friend who is a Canadian of Iranian descent and is, like the woman in the article above appalled by the notion of Sharia law coming to the West, but arguably the precedent has already been set here by Judaism, which has religious legal tradition, and Sharia law will only be applicable in civil cases where both side agree to abide by the decision.

So what do people think?

Our Lady Has Left the Building

17:28 / 09.09.04

I presume that agreement will be agreed in advance? Couldn't this lead to pick-and-mix justice systems, somone insisting on the right to trial by combat or something?

flufeemunk effluvia

19:05 / 09.09.04

Trial by PONG. Winner takes all.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

07:03 / 10.09.04

I think the Devil is in the detail. "Both sides agree", as you say; if that means everyone seeks out Sharia law, fine. If it means that it becomes socially impossible within a community not to agree to Sharia judgement, then it's a problem. The law has to protect the weak, and it's possible to imagine situations where the weak in this situation might be constrained to go to Sharia when standard Canadian might offer them better chances of redress or security.

wembley can change in 28 days

07:47 / 10.09.04

The idea also being that Sharia law might have its own evolution in Canada, whereby it will fit in a little more with Canadian societal norms. If the legal system of Judaism is allowed in Canada, there is simply no way we can stop Sharia from being a part of the social fabric; however, Sharia won't be able to override the charter of rights and freedoms. Both sides will have to compromise a little, which is typical, typical Canada.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

09:47 / 10.09.04

The lack of civil oversight of the court does seem a bit worrying, but I suppose the implication of having them would have been to suggest that the Muslim court couldn't be trusted.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:21 / 12.09.04

Wembley makes a good point- I don't know how "integrated" Canada is, but my guess would be "pretty well"- a version of Sharia law that took root in Canada would likely be very different to that of, say, Iran. I imagine the same would also be true were it to happen in places like the UK.

Whoah. That really doesn't sound like me at all. Normal levels of pessimism will be returned in due course. Thank you for your time.

00:03 / 13.09.04

I don't live in Canada myself so I may be missing some local nuances here, but in general this sounds like an extremely foolish decision that's sure to end in tears. I predict that within a year or eighteen months of going into effect, this whole approach is shelved in response to one or more well-publicized borderline atrocities. Judaism will likely also end up losing its independent judicial privaleges as a result.

06:28 / 13.09.04

I predict that within a year or eighteen months of going into effect, this whole approach is shelved in response to one or more well-publicized borderline atrocities. Judaism will likely also end up losing its independent judicial privaleges as a result.

Simplist what kind of 'well-publicized borderline atrocities' did you have in mind? The reports all say that this legal tradition will only apply in civil cases and even then only where both parties in the dispute agree to abide by the judgement of Sharia law. We aren't going to be seeing the stoning of unfaithful women on the streets of downtown Toronto.

The worst case scenario I can forsee is that there will be social pressure amongst the musilim community for more secular muslims to conform to the letter of Sharia law on the threat of being seen as either a bad muslim or an outcast among their community.

23:42 / 14.09.04

"Atrocities" was, I admit, a poor and overly loaded choice of words. I certainly don't expect Canadian Muslims will be allowed to cut off the hands of shoplifters, etc. But I do forsee an outcome similiar to what happened when France decided to legalize polygamy among immigrants from cultures in which polygamy is the norm (though not among native French, for whom polygamy remained forbidden). This new legal status was, of course, created primarily for the sake of Muslims in particular, France being a properly multicultural country that doesn't want to impinge on anyone's cultural traditions, etc. The change was followed by a rash of media coverage exposing the appalling conditions imposed on many women who were pressured/forced into these arrangements by their families and/or communities, and ultimately the legal exception was rescinded, leaving everyone on both sides of the issue considerably more bitter and resentful than they had been originally. Short form, the French government meant well but ultimately only made things worse. The same will likely happen in Canada.

21:16 / 15.09.04

I'd argue that Jewish religious law, which has managed to co-exist along side other laws successfully for quite some time now, sets the precident of how Sharia law could work in Canada...

As I say in my post above, I can forsee that some Muslims might feel coerced into accepting rulings under sharia law for fear of being seen as a bad Muslim or being shunned by their community, but surely observing religious laws are part and parcel of proclaiming religious faith. - This last point could lead into a headshop topic...

01:08 / 16.09.04

I think the aspect that appeals to me is the absence of lawyers. It provides a setting for two people to (for example) work out a divorce with a priest as a mediator, possibly coming to the table with a less adversarial based mindset to the whole thing...

...ideally, this would be the case. Religion aside, just being able to settle small agreements without using lawyers sounds like a good step.

Cheap. Easy. Cruel.

02:15 / 16.09.04

Ugh. I don't know about all of that. I see it as a step towards the religious fundamentalism that has a stranglehold on the U.S. these days. It is never a good thing. I grew up in a fundamentalist household (no telelvision, it is of the Devil!), and anything that moves closer to that is to be avoided.

If you are talking about marriage and divorce, I think that government has no place in a pact between people and whatever they call god.

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:17 / 16.09.04

Ugh. I don't know about all of that. I see it as a step towards the religious fundamentalism that has a stranglehold on the U.S. these days.

You mean, any Islamic law is by definition going to be fundamentalist? Or that any respect given to religious courts by the secular judicial process is going to lead to religious fundamentalism.

And, on marriage, if the state has no business in a "pact between people and whatever they call God" (which is not actually a description of marriage as it currently exists, btw - there's a Head Shop thread on this which also colonised the "Sex Lives of the (not so) Rich and Famous" thread in the Conversation), then poresumably either you need a religious court or you just sort it out yourself, right?

Cheap. Easy. Cruel.

13:39 / 16.09.04

You mean, any Islamic law is by definition going to be fundamentalist? Or that any respect given to religious courts by the secular judicial process is going to lead to religious fundamentalism.

I am more worried about the second possibility. I see it as more of a step away from church/state seperation. I supppose it could work well for those willing to participate, but if they are willing to abide by Sharia law now, why do they need the state to sanction it?

13:47 / 16.09.04

but if they are willing to abide by Sharia law now, why do they need the state to sanction it?

On a purely parctical level - if your Imam grants you a religious divorce (or indeed marries you) it is quite handy if the state recognises that divorce (or wedding).

22:14 / 16.09.04

I see it as a step towards the religious fundamentalism that has a stranglehold on the U.S. these days. It is never a good thing. I grew up in a fundamentalist household (no telelvision, it is of the Devil!), and anything that moves closer to that is to be avoided.

Very much agreed; I'm from a similiar background myself. And it should be acknowledged that Islam by and large appears to trend if anything more strongly toward fundamentalism than Christianity. It also imposes significantly more regressive and oppressive social mores than the vast majority of Christian sects have at any time in history. There's a tendency on the left these days to overlook all that in the interest of multicultural tolerance, to assign Muslims a kind of honorary leftist status as fellow opponents of Western hegemony. But really, socially speaking, Islamic moderates make Christian conservatives look like a left-wing debating society. IMO any move toward government sponsorship of that kind of social agenda should be strenuously avoided.

09:43 / 17.09.04

And it should be acknowledged that Islam by and large appears to trend if anything more strongly toward fundamentalism than Christianity.

I'd definitely like to see you back this assertion up a little -

Aside from that, far from promoting fundamentalism, (a word that is interestingly, seldom applied to the Pope or Church-going inhabitants of the bible belt) I can see an argument that the adoption of Sharia law as step towards promoting a discrete secular approach to Islam. The idea being this civil code of Sharia law will just not appeal to more secular Muslims who will continue to live as they do today. These Muslims will just not use the services of an Imam to settle their disputes, but those services will be available for Muslims who do want them.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:54 / 17.09.04

But really, socially speaking, Islamic moderates make Christian conservatives look like a left-wing debating society.

Have you come to a definition of the terms 'moderate' and 'conservative' that's based on some kind of statistics (eg, 80% of all Muslims asked thought x was a sin whilst only 20% of Christians agreed)? I'd like to see these statistics, if so.

If not, the word 'moderate' here is just a piece of rhetoric - if a Muslim believes something I find more conservative than a Christian who I already consider to be an extreme conservative, than I'll categorise that person as an extreme conservative too. The only reason one could have for using the term 'moderate; to describe said Muslim individual would be to paint Islam or Muslims in general as more extreme and conservative than Christianity/Christians, and to do so in a manner that, handily, requires no tricky things like facts to back it up.

21:16 / 17.09.04

...fundamentalism, (a word that is interestingly, seldom applied to the Pope or Church-going inhabitants of the bible belt)...

Could have fooled me.

21:28 / 17.09.04

If not, the word 'moderate' here is just a piece of rhetoric...

I admit I was engaging in rhetorical excess with that particular statement. Still, I don't think it's a particularly controversial statement to say that the conservative wing of Islam (as respresented, for instance, by the religious establishment in Saudi Arabia) makes the conservative wing of Christianity (as represented by, say, Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition) look fairly mild by comparison. There are any number of fairly obvious comparisons that can be made with regards to the role and treatment of women and homosexuals, the role of religious authorities and relative severity of punishments meted out by such, the value placed on individual choice generally, and so on. I mean, seriously; forced to choose (God forbid, LOL), whose religious theocracy would you rather live in, Jerry Falwell's or Mullah Omar's?

I'm not by any stretch trying to defend Christianity, which pretty obviously has its own problems, nor am I implying that people shouldn't be allowed to adhere (consensually) to whatever regressive social code they choose. My point was that I don't think a properly liberal government has any business going out of its way to facilitate such.

I'll add a bit more to this later--I'm nearing the end of my work day and must move in the general direction of nourishment.

22:33 / 17.09.04

Again I'm going to point out that in Canada Sharia law will ony apply in civil cases - I really don't buy the idea that this is the first step on an inevitable slide towards an Iranian style theocracy coming to Canada.

On the religious extremism front, if we really want to draw comparisons of religious extremism why not look at the barbarity of the 8.5 crusades the Christian world unleashed on its Islamic counterpart. Or for an example of closer to our time what about the Klu Klux Klan.

I'm not trying to paint Islam as any better or worse a religion than Christianity, (or Judaism or other faiths) - I'm not sure why you seem to think it is necessary to do so.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:49 / 18.09.04

Just out of interest- and apologies for the slight off-topicness- do we have any Muslims on Barbelith?
Because whenever this kind of thing comes up, people (myself included) will often make analogies with Christianity, because afaict a lot of us were at least raised Christian even if we aren't now.
Some lithers know more about Islam than others (I know very little for example); but does anyone actually know it "from the inside" as it were?
I've been wondering this for a while... just been looking for a place to ask.

I know many Muslims in meatspace, and have had many productive discussions on the topic of religion with them. I'd be interested to see, however, a "Barbelith-level" discussion of the kind.

17:29 / 19.09.04

I'm not trying to paint Islam as any better or worse a religion than Christianity, (or Judaism or other faiths) - I'm not sure why you seem to think it is necessary to do so.

I'm not actually saying one or the other religion is innately better or worse; in, say, the 1400s, the Islamic world was pretty clearly the more enlightened and progressive of the two civilizations. I'm simply pointing out that here and now, in the present day, the behavior of the adherents of one happens to be quite a bit worse than the behavior of the adherents of the other. The Christian world by and large has been seduced into moderation by the political and economic benefits of modernity, whereas much of the Muslim world remains medieval in its general orientation, and the behaviors emanating from the two spheres reflect that difference (and incidentally, it seems fairly obvious that therein lies the solution to the problem of religious violence generally--the cultivation of education and economic prosperity in the areas most afflicted with it).

But really, the only reason I even drew the distinction is that I find this whole ubiquitous debate on the left about Islam endlessly frustrating. I grew up in (and was enormously happy to escape from) an atmosphere of religious fundamentalism of a kind that left-leaning, liberal-minded folk have no problem condemning in the strictest of terms, fighting to prevent the excesses of, etc. So now, to see many on the left essentially giving a pass to what appears to me to be an even more malignantly fundamentalist orientation than the one I grew up with, solely because said orientation is from another culture which happens to be at odds with the same elements in our own culture that leftists oppose--as if those same leftists wouldn't be "the first against the wall" as it were should these fundamentalists ever really get the world they seem to want--well, it disturbs and irritates my tender sensibilities all over the place.

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:19 / 19.09.04

You're confusing "Islamic state" and "Islamic people", I think ... I can think of a lot of Muslims in Britain not living in mediaeval conditions. As such, I'm not sure that allowing people to submit, if they wished, to religious law in certain specific and *civil* cases is necessarily going to create a set of mediaeval conditions or in fact a state of mediaeval law in Britain. It's possible that it wll make some Muslims feel further separated from the laws of the land they inhabit, which could be an issue, but if the reaction to something like, say, theft or murder remains the same I don't think that's necessarily a huge issue.

There is certainly a broader issue about whether it makes sense to allow cultures to integrate their culturally-defined legal codes with the law of the land, where possible. And also, if you do that with Muslims, how about with people from countries with different legal structures? what is a cultural law, what a national law, and what a religious law?

20:10 / 20.09.04

Came across a quote from Ken Wilber earlier today in which he makes essentially the point I was trying to in my perhaps less than eloquently-phrased posts in this thread. To fully get what he's saying it helps to understand his Spiral Dynamics-based terminology, but even without it you'll get the gist:

...when it comes to the Lower Left, there is a bit of a problem with Islam. For various reasons, Islam is perhaps the most recalcitrant blue-meme structure now in existence. Historically, Islam rarely developed a self-critical hermeneutics, as did other monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism), and thus it tended to remain medieval in its outlook. Contrary to what is being said, the Koran specifically condones--and on occasional commands--the killing of unbelievers. For the fundamentalist core, 'Islam' means 'peace' only if you believe in Allah and his one and only prophet, Mohammed. And 'Muslim' means 'surrender,' but surrender only to Allah and the ethnocentric commands of the Koran. Obviously there are many wonderful exceptions; but just as obviously, Islam--which was vital in moving red tribes to blue bonding via violent means if necessary (a completely adaptive and evolutionary move at that time)--is perhaps the most problematic of all the world's ancient blue mythologies. There is no breathing room, there are few openings for escaping from that red/blue base into blue/orange worldcentric perspectives. This is why it is imperative that more developed Islamic scholars and leaders come forth, publicly begin the self-critical stance so often lacking in previous Muslim exegeses, and rely increasingly on the Neoplatonic Sufi trends present but often buried in that tradition. If this happens, then the shining potential of the great Muslim mystics--al Hallaj to the incomparable Rumi--might find a happy home in today's world.

wembley can change in 28 days

22:06 / 22.09.04

Thanks for the quote, Simplist. It might be worth pointing out that developing the self-critical angle of Islam might be easier when it's been grafted onto another existing society with which Muslims already live in peace. Working it out in the Middle East may be keeping too close to the ethnocentricity apparently inherent in the religion. Neutral ground sounds like Ontario to me if ever there were a place on earth.