Shari-who-wha?

Sharia is the Arabic word for Islamic law – law either specifically outlined in the Qur’an or derived from it by religious scholars. In the past it has been in the news because of particularly drastic consequences for people tried under it – for example, Amina Lawal, who was sentenced to death by stoning in Nigeria after being accused of adultery. It’s back in the news right now because, remarkably, Ontario is considering allowing sharia to be used in family arbitration.

I was reading an article in the Globe and Mail this morning and I decided I’d had enough – I was going to call my MPP and let her know how stupid I thought this idea was. I was about to make the call when my maidservant popped her head into my office and asked me to write an article on sharia. “I’m just about to call my MPP about that”, I said, “so don’t get your burqa in a knot”. I made the call and left a rambling, semi-coherent message for my MPP that will probably be dismissed as coming from a non-voter or worse, a supporter of the Green Party. Then I spoke with alevo.

“I think it’s a great idea,” he said. “Bring it on over. Progressive Islamic countries all over the world are trying to get rid of it. We’re like, ‘we’ll take it!’ Give us your sharia.”

So where the heck did this wacky idea come from, anyway? What possessed Ontario to decide that a judicial system best known for oppressing women and chopping off the hands of thieves would be a good thing here?

Well, in 1991 Ontario passed the Arbitration Act, which allows people to agree to resolve a dispute by arbitration instead of going to court. As it relates to this issue, this Act allows Christians and Jews to resolve family issues like divorce and custody of children by using a religious arbitrator, like a pastor or rabbi for example, to decide what happens and who gets what. The idea now is to allow Muslims the same “rights” to religious arbitration using sharia.

I could have told you in 1991 that this entire thing was a stupid idea, except I was 13 at the time and too busy wanking to read up on politics. It’s only logical that Muslims now want what Christians and Jews got in ’91. But there are two main differences.

The first is the “unique” way sharia handles women, which is to say, with an iron fist. Covered with spikes. As a non-Muslim, I don’t want to make any inaccurate claims about what the Qur’an says or how it is interpreted so here, take a look for yourselves:

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Qur’an 4:34 English translation: MH Shakir) [Emphasis mine]

Apparently there is some dispute about whether “beat them” means “beat them” or whether it means “don’t beat them” or perhaps “gently caress them”, for example, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, says:

If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.

Alex, I’ll take gentle and loving beating methods for $500, please.

But my goal is not to denigrate Islam on this site any more than I have previously denigrated other religions, so if anyone else has any good texts, send em on over. The point is that sharia discriminates against women: men automatically get the kids. Sons get half of what daughters get from inheritances. Men may divorce easily (as easily as saying “I divorce you” three times), women must show abundant grounds (to a male Muslim judge).

The second main reason sharia has no place in Ontario is an argument I rarely resort to: tradition. Let’s face it. Judeo-Christianity is the traditional basis of our society. As our society has progressed, so have our religions (well, some of them). The harshness of medieval Christianity is mostly gone, but the same cannot be said of many societies where Islamic law is in effect today.

Unsurprisingly, Muslim women don’t seem particularly fond of having sharia in Canada either. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women is dead-set against it, saying “We are concerned that, in deference to their religious beliefs, some Canadian Muslim women may be persuaded to use the Muslim family law (Sharia) option, rather than seeking protection under the law of the land.” What they’re talking about here is Michael Bryant’s assertion, as Ontario’s Attorney General, that Ontario is “completely committed” to equality for women and their rights under the Charter. According to him, women will have the choice of secular arbitration. But choice is often lacking in problematic relationships, which are exactly what these tribunals are set up to deal with.

Which begs the question: who, exactly, is going to be happy about sharia in Ontario? If orthodox Muslims aren’t going to get their way because Ontario will stop them from using it in an orthodox manner, and moderate Muslims want nothing to do with it, then what’s the point of having it at all? Is Ontario going to appoint sharia judgment interpreters who take the arbitrators’ recommendations and then modify them according to Ontario law? I can see it already:

SHARIA ARBITRATOR: You, sir, get the kids, the cash, and your honour.

ONTARIO SHARIA INTERPRETER: What he meant was: you, ma’am, get the kids, half the cash, and honour has nothing to do with these proceedings.

Separation of church and state still sounds pretty good to me.