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.

This video is a fascinating look at what’s happening in New Orleans on the ground. A lot of the information you get comes from outside the city, but this is from right inside, as volunteers manning boats venture into submerged neighbourhoods looking for survivors. Click here to watch.

I have been following the post-Katrina coverage very closely. I’m completely and utterly furious, disgusted, appalled. It’s unbelievable what is happening there right now. This disaster did not have to be like this. And there are some ugly conclusions to be drawn about what’s happening right now – I don’t know if you’ve noticed but New Orleans right now is almost all black people – people who are suffering and not getting help – people who are increasingly desperate, sick, dying, rotting. Most of the white people, it seems, were able to leave. And now the black people are left to die.

Perhaps that seems harsh. But it’s hard not to come to that conclusion. I have seen some white people suffering in the city. But most of the white people I have seen are being loaded into ambulances, or surveying their property, or receiving supplies, or even eating a nice breakfast of coffee, waffles and eggs. The communities on the coast where the white people were took a serious blow and many died, yes…

But a much different situation has unfolded in New Orleans, the city that has long known of its dangers, the city whose newspapers warned was vulnerable, the city that had a plan to make itself safer but whose funding was cut off in 2003 by the federal government. The Iraq war was more important than making New Orleans safe. And maybe the authorities knew the white people and the people with money – in New Orleans, apparently, that’s pretty much the same thing – could leave.

The social and political consequences of this will be profound. If a white middle-class Canadian like me is thinking this way, think about how the poor and the people of colour in America are feeling right now. Think about how the people of New Orleans are feeling. As though they have been abandoned. As though the already flimsy shroud that covered the ugly side of America has just dropped away. As though people care more about the tsunami victims than them.

I urge you to watch this video, or if you’re unable to because your Internet is slow, read the transcript. Both are available here. The video is a bit long but it’s worth it. You need to hear what this photojournalist had to say. What follows is a brief snippet of the beginning of the transcript:

ALISON STEWART: Tony, I know you’ve seen a lot of things in your career, but have you ever seen anything like that?

TONY ZUMBADO: I’ve gotta tell you, I thought I’d seen it all, but just when you think you’ve seen it all, you go into another situation and you see something horrific. I’ve never seen anything in my life like this. … I can’t put it into words the amount of destruction that is in this city and how these people are coping. They are just left behind. There is nothing offered to them. No water, no ice, no C-rations, nothing, for the last four days.

They were told to go to the convention center. They did, they’ve been behaving. It’s unbelievable how organized they are, how supportive they are of each other. They have not started any mêlées, any riots … they just want food and support. And what I saw there I’ve never seen in this country.

We need to really look at this situation at the convention center. It’s getting very very crazy in there and very dangerous. Somebody needs to come down with a lot of food and a lot of water. There’s no hostility there … they need support. These people are very desperate. I saw two gentlemen die in front of me because of dehydration. I saw a baby near death.

Thanks to alevo for sending this in. Media coverage of Katrina saw these two images posted with the bylines you see underneath them:

A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005.

Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store after Hurricane Katrina came through the area in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The two pictures together in their original contexts can be seen here.

There is currently a debate raging in the US between scientists and proponents of “intelligent design” or ID – a different word for creationism. I came across an article today that I found interesting – interesting enough to reply to it.