Canada preparing to enforce Islamic law

[2dogs]

Yet another good idea for making the world a better place to live.

Will we follow along?



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35850

Canada preparing to enforce Islamic law
Judges will give legal sanction to disputes between Muslims

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 27, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in adultery.

Muslims are required to submit to Sharia in Muslim societies but are excused in nations where they live as a minority under a non-Muslim government.



Delegates elect council to set up Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canadian Law Times)

Canada, however, is preparing for its 1 million-strong Muslim minority to be under the authority of a Sharia system enforced by the Canadian court system, according to the Canadian Law Times.

Muslim delegates at a conference in Etobicoke, Ont., in October elected a 30-member council to establish the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice.

The institute is classified in Islamic law as a Darul-Qada, or judicial tribunal. Its bylaws are scheduled to be drafted and approved by Dec. 31.

Cases will be decided by a Muslim arbitrator, but the local secular Canadian court will be the enforcer.

One of the obstacles to establishing the system, the Law Times said, has been the Muslim communities' lack of unity and organizational strength. Muslims in Canada come from many different countries and different schools of Islam. Also, there are few Islamic legal scholars, known as ulama, in North America, which are essential to adjudicating complex issues.

"It seems as if the community was looking forward to something like this," says organizer B. Husain Bhayat, according to the Law Times. "If all groups are represented, with hard work and the unity we saw here, we will have no difficulty going forward."

The two main streams of Islam, Sunni and Shi'ite, were represented at the conference, along with imams and leaders of organizations.

 

[P95Carry]

I'm gonna be real succinct here ..... minorities .... non majority ...??

WHEN IN ROME ........................................

 

[2dogs]

Institute of Civil Justice

Yep, stoning women- you don't get more "civil" than that.

Maybe we'll all see the day when this great country shows that we are not religious fanatics by removing any displays of our Judeo-Christian heritage (see here: http://humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2441 for examples) from all public areas- and show our religious tolerance by allowing exceptions for sharia .

Say, anyone notice what Thanksgiving was about- oh yeah, turkey and football, I almost forgot.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in adultery.

That's a hell of a big speculative leap for the author take.

 

[2dogs]

That's a hell of a big speculative leap for the author take.

It seems a bigger leap to hope that only the "nice" parts are enforced.

death by stoning - a fate which would involve being buried up to her neck in sand and have rocks thrown at her head.

Um, maybe it's better to avoid the system. On the bright side, IIRC, this fortunate lady's sentence turned out to be somewhat less harsh because most of the civilized world (except maybe France) raised a hue and cry.

Or maybe we could adopt variations of sharia in this country, like many of our laws originated in (uh-oh, shaky ground) Judeo-Christian philosophy. How about this- the punishment for gun ownership: bury the perpetrator up to his neck in gunpowder and then hurl bullets at his head until dead.

Sharia law

Susie Steiner explains the Islamic legal system which has sentenced a Nigerian woman to be stoned to death

Tuesday August 20, 2002

Why is sharia law in the news?
An Islamic court in Nigeria yesterday upheld a sentence of death by stoning for a woman accused of adultery. The case is the latest in a series of sentences passed under sharia law - a set of religious laws adopted over the past two years in northern regions of Nigeria, which have predominantly Muslim inhabitants.

Sharia law, which derives from the teachings of the Koran and from Sunna (the practice of the prophet Mohammed), is implemented to varying degrees in different Islamic countries - from the beheadings of Saudi Arabia, to the relatively liberal social mores of Malaysia.

What is sharia?

The word sharia means "the path to a watering hole". It denotes an Islamic way of life that is more than a system of criminal justice. Sharia is a religious code for living, in the same way that the Bible offers a moral system for Christians.

It is adopted by most Muslims to a greater or lesser degree as a matter of personal conscience, but it can also be formally instituted as law by certain states and enforced by the courts. Many Islamic countries have adopted elements of sharia law, governing areas such as inheritance, banking and contract law.

What does sharia decree?

Sharia offers a code for living governing all elements of life, from prayers to fasting to donations to the poor. It decrees that men and women should dress modestly, which in some countries is interpreted as women taking the veil and the sexes being segregated.

"Sharia governs the lives of people in ways which are not governed by the law," says Lynn Welchman, director of the Centre for Islamic and Middle Eastern Law. "Over 50 countries are members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, and you can expect there will be some form of compliance with sharia - either in people's personal lives or enforced through the courts by the state. A lot of states in the Middle East are taking more elements of sharia into their state laws."

What are Hadd offences?

Within sharia law, there is a specific set of offences known as the Hadd offences. These are crimes punished by specific penalties, such as stoning, lashes or the severing of a hand. The penalties for Hadd offences are not universally adopted as law in Islamic countries.

Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, claim to live under pure sharia law and enforce the penalties for Hadd offences. In others, such as Pakistan, the penalties have not been enforced. The majority of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, have not adopted Hadd offences as part of their state laws.

Hadd offences carry specific penalties, set by the Koran and by the prophet Mohammed. These include unlawful sexual intercourse (outside marriage); false accusation of unlawful intercourse; the drinking of alcohol; theft; and highway robbery. Sexual offences carry a penalty of stoning to death or flogging while theft is punished with cutting off a hand.

"This is a system of criminal law which has become a potent symbol of Islamisicing the law," says Dr Welchman. "But there is the question of whether it's actually applied in the countries which have adopted it. There is supposed to be a very high burden of proof, but that clearly often doesn't happen in practice."

Many Islamic countries will have adultery and the drinking of alcohol defined as criminal offences in law, but they are not defined as Hadd offences because they do not carry the Hadd penalty. They are often punishable by a prison term instead.

What is likely to happen to the woman sentenced to death in Nigeria?

Amina Lawal, 30, has been sentenced to death by stoning - a fate which would involve being buried up to her neck in sand and have rocks thrown at her head. However, the Islamic court has ruled that the penalty cannot be carried out until Lawal has finished breastfeeding her baby daughter, Wasila, which the judge said would not be before January 2004.

Meanwhile, the sentence is provoking civil unrest, with riots breaking out between Christian and Muslim communities over how far the rule of sharia might spread.

In sentencing Lawal, the Islamic court disregarded an earlier ruling by the federal courts, which deemed the death penalty unconstitutional for offences such as adultery.

The supreme court is likely to step in, particularly as many sharia trials fall short of the expected standards of proof. But it faces stiff opposition from governors of Nigeria's northern states, which have made political capital out of promising a Saudi-Arabian style strictness in the adoption of sharia, offering it to the disenfranchised poor as a way of improving their lives. In the past two years, 12 out of Nigeria's 36 states have adopted sharia law.

What sentences have been passed down so far in Nigeria?

Safiya Hussaini, 35, was sentenced to death by stoning in October for allegedly having a child with a married neighbour. She had the child after her divorce, but maintained the father was her former husband and that they were married when the child was conceived. The court convicted her, but Hussaini won an appeal, this time alleging that she had sex out of wedlock before sharia law took effect. Amina Lawal put forward a similar argument during her trial, but it was rejected by the courts.

Last year, a teenage single mother was given 100 lashes for adultery, even though she argued she was raped by three men. The court said Bariya Ibrahim Magazu could not prove that the men forced her to have sex.

In May this year, a sharia court in Jigawa sentenced Sarimu Mohammed, 50, to death by stoning for raping a nine-year-old girl - the first death sentence imposed on a man for rape or adultery. In Bauchi, Adama Unusua, who is 19 and pregnant, was recently sentenced to 100 lashes for having sex with her fiance.

Will sharia law prevail in Nigeria?

The issue is already provoking violence between Muslim and Christian communities, particularly in the south, where sharia law is not in force. Nigeria has a Christian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, who hails from the south. He has stated that "sharia is not a new thing and it's not a thing to be afraid of", and said the federal government would not dispute the rights of states to use it. General Obasanjo received significant support from northern Muslims at the last election.

He has attempted to deal with the sharia problem through compromise, by persuading courts in the north to modify their sentences. In March, the government ruled that the strict version of sharia law practised in Nigeria's north was illegal under the country's constitution. Though it did not explicitly mention the case of Safiya Hussaini, the ruling came days before her appeal hearing.

The justice minister, Godwin Agabi, wrote to the 12 northern states which have Muslim majorities, saying that "a Muslim should not be subjected to a punishment more severe than would be imposed on other Nigerians for the same offence". Mr Agabi noted that Nigeria "cannot be indifferent" to international outrage over the sentences. The situation is likely to be further inflamed in the run up to elections in April 2003.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,777972,00.html

 

[Spot77]

Lets' hope our "Leaders" remember the separation between church and state thingy.....

 

[MeekandMild]

Deleted out of consideration for the moderators.

 

[Mike Irwin]

All I can say is....

So?

The United States, and I believe also Canada, recognize the rulings of Rabinical Courts in some situations.

 

[Preacherman]

The interesting bit is going to be when one party to a dispute / crime / whatever is Muslim, and wants Sharia law to be applied, and the other party is not a Muslim, or is a non-practising Muslim, and wants secular law to be applied. Anyone for tennis?

 

[KC]

"Anyone for tennis? "

KING HENRY V
We are no tyrant, but a Christian king;
Unto whose grace our passion is as subject
As are our wretches fetter'd in our prisons:
Therefore with frank and with uncurbed plainness
Tell us the Dauphin's mind.

First Ambassador
Thus, then, in few.
Your highness, lately sending into France,
Did claim some certain dukedoms, in the right
Of your great predecessor, King Edward the Third.
In answer of which claim, the prince our master
Says that you savour too much of your youth,
And bids you be advised there's nought in France
That can be with a nimble galliard won;
You cannot revel into dukedoms there.
He therefore sends you, meeter for your spirit,
This tun of treasure; and, in lieu of this,
Desires you let the dukedoms that you claim
Hear no more of you. This the Dauphin speaks.

KING HENRY V
What treasure, uncle?

EXETER
Tennis-balls, my liege.

KING HENRY V
We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us;
His present and your pains we thank you for:
When we have march'd our rackets to these balls,
We will, in France, by God's grace, play a set
Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard.
Tell him he hath made a match with such a wrangler
That all the courts of France will be disturb'd
With chaces. And we understand him well,
How he comes o'er us with our wilder days,
Not measuring what use we made of them.
We never valued this poor seat of England;
And therefore, living hence, did give ourself
To barbarous licence; as 'tis ever common
That men are merriest when they are from home.
But tell the Dauphin I will keep my state,
Be like a king and show my sail of greatness
When I do rouse me in my throne of France:
For that I have laid by my majesty
And plodded like a man for working-days,
But I will rise there with so full a glory
That I will dazzle all the eyes of France,
Yea, strike the Dauphin blind to look on us.
And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his
Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones; and his soul
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly with them: for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.
But this lies all within the will of God,
To whom I do appeal; and in whose name
Tell you the Dauphin I am coming on,
To venge me as I may and to put forth
My rightful hand in a well-hallow'd cause.
So get you hence in peace; and tell the Dauphin
His jest will savour but of shallow wit,
When thousands weep more than did laugh at it.
Convey them with safe conduct. Fare you well.

[Act 1, Scene 2, Henry V]

 

[nemesis]

Are we talking about Canada? The same Canada where the elite ruling class just appointed a new Prime Minister that not one Canadian citizen voted for?

 

[AZRickD]

And since the Muslims believe that once a Muslim, always a Muslim, Canada must also disallow that particular freedom *not* to associate. Can't even get out of the religion to save your life.

This is Orwellian.

Rick

 

[tiberius]

And since the Muslims believe that once a Muslim, always a Muslim, Canada must also disallow that particular freedom *not* to associate. Can't even get out of the religion to save your life.

Sure you can get out, the only problem is that apostasy is also a pushed by death.

 

[agricola]

if we are going to have this kind of thing then i demand that Banks take up Islamic (no-interest) practices.

 

[ravinraven]

Anyone for invasion?

A few years ago when Ft. Drum was being expanded to about 20 times its original size and men, money and munitions were flowing in like water, a few wags in the north country said "This is a secret plan to invade Canada using Drum as the base of operations."

That idea doesn't seem so far-fetched after reading this thread.

rr

 

[Mark Tyson]

if we are going to have this kind of thing then i demand that Banks take up Islamic (no-interest) practices.

I thought usury only meant excessive interest.

 

[trooper]

Mhmmm... ya know, they're few and far in between, but there ARE some occasions when I'm glad to live in Germany...

This is ridiculous. It is the dreaded "political correctness" consequently applied till the bitter end.



Trooper

 

[BryanP]

Yep, quite ridiculous. No more ridiculous, mind you, than many people's assertion that America should be based purely on Christianity. I seem to remember a statement by Bush the Elder wherein he commented that atheists weren't really citizens and shouldn't have the same civil rights as himself and other Good Christian Folk.

 

[tiberius]

BryanP,

Do you have a citation for that quote? I'm not saying I don't belive you, but it is so outragious that I'd like to see some documentation on it.

Thanks,

 

[BryanP]

Hi Tiberius. A quick search of Google will turn up quite a bit about the event.

The actual quote is "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

However, to go straight to the horses mouth you can look at the article on the web site of Rob Sherman, the reporter who asked the question. For the record I am not an atheist and I disagree with a lot of things Mr. Sherman has to say on many topics (he's quite the leftist, which I am not), but when people in power start making statements that certain classes of people aren't really citizens merely because of their beliefs it sets off the red alert.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Wow, I'd never heard that quote from the elder Bush. That's pretty alarming.

Wake up people! This is the 21st century! This is supposed to be the 'land of the free' and all that!

 

[Nightfall]

"I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

I wonder if Mr. Bush would be brave enough to be the first to come and try to remove my citizenship as an American...

 

[Andrew Rothman]

As usual, WorldNetDaily.com is overstating it a little (okay, a LOT).

Here's the law journal article that this story is based on:
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Main5.html

Here's the "Arbitration Act" referred to:
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/C/96055_01.htm#section1

Here's what Canadian arbitration is all about:
http://www.adrcanada.ca/news/faq.html

The gist (for the link impaired):

Certain CIVIL matters may be resolved by arbitration rather than litigation, provided BOTH PARTIES AGREE IN ADVANCE to the arbitration and the arbitrator. The parties pull it out of the courts by AGREEING TO BE BOUND by the decision of the arbitrator.

The court apparently keeps the parties from backing out because they don't like the decision.

So:

* Both parties must agree on the arbitration and choice of arbitrator
* Only CIVIL matters may be arbitrated (that means something you can be sued for)

There are thousands of professional arbitrators in the US and Canada. If Muslim litigants choose to use a Sharia arbitrator, why not?

Pretty amazing how people flew off the handle here with a very imperfect understanding of the situation.

Remember those slams about "Journalistic Ethics"? Bring your doubt to the conservative news sources as well as the liberal ones.

Read the sig.

 

[El Tejon]

What's the beef, chief?

Do we not favor freedom of contract? Freedom of association?

O.K., so los juezes in maple syrup drinkerland go along with two parties agreeing to some form of religious law? So what?

Eeeevil corporations, and their lackeys, the eeevil white-shoed corporate lawyers, do this everyday--enter into contracts where the agreed upon law is in some other far off state or place. "§ 175.31: The law applied to any dispute shall be the law of the state of Maryland [or Utah, Indiana, whatever]."

So, why is everyone upset?

 

[Spot77]

Hey.....I think we should get a Muslim Judge Wapner and make a tv show out of it.