Synopsis of the panel discussion on Sharia tribunals in Canada and Women's Rights, hosted by the International Campaign for Defense of Women's Rights in Iran, on March 7, 2004.

The following synopsis of the day long public forum provides some of the main points presented by some of the speakers. Please note that this is a synopsis and does not do justice to the speakers or their speeches.

Panelists:

• Azar Majedi, Organization for Women's Liberation; Editor of Medusa
• Maryam Namazi, International Federation of Iranian Refugees
• Nadia Mohmoud, Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq; Middle East Centre for Women's Rights
• Syed B. Suharwardy, Muslim against Terrorism, initiator of judicial tribunal for Muslims in Canada
• Azam Kamguian, Women's Rights in Middle East
• Homa Arjomand, International Campaign for the defense of Women's Right in Iran-Canada
• Sheila Ayala, Humanist Association of Canada
• Dr Marvin F. Zayed, Diahumanism Research Centre
• Fatemola, Writer, author, dramatist
• Alia Hogben, Canadian Council of Muslim Women

Syed Mumtaz Ali, the moving force behind the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (IICJ), was invited, accepted, but did not come. Mr. Suhrawardy, who also supports the IICJ, was also invited but did not come. Professor Badawi (of Halifax) was invited but declined because he said that the two-week notice before the public forum did not give him enough time to prepare; however, he did manage to go to the panel discussion Women’s Rights within Islamic Law organized at U of T (St. George campus) on the same date at the same time.

Homa Arjmand of the International Campaign for the Defense of Women’s Rights in Iran organized on online petition that has so far been signed by more than 1700 people. She said that the introduction of Sharia in Canada is being encouraged under ‘religious freedom’ by defenders of multiculturalism’, and by defenders of human rights and women’s equality who are afraid to take a stand because they will be called anti-Muslim. To these people we say that some rights are not to be respected such as the right to suicide or the right to drink and drive, or the right to a system of law that is discriminatory towards women. For the government of Ontario to allow this to take place because it will ease the burden on the courts is like allowing an amateur to do heart surgery on a patient because the healthcare system can’t afford a heart surgeon.

Sheila Ayala of the Humanist Association of Canada, said that we are not anti-religious, it’s a great source of comfort to people, but we do take a stand against religious excess. We find it insulting that Muslims find that Canadian law is not good enough for them. Given that Canada will never be able to satisfy all Muslim needs, one wonders why they choose to live here and not Saudi Arabia?

If arbitration under Sharia law is allowed in Ontario, they will push for it in other provinces, and it won’t stop there. They will want separate schools for boys and girls, female doctors for women, separate parks, and so on. Implementing Sharia even in a mild form will give it credibility around the world. We in Canada need to ensure justice is equal for all citizens.

Azam Kamguian came from the U.K. to speak at this public forum. She said that the move to introduce Sharia law in Canada is a political move. It will cause fragmentation of Muslims and apartheid, which suits Islamists. Canada’s openness and flexibility allows Islamists to impose a closed and rigid framework of laws on their community. Why can’t Muslim women use arbitration under Canadian law? Introducing Sharia will allow Islamists to oppress Muslims legally.

The introduction of Islamic law will forcefully oppose free thought, freedom of expression and freedom of action. Accusations of impurity, of apostasy are waiting to silence any voice of dissent. Therefore universal human rights are essential to ensure a certain standard of living for people across the globe. While it is often alleged that human rights constitute a means of enforcing western ideals on others who may not believe in them, it is not acceptable to let governments and authorities get away with many of the abuses by using cultural relativism as an excuse. We cannot let cultural relativism become the last refuge of repression. To accept religion as a justification for human rights abuses is to discriminate against the abused and to send out the message that they are undeserving of human rights protection.

Women and Sharia: women’s testimony in a court of law is half that of a man i.e. two women’s testimony counts as that of one man’s; women are not allowed to marry a non-Muslim whereas a Muslim man can; women are not allowed to come into contact with men to whom they are not related unless in the presence of a male relative. This makes it very difficult for women to leave their homes and participate in society in any way at all. Religious belief and practice should be voluntary and a private matter, otherwise people practice religion not because of their own convictions but because they fear sanctions that will be imposed on them if they don’t. When the law gets involved, religion is no longer an individual matter but one that involves the state.

The problem for us in the west is how to oppose these violations of human rights without being accused of neo-colonialism and racism and of failing to respect different cultures. There is a key point here, that human rights are vested in the individual, not the group. As soon as rights are accorded to any group rather to individuals, it creates the possibility of conflict not only between the group and those outside it, but between the group and its own members. Any group that denies its members the right to leave [as Islamists would accuse a Muslim of apostasy if s/he rejects Sharia] is in contravention of a fundamental principle of human rights.

Maryam Namazi came from London U.K to speak at this public forum. She spoke most persuasively and we have asked her to email us a copy of her speech which will be posted when it becomes available.

She was very clear that Sharia is inherently discriminatory towards women, and it’s the reason why many Muslim women flee Islamist societies and come to places like Canada. There is a sham concept of voluntary participation in arbitration under Sharia while the reality is that it leaves women at the mercy of reactionary and patriarchal elders and imams. This move will leave immigrants forever outside the orbit of Canadian society.

Fatemolla asked ‘How Islamic is Sharia?’ He said that Sharia violates the Quran again and again and that it is an institution of political Islam (ref. Maudoodi). We don’t have to denounce Islam or the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, to denounce Sharia. He cited several verses of the Quran to illustrate his point.

It’s a shame that we Muslims are not merciful even to our own women. People’s lives are not toys to be played with that you [Islamists] can call another Muslim a non-Muslim. The introduction of arbitration under Sharia law in Ontario will allow Muslim women to be blackmailed quietly, and we won’t even know it. Last, but not least, human rights are not negotiable.

Farzane Shahid said that the models of Sharia in Pakistan, Nigeria and other places have failed women: in Pakistan, a woman cannot be a witness in her own rape case. These models of Sharia are based on taqlid (blind obedience of authority in religion) and need to be revisited under ijtihad (independent reasoning).

Sima Alipour (Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq) spoke of the current conditions of women in Iraq, especially those who oppose religious authority and the imposition of Sharia and whose lives are threatened by extremists.

Mubin Shaikh is a mediator at Masjid-I-Noor and applies Sharia law to his practice. He said that Sharia is dynamic and therefore its application is uneven. He agreed that the Quran does not mention stoning as a punishment for adultery. Regarding a point made earlier by one of the other panelists that according to the proponents of Sharia law in Ontario, rejecting Sharia amounts to apostasy and the punishment for apostasy is death, he clarified that if Canadian law is above Sharia but you accept that Sharia is nevertheless supreme, then it is not apostasy if you don’t accept Sharia.

He said that at this public forum there were no specialists or experts in Islamic law and jurisprudence and therefore how can people talk on a subject like the Sharia about which they know so little?

The discussion was then opened to the floor.

Azar Majedi, speaking directly to Mubin Shaikh’s last point said that, “I am offended that you say there are no experts here to talk about the Sharia. We have lived under it. We ARE the experts.”

- End –