Is Sharia Law Being Practiced In Canada

[betsy]

Newbie had provided several links from another thread regarding another discussion. I clciked on the said site, and curiously looked into some other articles they got.

One particular article grabbed me. I tried to copy and paste, but couldn't. So I copied by hand the particular segment that piqued me. It is that last sentence provided below that is of particular interest.

"JOINT STATEMENT ON SHARIA LAW DECISION IN ONTARIO

Our organization, which collectively represent thousand of Muslims across Canada are shocked and dismayed at the decision to discontinue the use of faith-based arbitration in Ontario.

We believe that the decision of Mr McGuinty is a step backwards.

Muslim faith-based mediation and dispute resolution will continue in Muslim communities across Canada."

http://www.macnet.ca/national/index.php

Is this "faith-based mediation and dispute resolution," the dreaded Sharia Law?

[gc1765]

You're going to have to give us more information than that. Do you have another link handy that is more specific. It seems that Christians & Jews have been using the same "faith-based arbitration" as well, so what's the problem?

Interestingly, the same website has these links:

MAC Condemns Barbaric Terror Attacks in London

OTTAWA - The Muslim Association of Canada today issued a statement condemning the

barbaric attacks in the underground system and on a street bus in London, UK.

Link

The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) joins all Canadians in unequivocally condemning the

shameless, cowardly, and barbaric acts against innocent civilians. MAC affirms that such acts

are in explicit violation of fundamental Islamic and moral values.

Link

For all those people who still deny that muslims are condemning terrorism, even when statements proving the contrary are staring them in the face.

[jbg]

They call it "faith based arbitration". If someone is more or less forced to accept being bound by "arbitration" it should be considered contrary to Canadian law and not enforced. Further, those that force another, usually a woman, to be bound be Sharia should be prosecuted for extortion or coercion.

[gc1765]

They call it "faith based arbitration". If someone is more or less forced to accept being bound by "arbitration" it should be considered contrary to Canadian law and not enforced.

I agree. But it seems this has been going on since 1991, and Christians and Jews have been using this same system...so why hasn't anyone complained about this before?

[jbg]

They call it "faith based arbitration". If someone is more or less forced to accept being bound by "arbitration" it should be considered contrary to Canadian law and not enforced.

I agree. But it seems this has been going on since 1991, and Christians and Jews have been using this same system...so why hasn't anyone complained about this before?

There's no undercurrent of violence. That's the difference.

[killjoy]

Is Sharia Law Being Practiced In Canada?

snot an issue. snot a law. People want to beat their wives or kids or whatever they better not be surprised when they end up in jail no matter what books may say they can.

Says somewhere in the bible I can kill my kids if they disobey me, (yeah it's occurred to me, so what?), but you're going to hafta face 'the Man' before you face the Big Guy.

.

[JMH]

YES

[betsy]

So despite the ruling of McGuinty, Sharia Law can still be practiced within the Muslim faith?

So Muslim women in Canada are bound to be under the Sharia Law?

[jbg]

So despite the ruling of McGuinty, Sharia Law can still be practiced within the Muslim faith?

So Muslim women in Canada are bound to be under the Sharia Law?

Whatever is it, it's a barbarity that has no place in Canada or any civilized country.

[scribblet]

They call it "faith based arbitration". If someone is more or less forced to accept being bound by "arbitration" it should be considered contrary to Canadian law and not enforced.

I agree. But it seems this has been going on since 1991, and Christians and Jews have been using this same system...so why hasn't anyone complained about this before?

I'm guessing not too many people were aware of it, but apart from that, there didn't seem to be the issue of forced compliance. IMO it was simply the first step towards expanding Sharia law, I doubt it would stop at arbitration issues.

[gerryhatrick]

Is this "faith-based mediation and dispute resolution," the dreaded Sharia Law?

Why is it so "dreaded"?

[Argus]

Is this "faith-based mediation and dispute resolution," the dreaded Sharia Law?

Why is it so "dreaded"?

Depends. How much do you hate women?

[gerryhatrick]

Is this "faith-based mediation and dispute resolution," the dreaded Sharia Law?

Why is it so "dreaded"?

Depends. How much do you hate women?

I don't hate women at all.

You give a pretense of understanding so perhaps you can answer.

[Leafless]

So despite the ruling of McGuinty, Sharia Law can still be practiced within the Muslim faith?

So Muslim women in Canada are bound to be under the Sharia Law?

WHO CARES!

Muslims do what they want regardless and when they don't like what you say, threaten the unfaithful with violence, AKA TERRORISM.

Countries better get off their butts and better start thinking about the old 'fish in the pond trick'.

Maybe it's time to drain the pond.

[jbg]

I'm guessing not too many people were aware of it, but apart from that, there didn't seem to be the issue of forced compliance. IMO it was simply the first step towards expanding Sharia law, I doubt it would stop at arbitration issues.

Do you mean "heads will roll" in the literal sense?

[betsy]

Here is an explanation what Sharia Law is:

"Islam is often in the news these days. News articles that relate to Islam sometimes refer to the Shariah. What is the Shariah? The Shariah is the Islamic Sacred Law which was developed hundreds of years ago by Islamic jurists using the Koran and hadith (remembrances about what the Prophet Muhammad said and did during the time he was alive) as guideposts. The Shariah outlines a complete way of life in a legal framework which tells you how to do everything from how to pray to how to go to the bathroom. What does the Shariah law actually state? Here are some examples of Shariah law:

1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;

2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;

3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;

4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;

5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;

6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;

7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;

8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;

9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;

10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;

11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;

12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;

13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;

14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;

15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;

16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;

17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;

18. Laughing too much is forbidden;

19. Musical instruments are unlawful;

20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden;

21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory;

22. Slavery is permitted;

23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;

24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and,

25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad).

In order to demonstrate to you that the above examples of Shariah law are real and valid, I will excerpt below the relevant legal clauses relating to each of the above numbered headings. First, I will repeat the heading. Then, I will excerpt the relevant legal clauses."

http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475

[betsy]

I can't really blame the Muslims for wanting to bring in their way of life in Canada. Hey, who wouldn't try to get away with things....if there is a possibility that it could happen? If you can have the wrist....why not see if you could also get the elbow?

But what I can't understand is why Mr McGuinty...would EVEN CONSIDER....such a thing!

McGuinty's first reaction should've been, "HA-HA-HA!"

followed by...."YOU GOTTA BE JOKING ME, ABDUL!"

It seems I make light of this....but in reality, it isn't funny at all. I only hope the reason he even entertained the idea was because he didn't know anything about Sharia Law.

That's not a great excuse because he shouldn't consider offering a parallel or integrated legal system (using the term loosely by western standards when referring to Sharia Law), into our society. That's not a great excuse but it's better than any alternative.

More likely it was only a political attempted appeasement that he wisely considered unwise.

[gc1765]

There's no undercurrent of violence. That's the difference.

Is there an undercurrent of violence in this situation? I read the link, and it didn't say anything about violence, which is why I asked for more information on this subject.

[jbg]

There's no undercurrent of violence. That's the difference.

Is there an undercurrent of violence in this situation? I read the link, and it didn't say anything about violence, which is why I asked for more information on this subject.

There always is in Islam.

[gc1765]

There always is in Islam.

Do you have proof of this? Or do you simply go by stereotypes?

[betsy]

You're going to have to give us more information than that. Do you have another link handy that is more specific. It seems that Christians & Jews have been using the same "faith-based arbitration" as well, so what's the problem?

Interestingly, the same website has these links:

MAC Condemns Barbaric Terror Attacks in London

OTTAWA - The Muslim Association of Canada today issued a statement condemning the

barbaric attacks in the underground system and on a street bus in London, UK.

Link

The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) joins all Canadians in unequivocally condemning the

shameless, cowardly, and barbaric acts against innocent civilians. MAC affirms that such acts

are in explicit violation of fundamental Islamic and moral values.

Link

For all those people who still deny that muslims are condemning terrorism, even when statements proving the contrary are staring them in the face.

But we are not talking of terrorism, are we?

You seem to equate the mere mention of the word, "Muslim"....to terrorism.

[betsy]

There's no undercurrent of violence. That's the difference.

Is there an undercurrent of violence in this situation? I read the link, and it didn't say anything about violence, which is why I asked for more information on this subject.

You asked for it...and there it is. Right above your post.

[betsy]

There always is in Islam.

Do you have proof of this? Or do you simply go by stereotypes?

Isn't post #16 explicit enough?

Anyway....you are obviously claiming otherwise....or refuting. Substantiate your claim. Do you have any proof at all?

[gc1765]

But we are not talking of terrorism, are we?

You seem to equate the mere mention of the word, "Muslim"....to terrorism.

No, I do not equate Muslim with terrorism, and to suggest such a thing is personally insulting to me.

I only brought it up because it happened to be in the link that YOU provided, and because some people are STILL in denial that Muslims are condemning terrorism, despite all of the other links I have provided on other threads.

[gc1765]

You asked for it...and there it is. Right above your post.

Where? Your definition of Sharia law that you got from a different website? Are you actually suggesting that all of those points you listed have been taking place in Canada since 1991? I'm very surprised I have not heard of this, can you please provide a link that suggests THIS definition of Sharia law has been taking place in Canada?

Anyway....you are obviously claiming otherwise....or refuting. Substantiate your claim. Do you have any proof at all?

What claim? I don't believe I made any claims about it being violent or not. I simply asked for more information to back up someone else's claim that this Sharia law which has been taking place in Canada since 1991 involves violence.