The problems...

Submitted by J.S. (Canada), Sep 27, 2005 at 15:40

As I understand it, the 1991 Arbitration Act (in Ontario) was not used by Muslims to settle disputes (that is, Muslims were not compelled to use an Arbitration Board.) But then, the 1991 Act was amended -- these amendments made the decisions of any Arbitration Board final and binding (no appeals), and enforceable by Canadian courts. This is when Syed Mumtaz Ali began to advocate for the implementation of Sharia law in Ontario.

The problem (as I see it, anyway) is that if you read about Syed Mumtaz Ali's beliefs (available on his website), you'll discover, for example, that he's resolved himself into accepting/believing that stoning an adulteress woman to death is OK (yes, capital punishment is fine and dandy.) Others have called Syed an Islamist...(He has a law degree from a Canadian university, btw.)

Although -- obviously -- even if Sharia law were implemented in Canada, there's no way that capital punishment would ever be implemented -- STILL, it's the mind-set -- of the 7th century -- of the Mumtaz Ali's that I find problematic...what else would they be advocating for women that would be pre-modern? and, really, where's the oversight? It's one thing to make claims about how no decision would ever violate Canadian law, and quite another to monitor it.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".