---

Fra The Globe and Mail

A campaign against Ontario allowing sharia tribunals to resolve family
disputes has spread to Europe, where protests are planned for Sept. 8 in
London, Paris, Amsterdam, Düsseldorf and Stockholm.

As many as 89 international groups have spoken out against an Ontario law
allowing faith-based arbitration, saying it will create a precedent for
religious fundamentalists working to suppress women's rights, and give
fodder to political Islamists in Europe who are also lobbying for sharia law
to be used to settle family matters.

"A lot of French people cannot believe it, because for us Canada is a
country with very good rights for women. It is unbelievable," said Michèle
Vianès, president of Regards de femmes, a non-governmental organization in
France. "Under sharia, women do not have the same rights as men. Sharia is a
bad idea. How is it possible that Canada would back it?"

Ja, hvordan er det muligt?



September 7 2005
Opposition to sharia-based courts is not fear-mongering
http://www.judeoscope.ca/isla/050907_sharia.htm
by David Ouellette

On the eve of the international day of protest against the possible
introduction of sharia-based courts in Ontario, activists,
journalists and politicians have commented at length the pros and
cons of faith-based mediation and arbitration as well as the Boyd
report in favour of implementing such courts. In this Canadian
feud, with the exception of Quebec's unanimous rejection of sharia
in the media and political arena, the pro-sharia crowd has by and
large consisted - not considering the Islamists - of the fair,
liberal-minded intelligentsia of this nation.


..........

Hvad er det man faktisk ønsker at opnå?



It would appear that the editors of the Globe and Mail cannot be
bothered to look at exactly who launched the sharia-based courts
project and, most importantly, to what ends.

The media has repeatedly reported that the project was born in 2003
when Syed Mumtaz Ali, a lawyer and President of the Canadian
Society of Muslims, created the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice.
That's only partially true. What the media persistently fails to
report, however, is that Mumtaz Ali has been advocating the
implementation of binding sharia courts for a much longer time and
that his goals reach far beyond the establishment of a mere Islamic
arbitration and mediation process.

In 1995, in an interview posted on the Canadian Society of Muslims
website, Mumtaz Ali declared: "Do you want to govern yourself by
the personal law of your own religion, or do you prefer governance
by secular Canadian family law? If you choose the latter, then you
cannot claim that you believe in Islam as a religion and a complete
code of actualized life by a Prophet who you believe to be a mercy
to all".



Altså, hvis man ikke vælger sharia-domstolen så er man simpelthen ikke
muslim. Og familieretten er bare begyndelsen, iflg manden som startede
projektet.



Much has been said about the intimidation that Muslims would face
should they refrain from taking their cases to Islamic courts. If
truth be said, the intimidation has already begun, as this
statement by Mumtaz Ali aptly suggests.

Mumtaz Ali is unambiguous about his objectives. Islam provides a
whole set of laws to which he, as all Islamists, expects true
Muslims to strictly abide. As to those who prefer to be ruled by
Canadian law, they are apostates, a grave accusation employed only
by radical Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Mawdudi
persuasions. Apostasy, it should be reminded, is punished by death
according to sharia.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the same man who
launched the campaign for Islamic personal and family law in Canada
not only believes that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
should make room for the punishment of Muslim apostates in Canada,
but that failing to do so would be "a flagrant breach of equality
rights". This is what Mumtaz Ali argues in an article entitled The
Salman Rushdie Issue: A Synthesis of the Islamic Law of
Blasphemy/Apostasy in the Context of Canadian Multiculturalism.
Because the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
acknowledges the "supremacy of god and the rule of law", writes
Mumtaz Ali, it follows that sharia, as divine law, is compatible
with the Charter. Moreover, because the Charter commits Canada and
its institutions to the preservation of its multicultural heritage,
Mumtaz Ali concludes that the punishment of would-be Muslim
apostates should be enshrined as a right of the Muslim community.

As preposterous as Mumtaz Ali's mental acrobatics to justify
Charter-sanctionned penalties for would-be apostates are, it bears
recalling that his project of sharia-based courts drew outright
laughter at first from Muslims and non Muslims alike. Yet less than
2 years after the creation of the Institute of Islamic Civil
Justice, a former Ontario attorney general has recommended the
implementation of Islamic courts, a provincial government is
seriously considering the project and the Canadian liberal media is
advocating it whilst pouring scorn on those who warn Canadians that
these courts are but a stepping stone for the edification of an
Islamic legal system to be enforced by Canadian law. The Globe and
Mail editorial board and assorted blindly liberal multiculturalists
can call the sound critique of the sharia-based courts
fear-mongering and thumb their collective nose at sharia opponents
all they want, but denial will not stop Mumtaz Ali and his ilk from
trying to impose legal apartheid on Canadian Muslims and destroy
the legal and social fabrics of this nation.