...Oh good! Let's take a look shall we?
Why wouldn't it? Just what is going to stop it?
The establishment of Sharia courts is something which divides even the Muslim population. Such courts have been proven in the UK to be anti-women, anti the rule of law and anti-human rights. British Sharia courts have been the target of undercover sting TV documentaries - that's how bad they are. But the Canadian government does not see any of this. Despite all the evidence it sees a Deer & is coming down on the side of Sharia because they are convinced that Islam "is not incompatible with Western secular democracy".
Meanwhile back in the real world Twitter is censoring images of an Iranian woman during the recent demonstrations removing her hijab as "sensitive material" (Why? Just who do they imagine would be sensitive enough to be upset by such a picture? And why is Twitter concerned about upsetting the kind of people who would imprison & possibly torture to death a woman for doing this?). A Lutheran church in Minneapolis has offered office space to a Hamas linked Islamic group (Hamas is designated by the US government as a terrorist organisation) to protect them from "Islamophobia". All this while genuine defenders of Western standards & freedoms are libeled as "agitators for violence".
I used to think that all the overseas experience of things like Sharia courts would be all that it took for other countries to not follow the same path. Surely, empirical evidence - simple observation - is all it would take! But no, something stronger is at work here. We face a real struggle.
A Mufti is a legal expert empowered to give rulings on religious matters. He's not just some random Muslim off the street who only has a passing acquaintance with their Faith. This same "moderate" Mufti we see arguing at a University for the acceptance of Sharia because Sharia is benign - "all of Islam is Sharia law... what every Muslim does is Sharia Law" - also teaches elsewhere the subjugation of women: women are not permitted to mingle with people outside close family; may leave the house only with the man's permission ; and must always provide sex for the husband when required. All according, he assures us, to Sharia.
This "moderate" Mufti - and a vast number of additional Islamic scholars & Imams throughout history - is saying what so many of us non-Muslim observers have been excoriated for saying for years: Sharia is Islam. In my opinion & the opinion of most Westerners Sharia is objectively a BAD THING.
So hopefully, although people may not believe me, maybe they'll believe him. Maybe.
From Jihad Watch with intro from Robt. Spencer (do watch the full 8 minute video at the end which will show you all the material cited and more).
Video of Canadian Mufti: “The Canadian government wants to bring Sharia Law and this is not a joke”
According to Mufti Aasim A. Rashid of the Al-Ihsan Educational Foundation in Vancouver:
I’ll tell you who wants to bring Sharia Law. The Canadian government wants to bring Sharia Law and this is not a joke…..The Canadian government wanted the Muslims to be able to regulate their own issues of marriage and divorce and set up a system of mediation and arbitration to solve their problems amongst themselves [according] to Sharia Law, so it is not a burden on the court system which is already so bogged down.
Could Rashid have been lying or wildly exaggerating? A link in the article below shows that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said a few bizarre things, including:
- Islam is “not incompatible with the Western secular democracy.”
- “Canadians are quick to point out that ISIS is wrong, that Islam is not incompatible with the Western secular democracy, a free place like Canada.”
- [The Reviving the Islamic Spirit convention] “is also about celebrating our shared beliefs in justice, fairness, equality of opportunity and acceptance. The work you do in communities across the country is what builds and strengthens our multicultural fabric.”
In 2005, then-Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty did the right thing and declared that there would be “one law for all Canadians.” This was the result of a case in 2004 that was advancing the Sharia in Canada. Canada’s first Muslim lawyer, Syed Mumtaz Ali, announced that the “Islamic Institute of Civil Justice” would shortly begin arbitrating family matters on the basis of Sharia, accompanied by his verbal warning that “to be a good Muslim, all Muslims must use these sharia courts.” A heated controversy began that pitted Muslims against each other: those for and those against Sharia in Ontario, which would set a precedent for Canada.
Many women’s groups, including Muslim groups, opposed Sharia. The Muslim Canadian Congress argued that Sharia did not view women as equals, and therefore could not provide equal justice to all parties in a dispute, especially on issues of divorce, child custody and division of property.
McGuinty finally declared: “There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.”
Since 1991, arbitration decisions were being made according to religious laws and were enforceable in Ontario courts, but the Premier rescinded the Arbitration Act that settled disputes related to commerce, religion and civil issues.
Britain is a good example of how Sharia courts have trampled upon women’s rights. One Sharia court even handed down a sentence approving of honor killing. In another instance, a woman was ordered to return to her abusive, rapist husband.
Sharia advocates will flat out lie to the simple-minded and insist that Sharia is compatible with free societies, and claim that merely going to mosque or praying Islamic prayers is Sharia. To read at least “thirty shariah laws that are bad for all societies”, click HERE. (Graeme: this is such an important article I will give it a post of its own).
Canada is under siege by Islamic supremacist interests, while the media is obsessed with the “alt-right.”
“Canada’s Submission to Sharia Law,” by Rachel Ehrenfeld,
American Center for Democracy, February 4, 2018:
Canada does not need special Sharia courts. In October 2017, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith has already ruled in favor Sharia law. The Judge found a Muslim man “not guilty of sexually assaulting his wife” because the government failed to prove that he knowingly violated the criminal code, when “on many occasions [he had sex with his wife] without her consent “as both he and she believed that he had the right to do so.” The man was found not guilty because it was “his honest belief that he had the right to have intercourse with her whenever he wanted.”
Submission to Sharia Law is apparently also accepted by the Toronto District School Board. Its “Islamic Resource Guidebook for Educators 2017” has recommended Taha Ghayyur, known for advocating to gradually implement Islamic Law in North America. Ghayyur is the new Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America.
Also in October 2017, Mufti Aasim A. Rashid, Al-Ihsan Educational Foundation in Vancouver, spoke at Kamloops B.C., at Thompson Rivers University (the video was uploaded on Muhsineen YouTube Channel on October 21, 2017). He told his audience:
I’ll tell you who wants to bring Sharia Law. The Canadian government wants to bring Sharia Law and this is not a joke. Why? Because Sharia Law is simply the way Muslims are doing things.
The Canadian government wanted the Muslims to be able to regulate their own issues of marriage and divorce and set up a system of mediation and arbitration to solve their problems amongst themselves [according] to Sharia Law, so it is not a burden on the court system which is already so bogged down. The government told us – we would like you to have this system, and we would like to work on these initiatives with you [because] It’s unfair that a screech is created over everything and anything to do with Islam.
Is Rashid telling the truth? Does the government of Justin Trudeau favor Islamic Law?
In successive television interviews on CBC, in January 2016, Trudeau insisted: “Islam is not incompatible with the Western secular democracy.”
Mufti Aasim A. Rashid, Al-Ihsan Educational Foundation, Vancouver, BC
In a lecture delivered in Kamloops B.C. at Thompson Rivers University (the video was uploaded on Muhsineen YouTube Channel on October 21, 2017), Mufti Aasim A. Rashid said the following:
“I’ll tell you who wants to bring Sharia Law. The Canadian government wants to bring Sharia Law and this is not a joke. Why? Because Sharia Law is simply the way Muslims are doing things. We practice Sharia Law every time we go and pray and we perform the ablution before praying. That’s is Sharia Law. Every time we walk in the house and say “assalamualaikum” [peace be upon you] that’s Sahria Law. Every time we fast during the month of Ramadan, we pay our alms, we go for pilgrimage, it’s all Sharia Law. All of Islam is Sharia Law. What every Muslim does is Sharia Law.
“But I know, I know what people are talking about. They are talking about certain sections of the penal code when a limb might be cut, a person might be flogged or striked for committing a certain act. So I’m here to tell you that those penal codes are not even implemented in most countries that say that they have true Shariah and no Muslim has any intention to bring that here.
“And what I said about the Canadian government, the Canadian government wanted the Muslims to be able to regulate their own issues of marriage and divorce and set up a system of mediation and arbitration to solve their problems amongst themselves [according] to Sharia Law, so it is not a burden on the court system which is already so bogged down. The Canadian government wanted people like myself to sign off on custody cases where there was an allegation of parental abduction to verify that is the parent who was taking the child off to that country, are they Islamically authorized to do so or not, because there are many Muslim countries that we need see that verification from a Muslim scholar.
“That is what Sharia Law means. And the government told us we would like you to have this system, and we would like to work on these initiatives with you. It’s unfair that a scare is created over everything and anything to do with Islam.”
Essentials of Islamic Family Life – A Course Textbook by Mufti Aasim A. Rashid
The following are excerpts from Rashid’s textbook:
Roles, Duties and Obligations of the Husband
Duty: Caring for her deen [religion] and prompting her to fulfill her religious obligations.
Duty: Being protective of her honour and chastity
Details: Make sure she observes ḥijāb and Islamic dress whenever she leaves the house
Not allowing intermingling with non-maḥrams [close family relatives].
Roles, Duties and Obligations of the Wife
Duty: Obeying him [the husband] in all permissible matters
“… the Holy Prophet [Mohammad]… said: If I were to order anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would command a wife to prostrate to her husband.” — (Tirmidhi)
Duty: To not leave her house even to visit her own family members, without his permission
“Men are caretakers of women… As for women of whom you fear rebellion, convince them, and leave them apart in beds, and beat them (lightly without causing injury)…” Q4:34
Duty: To fulfill his physical needs to the best of her ability
Details: A women should not refuse intercourse with her husband without a valid reason
“…the messenger of Allah [Mohammad]… said: When a man calls his wife to his bed, and she declines his invitation (without a valid excuse), and as a result of this, the husband spends the night angry with her, the angels curse her until she wakes up in the morning.” — (Bukhāri)
“Human Rights in Islam and Common Misconceptions” authored by Abdul-Rahman al-Sheha
The book “Human Rights in Islam and Common Misconceptions” authored by Abdul-Rahman al-Sheha, was distributed for free at the Islamic booth at Dundas Square in Toronto.
The following are excerpts from the book that deal with the Sharia Islamic Law:
“The non-Muslim residents of an Islamic state are required to pay a minimal tax called “Jizyah.”
“As for the previously married male or female who commit adultery, the punishment applied to them is stoning to death…”
“If the robber kills and seizes the money, the punishment may be killing and crucifixion. If he takes money and threatens but does not kill or assault, the punishment may be amputation of his hand and leg. If he kills the victim but does not take his money, he may be executed as in murder.”….