Letters
to the Editor
The
Washington Post
Dear Sir
or Madam:
The
article by the Post's DeNeen L. Brown:
"Canadians Allow Islamic Courts to Decide Disputes," is as
interesting as it is troubling.
I think
the Canadian authorities are not only naïve but delusional. The idea of
establishing a shari`a court, even for limited
civil disputes, without public comment and vetting is patently undemocratic not
only for Canadians but particularly for Muslims, who are expected to
participate in this new religious court, albeit voluntarily.
Here is
what is troubling about this new judicial arrangement! First and foremost, the
very name "Islamic Court of Civil Justice" is a misnomer, for shari`a law is
inherently unjust, discriminatory, and gender-biased in favor of Muslim males.
Moreover, as developed by classical Muslims jurists, this court is not of
divine origin. Another important question that has been and will continue to be
asked by all is: "whose shari`a?"
Is it as practiced in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, or Indonesia? Next:
"which of the four established Schools of Jurisprudence" will the shari`a court
follow? Is it according to the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi`is, or Hanbalis? And then there is the "qualification
rule", or rather the "lack of qualifications." It is generally
well known that our local imams and self-proclaimed jurists are not adequately
trained, nor have they attended accredited theological seminaries. So how can
half-educated imams adjudicate in matters of law?
Additionally,
case files from Middle Eastern and South Asian nations have revealed the
discriminatory practices of these Muslim Family Courts in matters of marriage,
divorce, and inheritance. A man can divorce his wife (or wives) by unilateral
repudiation (talaq), a procedure acceptable in
shari`a.
A woman can only obtain a divorce by the consent of her husband (who makes that
practically impossible) or by judicial decree, but only on limited grounds. In
terms of inheritance, a woman's share is less than that of a man, even though
both are equal in degree of relation to a deceased. In business matters, shari`a requires
signatures of two women witnesses versus that of one man, for agreements and
legal documents. These are only a few of the inequities inherent in shari`a legal
procedures.
Finally,
why would Muslims, who ran away from shari`a-based
countries to Canada, want be confronted by another unjust shari`a
court when Canadian civil law grants them equitable justice?
Sincerely,
Mohamad K. Yusuff
Email: bensuf@yahoo.com
Sent to
the Washington Post on April 28, 2004
Posted
May 12, 2004