Sharia Law in Ontario

[Resevoir Hogs]

More than 300 demonstrators converged in front of the Ontario legislature Thursday in a protest against the allowance of Islamic Shariah law in the province.

"Shame! Shame!" chanted members of the crowd, angry at the prospect of Ontario becoming the first Western jurisdiction to allow the use of Shariah law to settle family disputes.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said his Liberal government will decide "shortly" on whether to permit Islamic law to be used in the province's family arbitration cases.

He has insisted that the rights of women will not be compromised if Shariah tribunals get the go-ahead to settle marital disputes for Muslims in the province.

"Whatever we do, it will be in keeping with the values of Canadians and Ontarians," he told reporters Wednesday.

But critics consider the religious rules an affront to human rights.

"What Mr. McGuinty is doing is simply flirting with political Islam," said Homa Arjomand, co-ordinator of the International Campaign Against Shariah Court on Thursday.

"And that dangerous game is putting the lives and safety of women and children in danger. Shame."

Billed as a global campaign against Shariah law, demonstrations took place in 11 cities across Canada and Europe -- including one in London, England in front of the Canadian High Commission.

"The leader of Ontario's government -- shame on you!" said Mahmoud Ahmadi, spokesperson for the Federation of Iranian Refugees. "Shame on you!"

Not everyone at the Toronto protest, however, was against the inclusion of Shariah into the province's legal fabric.

Wahida Valiante said if Jews, Catholics and others can practice faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes, so should Muslims.

"You are creating two classes of citizens: one who have certain rights and other who don't have certain rights."

Christians and Jews have been able to use faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes since 1991.

Imam Mubin Shaik in Toronto runs the Majid El-Noor Arbitration Centre -- Canada's only Shariah law arbitration centre. He contends Shariah is in line with Canadian law.

"I subscribe to Islam. I've taken Islam as my way of life," said the Imam. "It doesn't mean it goes hand in hand with oppression with women."

The McGuinty government, meanwhile, is still reviewing a report submitted nine months ago by former provincial Attorney-General Marion Boyd.

Boyd recommends that Muslims in Ontario should have the same rights as other religious groups.

If Ontario rejects Shariah, Boyd warns, then it faces the spectre of ending all religious arbitration.

Boyd claims there is no evidence women were being discriminated against in faith-based arbitration and recommends that Ontario's existing arbitration system be strengthened.

"The recommendations that I've made put a lot of safeguards in place," Boyd told CTV. "I think they have to have the political courage to recognize they're not going to satisfy everybody."

However the prospect of Shariah-based tribunals in Ontario has raised alarm bells among women's groups across Canada and Europe, as well as human-rights activists and dissidents from Islamic states such as Iran.

They argue that Shariah, even limited to family arbitration, would create a precedent for religious fundamentalists working to suppress women's rights. They say it could discriminate against Muslim women who might be pressured into it against their will.

"They are helping the Islamic groups to legalize violence against women," campaigner Shiva Mahbobi told CTV.

"It's racism to put people in different categories and define their rights based on where they come from."

"Under Shariah law if a woman has a relationship outside marriage she can be stoned to death and girls as young as nine can be made to marry," Mahbobi added.

"I am asking the government to give a choice to these women."

New Democrat MPP Peter Kormos accused the McGuinty government of burying its head in the sand. "It's regrettable that the government has simply failed to act in the matter and failed to address concerns that are raised," he told The Globe and Mail.

Even McGuinty's opponent, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory acknowledged the government is grappling with a difficult issue, one that is "hugely emotional" for both sides, Boyd's report said.

I say over my dead body. Religion is a freaking dinosaur when it comes to laws and rights. The last thing we need is religious influence increasing in our legal system. Even if it is just for civil cases it goes against the principle of separation of state and church. If other religions have this right then they should lose it as well. What are your thoughts?

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

Wahida Valiante said if Jews, Catholics and others can practice faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes, so should Muslims.

"You are creating two classes of citizens: one who have certain rights and other who don't have certain rights."

Christians and Jews have been able to use faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes since 1991.

I didn't know that. I agree with her, though. They should repeal the Christian and Jew faith-based arbitration as well.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

As the resident MP.NET LeftwingpinkocommieLIBERAL

I say Muslims can suck my balls on this issue.

1 Nation

1 set of rules.

[catalyst]

The basic laws are set down by the 10 commandments in most western nations...think about it.....where did they originate from?

i reckon if one religion can use aith based arbitration, then so can the rest....all for many or one for all!

[Resevoir Hogs]

The basic laws are set down by the 10 commandments in most western nations...think about it.....where did they originate from?

i reckon if one religion can use aith based arbitration, then so can the rest....all for many or one for all!

The ten comandments may have the same principles of many laws still in use today, however, what are known as natural laws predate the bible and therefore things like murder, rape, theft have always generally been agreed upon as being crimes. Also some of the rules of the ten commandments certainly aren't law in most of the Western world, gluttony and adultry for example.

To say the ten commandments are the basis for laws in Canada today or in many western nations would be incorrect. The actual principle behind the legal system here is the rule of law and that comes from the Magna Carta not the Bible.

Also having faith based Arbitration in theory should be okay. But that's assuming the rules and conduct of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths are the same or equal. The only reason we allow people here to have Christian or Jewish arbitration in civil disputes is that in those systems of arbitration the Chrater of Rights and Freedoms is not trampled on. Many muslim women in this country are arguing that should Sharia law be passed it would infringe on thier charter rights as citizens of this country. There could be a case for that statement.
Nation before God always.

[hughdotoh]

They have Sharia law where I'm from, but it's pretty much restricted:

1. Always subject to Civil Law;
2. Appeal may be made to and through Civil courts, including the Supreme Court;
3. Issues of religious concern are never covered (i.e. fatwas, jihad, etc.)
4. Sharia judges must be lawyers first, passing the bar exams just like everybody else who practices law.

Pretty much a set of laws and rules applied where the Civil Law becomes ambiguous, in the same manner as Aboriginal tradition in Oz and NZ.

[Mailman]

Wahida Valiante said if Jews, Catholics and others can practice faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes, so should Muslims.

"You are creating two classes of citizens: one who have certain rights and other who don't have certain rights."

Christians and Jews have been able to use faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes since 1991.

I didn't know that. I agree with her, though. They should repeal the Christian and Jew faith-based arbitration as well.

Last time I checked Canada was more a catholic country than an islamic one. If she dont like it she can **** off elsewhere (like England rofl)

Mailman

[Spike_Kojima]

I say Muslims can suck my balls on this issue.

1 Nation

1 set of rules.

Agreed...
These canadians are starting to scare me....

[Macs.]

What is wrong with the world today ?

Why don't they go to a country where they got theire shawia-law and be happy ?

I can't stand those people, send them home. :cantbeli:

[hughdotoh]

What is wrong with the world today ?

Why don't they go to a country where they got theire shawia-law and be happy ?

I can't stand those people, send them home. :cantbeli:

Exactly.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I agree that nations like the US, Canada and Australia with native populations should allow it's natives to use traditional punishments in criminal activity though.

In some places in Australia if a Aboriginal ****s up. They get spears thrown at them or told to **** off. :P

[VISTREL]

vOTED yes! cos I dont live in Canada :lol:

[rhino]

vOTED yes! cos I dont live in Canada :lol:

what an ahole??? good thing that your vote dont count here, considering the things that go on in countries aplying sharia I say no, if you dont like emigrate to countries where they use it, the 9/11 really set back islam,didnt it???

[Inquisitor]

Christians and Jews have been able to use faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes since 1991.

well **** that.Christians and Jews can use them,why shoudln't muslims????

Again **** that,a democracy means democracy for everybody,not only for some groups.

I voted YES.I am against religious laws for civil jurisdiction,but if they gave these rights to christians and jews,I don't see ANY reason why they shouldn't give the same to muslims.

[Warlord]

Wahida Valiante said if Jews, Catholics and others can practice faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes, so should Muslims.

"You are creating two classes of citizens: one who have certain rights and other who don't have certain rights."

Christians and Jews have been able to use faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes since 1991.

I didn't know that. I agree with her, though. They should repeal the Christian and Jew faith-based arbitration as well.

Last time I checked Canada was more a catholic country than an islamic one. If she dont like it she can f*** off elsewhere (like England rofl)

Mailman

Yeah, send them back to England, sorry, send them back where their gene pool originated.

[Jobu]

Is there any surprise that Canada's liberal policies have led to this?

[Resevoir Hogs]

I voted YES.I am against religious laws for civil jurisdiction,but if they gave these rights to christians and jews,I don't see ANY reason why they shouldn't give the same to muslims.

Here's a very good reason, the civil arbitrations in those two faiths allow for impartial and balanced decisions to be made. However with the muslim faith and Sharia law the man has the upper hand and women are given the short end of the stick. Therefore it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by making muslim women legally inferior to their husbands. There have been cases where the woman had to pay off her husband with large sums of money to get a divorce even though he was being abusive.
It wouldn't be a issue if these three faiths had the same track record and were equal when it came to rights.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Is there any surprise that Canada's liberal policies have led to this?

And just for the record it's not the policy of the federal liberal government, it is the Ontario provincial liberals who are toying with this to try and get the votes of Ontario muslims. It isn't working to well though, A LOT of muslim women are pissed now with this.

[Inquisitor]

I voted YES.I am against religious laws for civil jurisdiction,but if they gave these rights to christians and jews,I don't see ANY reason why they shouldn't give the same to muslims.

Here's a very good reason, the civil arbitrations in those two faiths allow for impartial and balanced decisions to be made. However with the muslim faith and Sharia law the man has the upper hand and women are given the short end of the stick. Therefore it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by making muslim women legally inferior to their husbands. There have been cases where the woman had to pay off her husband with large sums of money to get a divorce even though he was being abusive.
It wouldn't be a issue if these three faiths had the same track record and were equal when it came to rights.

You must be kidding me.You really think christian and jew religious law put women and men on the same level??

[Resevoir Hogs]

I didn't say they did exactly, but then again not even in society today are men and women totally equal. However, what I did say is that they at least have a far superior track record in modern times of respecting both parties in divorce and custody cases. Whereas in Sharia law women are the lowest of the low and if we were to measure the levels of equality in each faith between men and women the muslim faith would be FAR below that of the other two.

[Ayura]

...Funny to see people say that countries use Sharia Law...please - name me one country...

[Inquisitor]

I didn't say they did exactly, but then again not even in society today are men and women totally equal. However, what I did say is that they at least have a far superior track record in modern times of respecting both parties in divorce and custody cases. Whereas in Sharia law women are the lowest of the low and if we were to measure the levels of equality in each faith between men and women the muslim faith would be FAR below that of the other two.

:| wtf? Your opinion is based on what?

[Resevoir Hogs]

:| wtf? Your opinion is based on what?

My Opinion is based on the outcry from muslim women in this province that are against Sharia law for the reason I already gave. That passing it would mean giving more power to the Immam's in their personal life by favouring with husbands in divorce and custody cases. Also it is a well known fact that there has not yet been a women's rights revolution in the middle east or in Islam like there was here in the Western world. Therefore Islamic laws and practices are not up to par with women's rights in this country.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Also it should be noted that Sharia law was inspired by the Quran but is not dirrectly from the Quran. It has changed and evolved over time to what it is today. And if you read it you'll find it goes against more than a few legal principles in Canadian society. For one it does not allow for equality before the law for men and women.

If you want a specific example of how Sharia is not fair to women then here you go. "A pregnancy as a result of rape first of all counts as evidence of adultery committed by the woman. The rape victim then has to prove that she really was raped. In case the man - which is very likely - denies that he has raped the woman, the woman has to name four male witnesses to prove the rape. In case the woman does not find these four male witnesses - which again is very likely - she will be charged with slander.

For the crime of slander, shari'ah prescribes a punishment of 80 lashes. On top of that, the woman will be charged with adultery, and is thus threatened with the death penalty, if she is married. In case, she is unmarried, the "adultery" counts as immoral behaviour and is punished with 100 lashes. This is at least what the criminal code of January 2000 of the Nigerian state Zamfara says."

Any law that causes the victim to carry the burden of proof is not a law that is compatible with Canadian or Western values, simple as that.

[Inquisitor]

:| wtf? Your opinion is based on what?

My Opinion is based on the outcry from muslim women in this province that are against Sharia law for the reason I already gave. That passing it would mean giving more power to the Immam's in their personal life by favouring with husbands in divorce and custody cases. Also it is a well known fact that there has not yet been a women's rights revolution in the middle east or in Islam like there was here in the Western world. Therefore Islamic laws and practices are not up to par with women's rights in this country.

I don't think you can force someone to accept Sharia law right?The muslim women who don't want to be ruled by Sharia,will not have to. But the ones who will want it,means they don't have problems with it,so I don't get why they shouldn't

[Resevoir Hogs]

You'd be surprised what a person can be forced into even in a free society. All it takes is a insular community to bully an individual to agree to something. You actually believe that a muslim woman who doesn't want Sharia would even have the ability to say she doesn't want it?! Think man, living in a muslim community she would be shunned for that view. She would be basically bullied into accepting Sharia law decisions by her family, the imam and the community. It already happens even though this proposal hasn't passed through the Provincial legislature.

read this

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050908/SHARIA08/TPNational/TopStories

It sounds like a story out of Saudi Arabia or Sudan, but no thats in Toronto. Under sharia law, her husband had to consent to the divorce?! what is that? that's not equality or fairness, but controlling and vindictive.

[Inquisitor]

You'd be surprised what a person can be forced into even in a free society. All it takes is a insular community to bully an individual to agree to something. You actually believe that a muslim woman who doesn't want Sharia would even have the ability to say she doesn't want it?! Think man, living in a muslim community she would be shunned for that view. She would be basically bullied into accepting Sharia law decisions by her family, the imam and the community. It already happens even though this proposal hasn't passed through the Provincial legislature.

read this

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050908/SHARIA08/TPNational/TopStories

It sounds like a story out of Saudi Arabia or Sudan, but no thats in Toronto. Under sharia law, her husband had to consent to the divorce?! what is that? that's not equality or fairness, but controlling and vindictive.


sorry to hear that, I might sound very egoistic and such but - if she doesn't want Sharia law, she cannot be forced.Ok,yes she can,but than she can go to a normal civil tribunal,where will be said noone can force her.

[Resevoir Hogs]

And to go to a normal civil court in this or any other country she would need to hire a lawyer. Ooops but she's under the control of the man she's trying to get a divorce from so no money for that. Oh and even if she were lucky enough to get legal aid to pay for it there would be no way they could force him to cooperate with the civil court case.

So now we run into the shortcomings of the actual civil law system in this country. Those shortcoming are what the provincial government should be addressing. Not trying to make the system even more broken by adopting Sharia law.

[Inquisitor]

And to go to a normal civil court in this or any other country she would need to hire a lawyer. Ooops but she's under the control of the man she's trying to get a divorce from so no money for that. Oh and even if she were lucky enough to get legal aid to pay for it there would be no way they could force him to cooperate with the civil court case.

So now we run into the shortcomings of the actual civil law system in this country. Those shortcoming are what the provincial government should be addressing. Not trying to make the system even more broken by adopting Sharia law.


how the hell is she in his control???that is what I don't understand

[Resevoir Hogs]

Financial control baby welcome to the world of marriage. One he has enough of the family cash to fly all the way overseas and settle down. Two she's a single mother and has a low income.

[Inquisitor]

Financial control baby welcome to the world of marriage. One he has enough of the family cash to fly all the way overseas and settle down. Two she's a single mother and has a low income.


You said it.marriage world,not sharia marriage world.It hasn't anything to do with Sharia,it is just as it is.

[roland]

Here what happens when you let the clerics mess in public. There is no bettter trouble makers. Tell them to shut up when they are out of there Church/Temple/Synagogue/Mosque or soon or later you'll suffer a religious war.
Quebec alredy rejected the Shariah in may btw :hug:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/26/shariah-quebec050526.html

[Para]

When you go to a Muslim Country they expect you to abide by their laws, in many countries women are expected to cover them selfs quite extensively. So why is it that when they want to live in a mainly Christian Country can't they abide by our rules. Lets face it they want to live here, no one asked them to come here. Now if Canada goes down this road will we limbs cut off or women stoned to death if the spouse just accuses them of having an affair. Lets face it they moved here because we have a better way of life, and what brought about this better way of life. It was brought about by having sensible laws drawn up by the people and not by a bunch of Religious fanatics.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Financial control baby welcome to the world of marriage. One he has enough of the family cash to fly all the way overseas and settle down. Two she's a single mother and has a low income.


You said it.marriage world,not sharia marriage world.It hasn't anything to do with Sharia,it is just as it is.

I meant marriage in the context of finances and control.
However, only under Sharia law is the burden of proof laid on the victim, and only in Sharia law does the husband have to consent to having a divorce. Also only in Sharia law does the system try to bribe the mother into giving up custody of her child so she can have the right to remarry later.

All marriages are not the same and neither are religions, that you can't seem to understand that is simply sad.

Having religious freedom in this country isn't absolute. For example we do not allow the religious practice of female genetal mutilation (which by the way is in Sharia law). We have decided that it is cruel and sick and although some people may believe it is their religious right well thats too bad for them. They can also excercise the right to deport themselves.

[Inquisitor]

Financial control baby welcome to the world of marriage. One he has enough of the family cash to fly all the way overseas and settle down. Two she's a single mother and has a low income.


You said it.marriage world,not sharia marriage world.It hasn't anything to do with Sharia,it is just as it is.

Are you like 8 years old? I meant marriage in the context of finances and control.
However, only under Sharia law is the burden of proof laid on the victim, and only in Sharia law does the husband have to consent to having a divorce. Also only in Sharia law does the system try to bribe the mother into giving up custody of her child so she can have the right to remarry later.

All marriages are not the same and neither are religions, that you can't seem to understand that is simply sad.

No,3 y old.

You don't understand me.Sharia law can suck for all I care,all I am saying you cannot apply that law to someone who doesn't want it.Than you say heh but the women is controlled by the husband.And I tell you,ok,let's say she is controlled by the husband in Sharia,but if she does not agree to be under Sharia law athere is no problem.Than if she let herself to be forced into something she doesn't want,than,it is another problem, that has nothing to do with Sharia law.

[Resevoir Hogs]

How does her local community, her relgious leaders, her family and her estranged husband forcing her and bullying her into accepting Sharia law decisions have nothing to do with Sharia law? It has everything to do with that law and that ideology. As in that case and countless others what SHOULD have happened obviously didn't because the situation is far more complex than you are saying it is.

[Inquisitor]

How does her local community, her relgious leaders, her family and her estranged husband forcing her and bullying her into accepting Sharia law decisions have nothing to do with Sharia law? It has everything to do with that law and that ideology. As in that case and countless others what SHOULD have happened obviously didn't because the situation is far more complex than you are saying it is.

the ideology is Islam I guess :| ?

anyways, I am telling you if she can be forced to obey to everything others say, well,than she will be forced to do anything else,not only to obey Sharia law.

[Navy]

If you want sharialaw -move to an islamic country. Otherwise STFU!

[Paracaidista]

They have Sharia law where I'm from, but it's pretty much restricted:

1. Always subject to Civil Law;
2. Appeal may be made to and through Civil courts, including the Supreme Court;
3. Issues of religious concern are never covered (i.e. fatwas, jihad, etc.)
4. Sharia judges must be lawyers first, passing the bar exams just like everybody else who practices law.

Pretty much a set of laws and rules applied where the Civil Law becomes ambiguous, in the same manner as Aboriginal tradition in Oz and NZ.

That (in bold) would be interesting to see if it's accepted by the imams :roll:

[goldman]

Absolutely no ****ing way!!!!!

[Resevoir Hogs]

How does her local community, her relgious leaders, her family and her estranged husband forcing her and bullying her into accepting Sharia law decisions have nothing to do with Sharia law? It has everything to do with that law and that ideology. As in that case and countless others what SHOULD have happened obviously didn't because the situation is far more complex than you are saying it is.

the ideology is Islam I guess :| ?

anyways, I am telling you if she can be forced to obey to everything others say, well,than she will be forced to do anything else,not only to obey Sharia law.

You obviously don't have the first clue about what it's like for an immigrant living in this country. For them the family and community and relgious leaders have A LOT of influence over their lives. In this case they would force or bully her into accepting Sharia law, like they already do, even though it has not been passed.

What I'm saying is for her to go against the will of her family and community would cause her and her children to be ostracised from family and friends. Imagine that for a second, everyone you knew gone from your life. This is especially difficult for immigrant women who may not even speak english. How are they to survive in this new country without the support financially and otherwise of their community.

Things aren't as black and white as they seem and you're argument that just because she could be forced to accept Sharia law means that her and her husband could be forced to choose civil court is rediculous. You don't seem to be able to comprehend the societal situation nor what Sharia law is and why it contradicts Canadian values and laws.

[tyovan]

If you immigrate to another country - you should adapt to the people already living there and their culture, they should not have to adapt to you and your culture. If you love your own culture so much, you should have stayed home.

That's my opinion of immigration.

[Ayura]

Again - I raise the issue - Name me one Islamic Country

[Ayura]

Also it should be noted that Sharia law was inspired by the Quran but is not dirrectly from the Quran. It has changed and evolved over time to what it is today. And if you read it you'll find it goes against more than a few legal principles in Canadian society. For one it does not allow for equality before the law for men and women.

If you want a specific example of how Sharia is not fair to women then here you go. "A pregnancy as a result of rape first of all counts as evidence of adultery committed by the woman. The rape victim then has to prove that she really was raped. In case the man - which is very likely - denies that he has raped the woman, the woman has to name four male witnesses to prove the rape. In case the woman does not find these four male witnesses - which again is very likely - she will be charged with slander.

For the crime of slander, shari'ah prescribes a punishment of 80 lashes. On top of that, the woman will be charged with adultery, and is thus threatened with the death penalty, if she is married. In case, she is unmarried, the "adultery" counts as immoral behaviour and is punished with 100 lashes. This is at least what the criminal code of January 2000 of the Nigerian state Zamfara says."

Any law that causes the victim to carry the burden of proof is not a law that is compatible with Canadian or Western values, simple as that.


First I'll address the first paragraph. That made me laugh. For quite awhile. Sharia Law can only be derived from the Qu'ran and Hadith. Any other outside source is deemed invalid. Secondly - that moments in history where the Sharia law has changed is a result of two things:

1. Where something new (let's say cigerattes for example) has arised
2. When someone want's to dictate because of own personal opinion/feelings.

When number 2 happens, it becomes corrupt and the Islamic state can't possibly be following a Sharia Law since it is now following someones opinion and not God's law. Also, you stated "If you read it"....read what? Please provide us with some "information" and books/websites or whatever...

Also, you said this:


For the crime of slander, shari'ah prescribes a punishment of 80 lashes. On top of that, the woman will be charged with adultery, and is thus threatened with the death penalty, if she is married. In case, she is unmarried, the "adultery" counts as immoral behaviour and is punished with 100 lashes. This is at least what the criminal code of January 2000 of the Nigerian state Zamfara says."


That's what the state of Nigeria say - not the Islamic state. I'll gather some resources and inform you later on this issue.

[Miles.]

Again - I raise the issue - Name me one Islamic Country

The Islamic Republic of Iran.

Your point being?

What do I win, Johnny?

[Erik2a4]

IIRC, the new Iraqi constitution has wording about Iraq being a muslim country.

One country, one set of laws, religion has no place in civil litigation...

[Ayura]

Again - I raise the issue - Name me one Islamic Country

The Islamic Republic of Iran.

Your point being?

What do I win, Johnny?


Iran isn't an Islamic state. It's a muslim nation. No such thing as Islamic "Republic".

[DE_Six]

I (obviously) voted no. No f**king way.

As Roland mentioned, my province rejected this last May.

As of September 12, so does Ontario. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126472943217_26/?hub=TopStories)

I think this is a great victory for our civil society. There has been many debates surrounding this question, both sides have had equal chance to present their point view in the media, and honestly, since Canada is an open and egalitarian society, these backward tribunals don't belong here. One society, one set of rules.

BTW, excellent posts Reservoir Hogs. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Ayura]

For a detailed explanation on the Shari'ah Law, visit these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia and http://i-cias.com/e.o/sharia.htm.

On the individual listings of the various legal rulings of all the shari'a elements, you need voluminous books that mostly have to be obtained offline, like AL-HALAAL WAL HARAAM FIL ISLAM, by Prof. Yusuf Qardhaawiy and the English Version, then BIDAAYATUL MUJTAHID WA NIHAAYATUL MUQTASID, by Ibn Rushd, the Maaliki Scholar.


Happy studying guys :)

[VISTREL]

For a detailed explanation on the Shari'ah Law, visit these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia and http://i-cias.com/e.o/sharia.htm.

On the individual listings of the various legal rulings of all the shari'a elements, you need voluminous books that mostly have to be obtained offline, like AL-HALAAL WAL HARAAM FIL ISLAM, by Prof. Yusuf Qardhaawiy and the English Version, then BIDAAYATUL MUJTAHID WA NIHAAYATUL MUQTASID, by Ibn Rushd, the Maaliki Scholar.


Happy studying guys :)

studying their names ? :lol:

edit...never mind, I thought "AL-HALAAL WAL HARAAM FIL ISLAM" was the name of a person.... :oops: :)

[Ayura]

rofl rofl rofl

[Miles.]

Again - I raise the issue - Name me one Islamic Country

The Islamic Republic of Iran.

Your point being?

What do I win, Johnny?


Iran isn't an Islamic state. It's a muslim nation. No such thing as Islamic "Republic".

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Ayura.

The CIA didn't name the country, the Iranians did. Read. Learn.

[Lazy Lob]

Self confessed IR's

IR Iran (1979)
IR Pakistan (1947)
Mauritania (Al-Jumhuriyah al-Islamiyah al-Muritaniyah)
Islamic State of Afghanistan
Federal islamic Republic of the Comoros
Islamic Republic of Greater London


http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/345/islamicrepmaur9ct.png

Blah, blah, blah .... and we all believe in pixies

[Miles.]

I don't understand how Ayura can claim that "there is no Islamic Republic, only Muslim nations", and then when evidence is produced to the contrary, he doesn't post or isn't willing to discuss it.

But he can post 3 ROFLs...

[Ayura]

Easy method of deduction. Check the countries laws against the Qu'ran. If it don't match - it's not an Islamic country.



EG: Saudi Arabia still uses "Kings and Queens". The Caliphate doesn't have kings and queens. Go figure.

[Lazy Lob]

Easy method of deduction. Check the countries laws against the Qu'ran. If it don't match - it's not an Islamic country.



EG: Saudi Arabia still uses "Kings and Queens". The Caliphate doesn't have kings and queens. Go figure.

Never heard that Saudi was an IR let alone that it had Queens...well the "regent" type I mean. There are plenty of the other type. Saudi is a monarchy with no queens or princesses.

You have a real problemo distinguishing fact from fiction.

[Ayura]

Figure of speech...

[shadower]

It is normal that canada would have laws and holydays based on let's say western cristian faith because those people first setled this land.And is normal that someone as a muslim(or any other imigrant) who came here recently respect that laws and live by them because civil laws in canada are same for eastern and western christians as well for muslims,jews/hebrew,budists etc.You can be sure you will as a muslim have same fair trial as member of any other religious group.So if you let's say hit your wife you would end up in jail like me or any other person who do so.
And about religious holydays you can take day of from work like anyone else can do.

[Bryson C]

I vote no, there should be the same laws for all Canadians.