Should Canada Consider Establishing Sharia Courts?

By September 27, 2013Faith, John Redekop, Letters, Pop Voice

By John H. Redekop Ph.D. Upon returning from holidays I read an Opinion column which surprised me. In the September 17 issue of The Times, Professor Hamish Telford published a generally helpful article which, however, included an observation with which I strongly disagree. He stated that “the governments of Canada will probably have to consider some very thorny issues, such as Sharia law courts, state funding for Islamic schools, and polygamy.” Given space limitations I can address only one issue.

In my opinion it would be utter folly to establish Sharia courts. They uphold basic Muslim values which reject democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal rights for women. Significantly, we all too frequently hear of instances, in lands where Muslims are the majority, of persecution, even killing, of anyone who leaves the Muslim faith. Sharia courts widely uphold such evil.

Concerning rape, for example, Sharia law is brutal, repulsive, and outrageous. Consider the following. “Rape of Muslim women is against Islamic law although the rape of non-Muslim is not [under certain conditions].”

“Islam places the burden of avoiding sexual encounters of any sort on the women.”

“Under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or there are four make witnesses.”

“The crime of Zina (fornication and adultery) is not confirmed except if the fornicator admits it, or with the testimony of four trusted men, while the testimony of women is not accepted.”

“Islamic law rejects forensic evidence (such as DNA)….An interesting situation thus sometimes develops in cases where a victim alleges rape and the man denies that sex even took place. In the absence of four witnesses, rape cannot be proven. The woman’s testimony then becomes a ‘confession’ of adultery. She can be stoned, even though the male is unpunished, since he never ‘confessed’ to a sexual act.!”

“Islamic law amounts to a free pass for sexual predators.”

All of these statements are taken from the official site: “What does the Religion of Peace Teach About Rape”.

Why would Professor Telford even suggest that Canadian governments consider establishing such a primitive and exploitative legal system? May Canadian society and Canadian governments never stoop that low!

Join the discussion 16 Comments

  • wintershades says:

    I thought becoming a “Canadian Citizen” meant one had to abide by “our laws” and “regulations”. Just asking?

  • mittmartin says:

    While we’re on the subject of dumb things that’ll never happen, I firmly believe that ducks and pigs shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

    • Gerda Peachey says:

      Mitt: Dalton McGuinty was perilously close to endorsing sharia law.

      It was mainly due to the outcry from Canadian Muslim women that his madness did not become the norm in Ontario.

      • mittmartin says:

        Yes Gerda, because what he clearly meant to endorse was the idea that a woman could be stoned to death for only having three witnesses to her rape.

        After all, when Ontario started allowing Jewish and Catholic tribunals in 1991, all sorts of people were stoned to death for using their dishwashers on the sabbath or cussing out their parents.

    • wintershades says:

      Oh but we have had dumb things happen! It only takes a few “bleeding hearts” to start lobbying and before ya know it millions of tax dollars are spent “legislating/enacting laws to protect the “stupid”. Common sense is no longer in anyone’s vocabulary. “Sharia Law” is a human rights issue. They feel they have “the right” to rape/stone/murder “their” humans………. Good Grief!

      • mittmartin says:

        Okay, guys, listen, here’s the thing. What you’re doing is taking an example of a terrible thing that sometimes happens (stoning) based on some people’s interpretation of a complex moral/religious code (Sharia), and applying it to anybody who finds any value in that code, regardless of their interpretation.

        Doing that is stupid and racist. Saying things like “they feel they have the right to rape/stone/murder” makes you sound like an asshole because you’re painting with an incredibly broad brush. The quote Redekop is getting all worked up about isn’t saying “Canada needs to consider letting immigrants stone and rape people.” That would be moronic. Nobody thinks that.

        You’re talking about a religion that has 1.6 billion followers. Believe it or not within that 1.6 billion there are a few different interpretations of the Quran. The vast majority of them have the same opinions about stoning and raping as you do. The fact that I even have to say that is ridiculous.

        What I was trying to get at in my other comment is that the Bible has all sorts of passages about the various people you’re allowed to stone, and yet hardly anybody is afraid of Lutherans.

        I mean in Texas they occasionally execute the mentally handicapped, or people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes, does that mean that we should be all freaked out about Texans moving here? Alberta used to chemically sterilize people, and a disproportionate number of those sterilized were Aboriginal. Should we be terrified that we have an openly Albertan Prime Minister?

        Don’t generalize about people, or belief systems, whether you know anything about them or not. And for the love of god stop using “scare quotes,” it makes you look silly.

  • meghanncoughlan says:

    This reminds me of the woman who called the radio station to suggest that deer crossing signs be moved away from high traffic areas because we shoudn’t be encouraging them to cross where they are likely to be hit.

  • Observation says:

    Today, muslim demography is varied. Muslims in many societies around the world interpret the faith differently and some extremists have hijacked the faith do so for political reasons due to an absence of functioning governments.

    Islam is a faith of peace, religious tolerance, diversity and charitable giving. The sharia law you speak of that is imposed by an extremist sect of Islam is not representative of the views of all Muslims living around the world. Just as not all Irish supported the IRA. Just as not all Germans supported the Nazis.

    Please seek to understand instead of using selective quotes to make porous a porous argument that spreads inaccuracies that can only result in a further clash of ignorance. Muslims and the west are not suffering from a clash of civilizations but rather a clash of ignorance.

Leave a Reply