Taking the law into the church’s hands

Practicing Muslims on a daily basis implement the regulations and

standards of their activities by Islamic law, such as praying,

fasting, and interrelation with others and so forth. The idea for a

non-Muslim country, such as Canada, to allow the Muslim community to

arbitrate and settle disputes by the standards of their faith is one

to be welcomed, but at the same time to be cautioned.

The concern lies in who will select the panel and by what

standards? No ordinary Muslim can advise or settle disputes without

first having the credentials and experience. To add, not only would

the panelists need to be experts in Islamic jurisprudence, but they

must also be familiar with the different schools of thought, in

addition to the laws of country in which they reside and their former

homeland. This is a monumental task that needs careful deliberation.

Most importantly, the implementation of Islamic law cannot be

fully exercised until the infrastructure of an Islamic society is

functioning properly.

IMAM SAYED

MOUSTAFA AL-QAZWINI

Islamic Educational Center

of Orange County

Costa Mesa

In Canada, Jewish religious courts of law have long conducted

cases in a manner consistent with the requirements of secular

arbitration law. They are highly esteemed and their rulings, usually

centered on business and commercial disputes, are legally binding and

enforceable in the secular court system.

Normally Muslims are required to obey the shariah, but if they

live under a non-Muslim government, as hundreds of thousands do in

Canada, they are excused from that obligation. The proposal to

establish courts based on Islamic law has pitted Muslims who feel

they can fulfill their religious duties under shariah against those

who believe such law discriminates against women.

Women opposed to shariah courts argue that Islamic family law

dictates that male heirs receive a greater share of inheritance than

females; that only husbands may initiate divorce; that fathers are

usually awarded custody of children, and in extreme cases, that

fathers may force their underage daughters to marry. I have read that

many Muslim women have fled to Canada to escape repressive regimes.

They fear that Muslim women would be pressured into relying on the

shariah panels instead of secular courts, to their disadvantage.

But how could the government of a nation that prides itself on

tolerance allow Jewish courts and forbid Muslim ones as coercive?

Should a democracy determine whether one set of religious law is

respectable, while another is too inherently sexist to coexist with

secular laws?

How ironic that the Jewish B’nai Brith of Canada endorsed Muslim

tribunals while numerous Muslim organizations have launched bitter

protests. The B’nai Brith said, “Multicultural guarantees under the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the right of all

faith-based or religious groups to operate their own arbitration

courts in family law matters -- as long as participants do so

voluntarily and with due process and fairness.”

The Muslim Canadian Congress demanded they be rejected, calling

the proposal unconstitutional. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women

proclaimed, “We want the same laws to apply to us as to other

Canadian women.”

Obviously, the decisions reached by Muslim courts on matters of

personal status would have to be consistent with Canada’s charter of

rights and freedoms. If participation is voluntary and informed, I

see no objection, though the protests from those who might well come

under the authority of shariah must be accorded a full hearing.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach

Americans already have this right. Christians believe we have a

Biblical mandate to settle disputes within our own community and not

take it to the secular court level. It is viewed as shameful to ask

the world to settle a family dispute.

To this end, our first level of settlement, as listed in Matthew’s

Gospel account, is personal confrontation. If that doesn’t work, we

take a witness. If that doesn’t work, the elders and then the entire

congregation are brought in. In broader cases, there are Christian

arbitration courts and services available. In the end, all parties

need to agree to the authority of these courts. These agreements are

in secular legal language that is binding in a court of law. This

type of arbitration guarantees that our values as Christians will be

upheld in the process of determining the case.

On a secular level, daytime television is full of examples of this

happening. In order to get your case on “The People’s Court,” for

example, participants must agree to abide by the ruling and drop any

further legal action. Christian courts, councils, and elder boards

use this same type of agreement.

That being said, I see no reason why two Muslim parties could not

agree to have their disagreement settled by an Imam who understands

their culture, rather than a secular culture that does not.

The only problem would come if all Muslims would be forced into

Muslim arbitration court, or Jews into one Jewish arbitration court

or Christians into one Christian arbitration court. Both parties must

first agree on the foundations upon which these courts will make

their decisions. The articles given us for reference mention several

differing views on shariah law. People of these differing views may

need differing courts to arbitrate a settlement.

Bottom line, these courts are helpful and legal and should be

encouraged, but not forced.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE

PASTOR RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

Wouldn’t it be lovely if Christians would settle disputes among

ourselves in the manner prescribed by Jesus in Matthew (18:15-17):

between the two disagreeing parties or, if necessary, including two

or three sister/brother Christians to adjudicate? If only we

Christians would take to heart Saint Paul’s words to the Corinthians

(1 Cor. 6:1-8): “When any of you has a grievance against another, why

do you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter,

instead of taking it to other Christians to decide who is right? ...

Such lawsuits are already real defeats for you.”

Alas, we Christians are not able to settle conflicts within the

family and we sometimes seem to race to civil courts to settle our

disputes for us. At this, I believe, Jesus weeps.

Since Christians cannot provide exemplary guidance for Muslims or

Jews or anyone else on this one I am grateful again for the

separation of Church and State in our country, which seems to me to

prohibit what Canadian law apparently allows. Our civil courts reject

cases concerned solely with canon laws of Christian churches, so I

wonder why religious groups would want to take cases, which are

currently responsibilities of civil courts, upon ourselves.

It would be very important for people of faith to clarify our

motivations, if this was ever attempted. With regard to “civil and

business claims,” religious groups should not be able to allow what

the law of their country prohibits and/or what is required by basic

principles of human rights such as the “truths” held to be

“self-evident” by the Declaration of Independence.

VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

St. Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Too often, women’s rights take a back seat to respect for cultural

diversity. Such things as ritual genital mutilation (“clitorectomy”)

in Sudan and laws requiring women to wear veils in public in Saudi

Arabia are thus tolerated. Equal rights laws should be enforced and

alternative legal systems which conflict should not be publicly

supported.

In the United States, we have chosen the Constitution -- not

shariah -- as our system of law. If both parties in a dispute want to

consult their clergy and use their religious organization as an

agreed-upon means for private settlement, they have the right to do

so in many situations. But in matters where agreements need to be

legally binding, the issue should be subject to review by secular

lawyers and courts -- and follow state law. This should apply whether

the religion is Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism or any other

tradition.

The Shariah/Muslim family tribunals “will ghettoize and further

marginalize women,” according to the Canadian Council of Muslim

Women. In their study of shariah arbitration, they are disturbed to

find that no records are kept, court oversight is not required,

arbitrators do not have to be trained in civil law or shariah, and

there are no norms for settlements about alimony and support

payments. They describe Muslim decrees as “arbitrary,” rather than

consistent with a standardized code of jurisprudence.

Another important consideration is the extent to which consent to

arbitration may be considered truly be voluntary, or if women might

experience undue pressure from family, community and religious

affiliation. The film “Osama” is an abject portrayal of one woman’s

unsuccessful struggle for freedom during the Taliban regime.

A proposal similar to the one being considered in Canada was

wisely rejected in England as contrary to the universal rights

granted to all. A solution to the backlog of civil cases cannot be at

the expense of justice and human rights.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa