Ave Sharia
By Fahad Pinto
Photos by Sabrina Cariati

For someone who is a political dissident on two continents, Mahmood Ahmadi looks more like a preppy conformist. His yellow sweater and beige pants match nicely with a pair of brown dress shoes. And although his well-attended coif appears downright fashionable, the earring in his left ear reveals something of the rebel inside.

A rabble-rouser in his homeland, Iran, Ahmadi barely escaped with his life when the Ayatollah began a brutal crackdown against groups opposed to his fundamentalist regime after taking power in 1979. His hands tremble and his lips quiver as he recounts difficulties he faced in Iran when the country’s Islamic government established Sharia Law. Ahmadi brings a very personal aversion to fundamentalist Islam to Toronto where, as a spokesperson for the International Campaign Against Sharia Court (ICASC) in Canada, he is once again attracting the ire of some Muslims.

Since making Canada his home, he has renounced Islam and is adamant that Muslim family law should be banned from Ontario. Fighting for the rights of women and children, Ahmadi argues that rulings in Canadian Muslim courts will favour men, and women will therefore be forced to comply with unfair judgements. “If a woman doesn’t agree with a position, [her opposition] is against the law of God. She has opposed Islamic law. In some countries, for that position, a woman can be killed. Here [Muslim fundamentalists] cannot kill them, but they can put a label, they can isolate them from the community.” Armed with these convictions, Ahmadi is taking on government laws and religious organizations.

Arbitration has been legal in Ontario since the 19th century. The Ontario government began encouraging arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in 1991 with the Arbitration Act. The act restricts the courts’ jurisdiction in cases that go to arbitration. Because of the resulting limitations to court interference, Sharia law has been used to settle family disputes among Muslims in mosques across the province. Religious based arbitration has been used for many years to settle family matters in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian settings.

In the fall of 2003, a fracas surfaced in response to some developments. Syed Mumtaz Ali, a retired Ontario lawyer and legal adviser, announced the creation of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice, an organization which would conduct arbitrations according to Islamic personal law. In interviews with the media, he used the word Sharia and referred to Sharia courts. The word triggered alarm bells throughout the province and across Canada. Many Ontarians were unaware that the Arbitration Act could be utilized to settle family disputes and that arbitration awards could be enforced by Canadian courts. Ali’s statements suggested the government had sanctioned the use of Sharia law in Ontario.

Because certain human rights abuses in the Muslim world have been legitimized under Sharia Law, women’s rights groups and some Muslim groups protested, arguing against the implementation of any Muslim law in Ontario. They argued that Sharia law in any of its forms is patriarchal and violates human rights, especially those of women and children. Concerns were brought to the Law Society of Upper Canada as well as to the newly elected Liberal government of Ontario. Alerted by news reports, the public contacted MPPs, the attorney general and the minister responsible for women’s issues. Amid growing controversy, the government appointed Marion Boyd, who served as attorney general among other portfolios in Bob Rae’s government, to review the arbitration process and its impact on vulnerable people in Ontario.

It was the word Sharia that sparked the dispute. It conjures up images of Iranian and Afghani women being forced to cover their entire bodies, of people getting their hands cut off as punishment for stealing in Saudi Arabia, or adulterous women being stoned to death in Nigeria. “Why are you talking about that?” asks Mumtaz Ali in a recent telephone interview. He points out that Sharia includes both civil and criminal components. Canadian arbitration will only be dealing with the civil aspects of Sharia. “I explained to [Marion Boyd] and gave her quotations from various authoritative text books—this is what Sharia means. It is basically the fundamental principles of law which are enshrined in the Koran and the Sunnah [the sayings and deeds of Mohammed]. So she said leave the word Sharia out, which will cause all kinds of confusion, and let’s call it Islamic principles. That was a clever way out.”

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW) may agree with the revised name, but they are strongly opposed to any type of Muslim arbitration in Ontario, specifically in the area of family law. Nuzhat Jafri, spokesperson for the CCMW, argues for one justice system for all Canadians. “[The Arbitration Act] is so full of many problems. There are loopholes. Why should the government spend public money on something that is a very private law enforcement mechanism? Why can’t the public family law system be fixed? Why can’t the funds be used to make that better?” she asks, responding to Boyd’s recommendation that arbitrators be trained. “A lot of people that already do this work, I believe, are not well versed in Islamic jurisprudence, not qualified actually as mediators and arbitrators according to the professions. And they are not necessarily equipped to arbitrate decisions that are in line with Canadian laws.”

Marion Boyd agrees and in her review released last December, proposes to make it a requirement for those arbitrating family law and inheritance issues to be members of recognized professional associations, ensuring they have at least minimum training and subscribe to ethical standards. “In the long run, I am recommending that both arbitrators and mediators must be self-regulated and that there be disciplinary proceedings available to consumers who believe their rights have been upheld by the arbitration process.”

The CCMW can’t predict the outcome of Boyd’s report. But, it has stepped up its campaign to prove that the fundamentals of Islam—peace, compassion, social justice and equality—are embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Interpretations and practices of Muslim law do not always reflect the Charter’s principles, and Jafri argues that women benefit more under it than under Islamic law. “The provisions that were there for the woman under Muslim family law are not compatible with what women face in this society or any other society in 2005.”

Aside from making training imperative for arbitrators, Marion Boyd recommends they maintain records that include the arbitration agreement, evidence presented and a written arbitration decision. If her proposals are implemented, arbitrators would also have to declare any biases prior to parties making an arbitration agreement. Then the parties would have the opportunity to consult with an independent legal counsel, who will explain the consequences of a decision to agree to arbitration under the specified principles. “It is interesting to note that, although the current act requires the provision of a written decision, some in the Muslim community have challenged the recommendation I made to make that available,” she says. Still, she supports a revision of the Arbitration Act with her suggested safeguards. “It is my opinion that, by including our religious and cultural minorities under the law, we have a better opportunity to protect the individual rights of those minority groups than we do if we exclude them and tacitly permit them to operate outside the law. That is what has happened in England, where there is no recognition of minority religious groups; the Islamic community provides informal arbitration all the time for members of its community and those who object have no recourse to the law.”

Boyd highlights that arbitration is voluntary. A religious tribunal can only hear a case if both parties involved agree to it. Here again the CCMW objects. The organization insists that many Muslim women will be coerced into using Sharia tribunals to settle family disputes, and says if a woman refuses, she will be branded a bad Muslim.

Mumtaz Ali sees this differently. “There are a number of Koranic verses and commands saying that if you judge your affairs by something other than the Koran and the Sunnah, then you are not a good Muslim. That is the gist of Islam.” He adds, “[Islamic] law also says that if you have chosen to live in a non-Muslim country, you cannot live in peace unless you also obey the local laws.” When conflicts arise between the two sets of laws, Muslims are fogiven if they are unable to obey the Sharia completely. “However, obeying Canadian law alone without ...continued Islamic law, I will not be able to satisfy my spiritual needs. I will not be able to have the psychological or psychiatric satisfaction.”

And Mumtaz Ali doesn’t see what the fuss is all about regarding women being forced into using Islamic tribunals. “If you do not obey the Canadian law, would people not call you a bad Canadian? If you obey the law, people say you’re a law-abiding citizen, you’re a good Canadian. If you’re obeying the religious law of deciding your dispute according with the Koran, you’re a good Muslim. If you’re not, you’re a bad Muslim.”

According to the CCMW, Sharia law works within a patriarchal ideology. The organization claims it allows a husband to “discipline” a “disobedient” wife and forces daughters to obtain their father’s permission to marry. Girls can be married off any time after puberty under Sharia law.

Children belong to the father’s family, men can marry as many as four wives and divorce at will, inheritance favours men, and Sharia law discriminates against women in numerous instances beyond these. Mumtaz Ali disagrees with this assertion. “If women are not treated equally, that treatment will be thrown out of court, that reason will not hold, and the arbitrator will not be able to do that, because that will be in contravention of the Constitution of the Canadian country.”

But Mumtaz Ali has his own understanding of the word “equality.” “Muslim men and Muslim women are not exactly equal as in the sense of Western thinking. Sometimes women have more rights than men. There are other times when men have more rights than women, and there are times when both have equal rights.”

For example, Mumtaz Ali says a Muslim man is allowed to gently, symbolically, “hit” his wife for “disciplining.” And the only right Muslim law provides for a husband over his wife is that he should be afforded the right to intercourse because of the marriage relationship. He says disciplining is a symbolic way to point out that things are getting really bad, that she’s on the borderline of becoming a person of bad character, and that she’s being very disruptive in the family relationship. In that circumstance, the first step is to separate the beds. And if things don’t improve, she may be gently hit with a toothbrush or something similar. “Symbolically it has much more influence than physically beating up.” He does not believe this is in conflict with the Canadian charter and compares his position to a Supreme Court decision allowing parents and people in supervisory positions to discipline their children.

Bickering back and forth over specifics is of lesser concern to Mahmood Ahmadi. He sees the entire methodology of Sharia law as an attack on secularism. Pointing to recent events like the banning of headscarves in France, and the attempts to introduce Sharia law into parts of the U.K., Ahmadi says there’s an urgent need to stop the international movement of political Islam. “It doesn’t mean that all Muslim people want this, because a lot of Muslim organizations are against Sharia courts in Canada. A lot of Muslim people want to keep secularism in Canada as well.” According to Ahmadi, Political Islam is a movement looking for power in government and is currently in struggle with the West. “In reality they are killing people in numbers. That movement created September 11 and they went and killed innocent people, including some Muslims who were going to work. In one word, I call them a terrorist movement. It doesn’t have anything to do with being a Muslim.” Ahmadi feels strongly that religion is a private matter and should be separate from the state.

He claims the heads of the movement are in Iran and in Afghanistan, where secularism is trying to attack it at its roots. The student and women’s movements in Iran are urging for separation of religion from state. “So the head is shaking in Iran. And we see that here in Canada or France the tail is shaking. We have a lot of Muslim people but it does not mean that they are supporting Political Islam.”

“They cannot stone a woman to death in Canada, but they can attack secularism. And one important foundation of secularism is the separation of religion and state,” he says.

Ahmadi does not take comfort in government assurances that the rights of women will be protected. When asked why he still fears despite guarantees, he answers with more questions. “Why do we need a double standard? Why do we need another court system? Is there anything wrong with the court system we have right now? And if they say something is wrong, then shouldn’t they change it?” But he says the government won’t admit anything is wrong because they have their own policies. If he’s told that the rights of women and children will be protected he will ask, “What’s wrong with the secular system?”

It amounts to racism in Ahmadi’s view “Why do we need different court systems and different standards for different people? If they are coming from a Muslim country, if they are coming from different cultures, they should have different rights? If it’s not a racist philosophy, then what is?” he asks, his hands in the air as he speaks and his voice getting louder as his frustration grows. “In that philosophy, culture comes first and rights come second. Well I go for rights. No matter what country we come from, no matter what culture, we belong to one race—humanity. And we should have one law to protect all of us.”
Ahmadi, too, refers to the Canadian Charter of Rights, pointing out that the government cannot discriminate against people based on religion, nation or nationality. However, he plans on pushing the government to remove the family components from the Arbitration Act.

It will be a tough fight since other groups have been using provisions under the Act as well. But Ahmadi and his group are ready for a fight. There are demonstrations planned, press conferences scheduled, and public speaking tours in the works. No matter what the outcome, this is an issue that won’t go away quietly. Ahmadi will make sure it doesn’t.