“This House Believes in Sharia Arbitration in Ontario” was the resolution under fire last Thursday, when the Hart House Debates Committee presented its first formal debate this year.
The debate featured special guest speaker Anver Emon, assistant law professor at the University of Toronto, who specializes in sharia law (check out The Varsity’s Sept. 15 profile of Prof. Emon). Joanna Nairn and Gaurav Toshniwal represented the “Ayes” or Side Government while Rahool Agarwal and Melanie Tharamangalam represented the “Nos” or Side Opposition.
The debate proved a refreshing forum in which to discuss many of the controversial aspects of the organization and application of Sharia that have become hot media topics.
“What’s important is that two consenting adults have chosen to live their life according to a set of principles and should therefore be afforded the same right to end their relationship in the same manner in which they came into it” said Toshniwal. His side argued that had Muslims been given the right to arbitration according to Sharia principles, trust would have built between them and the government, because it would have signified that the government is flexible and sympathetic to their religious values.
Toshniwal and Nairn also argued that not allowing Sharia law to enter the public sphere “gives society a stereotypical view that all Muslim men are brutal and all Muslim women are weak victims and lesser citizens in society.”
“It says that Muslim women are competent enough to marry at the age of their choosing and determine the number of children they want to have based on their religious beliefs, but they are not competent enough to end marriages through those beliefs. Backdoor arbitration will always exist, so why not give these women a trustworthy system?”
“Who speaks for the Muslim community?” replied Side Opposition.
“The business of the state is to protect the weak, and often the case is that Muslim women are not the ones speaking, or are not in power within the community.”
“We cannot rely on religious leaders to make equitable decisions based on the charter. Sharia arbitration didn’t create a fair system in other liberal democracies such as India, and we can’t expect it to do the same here,” said Agarwal.
The debate portion of the program was followed by some words from Prof. Emon.
“Many misconceptions about Sharia exist. People seem to believe that Islamic law is frozen in time; they take a very ahistorical view of Sharia.
“It’s not about involving the government to legislate Sharia but creating a process of accountability that will transform Islamic law, because the vacuum of authority in Islam creates a marketplace of ideas. [This] opens up the possibility for fresh engagement with the tradition.”
Prof. Emon supports Premier McGuinty’s decision to not allow Sharia, but for different reasons than the premier.
“The civil society isn’t there. There isn’t enough research, enough NGO work, or infrastructure, or even enough interest from the Muslim community. Why did anti-Sharia Muslim groups spend two years shooting down Sharia instead of giving grants to competent Muslim experts who could have found ways to make it really work?” he asked.
