The “Sharī'ʿah Debates”: Shaping the Discourse on Islamic Law in Canada

Abstract

This article critically examines the 2006 Ontario “Sharīʿah debates” to argue that the positions of Islamic courts and Islam in Canadian consciousness were intentionally misrepresented to prevent Islamic tribunals from serving Muslims in Ontario. Consequently, the outcomes of the so-called Sharīʿah debates also undermined the ability of Jewish and Christian courts to operate within their communities. The public discourse surrounding the debates favours secular provincial arbitrations, based on the misguided belief that secular courts are safer for individuals seeking mediation; although anti-Islam lobbyists provide no empirical evidence to support their claims, such narratives become widely accepted. This article highlights how the Sharīʿah debates have influenced how Canadians perceive Islamic law by reinforcing the Islamophobic notion that Sharīʿah is inherently harmful to vulnerable community members, incorrectly suggesting that the use of Islamic law arbitration in Canada would both promote and conceal instances of abuse against Muslim women in particular. This article employs primary source material from the CBC News archives, Ontario Legislature archives, and secondary sources by scholars of Islam who comment on the differences between the perceived and actual status of Muslim women in the West. The findings of this critical analysis reveal a systemic and deliberate misrepresentation of Islamic law to uphold a Western secular ethic. The findings of this article remain relevant as Islamophobic rhetoric continues to be weaponized in the Canadian public political sphere against Muslim individuals and communities.