Having read the posts, I can see there are many misunderstandings about Islam. Here is just one example:
It doesn't explicitely give women equality with men (one reason I'm not a Muslim), but to say it gives women no rights whatsoever is way out of line. Women have more rights in Islam than they do in the Gospel (One reason I'm not a Christian)! Were you aware, for instance, that the Gospel itself also requires women to wear the veil? Or that whereas the Gospel allows the father to 'give' his daughter in marriage, the Qur'an requires the daughter's consent as well?
And please, for any Christian or Muslim who reads this, I'm not criticizing your religions at all. From what I've been able to gather, the teachings of both Christianity and Islam were extremely progressive for their respective times in history. Before the founding of Islam, for instance, were you aware that if a father died, his sons could claim each others' mothers and sisters as their own property? Or that a father could kill his wife for giving him a daughter? Or that seven-year-old daughters could be buried alive? Or that when one tribe conquered another, it could slaughter all the men in the vanquished tribe, and keep the women and daughters for themselves? Islam abolished all of these practices. Islam was also the first religion to place explicit limits on the number of wives a man could have. Quite honestly, if I were born at those times in history, I myself would probably have adopted either Christianity or Islam in its respective time. But I certainly don't believe their laws lend well to modern conditions.
That having been said, I'd see no problem with Shari'a being allowed as long as it doesn't conflict with the secular laws as laid out by the body politic, just as is the case in Ontario. The secular laws could therefore keep the Shari'a from getting out of hand, yet allowing the Shari'a could help to better integrate Muslims into the community by making them feel more accepted and acknowledged in society.
One concern I would have, however, is with the fear factor. I'm well aware of non-Muslims in Canada who pretend to be Muslims for their own protection, out of fear of retribution for having aposticized from theri faith. Add to that that some would interpret not accepting Islam when having been born to Muslim parents to also be equal to apostacy. And some would even extend this to anyone who believes in any 'post-Islamic religion' (i.e., a religion which accepts Islam just as Islam accepts Christianity, or Christianity acknowledges Judaism, but is not Muslim itself). Some of these people will wear the veil out of fear, against their will. So obviously such people, in any kind of civil suit, might feel pressured to accept a Shari'a court even if they themselves don't believe in it. From that standpoint, I do believe that before any kind of Shari'a be allowed, we must ensure that such people have a way out should they not want to participate, taking various social and psychological factors into consideration. And again, this is not a criticism of islam, but rather a misunderstanding of it on the part of its own devotees who should choose to politicise it, or turn to fanaticism in its name.
