There is currently a debate of whether Australia should introduce legislation allowing religious groups, including Muslims, Jews and others, to surrender themselves to the religious arbitration in areas of personal law, similar to the model that was in force in Ontario, Canada, from 1991 to 2005. Canada ultimately denied formal recognition of the religious arbitration but still accepted its existence only within the informal processes if the parties of the disputes are willing to use religious arbitration. The paper is to undertake a comparative examination of the model, as it existed in Ontario and the current position in Australia and examine the pros and cons for an…show more content… These testing types of blending two legitimate conventions in Canada, to some degree, are the conceivable models for every single majority rule state.
During the debate, there is a typical worry that in spite of the fact that the continuation of Sharia law in Ontario would keep up specific religious opportunities for Ontarians, the weight for Islamic ladies to satisfy the religious commitments maintained by Sharia law, would keep on happening. Be that as it may, this issue could be counteracted with fitting intercession and cooperation in the middle of Sharia and Canadian law, which is one of the purposes behind the formal acknowledgment of Sharia laws in Canada. Around then, there is another concern of Sharia law in Ontario, which is the potential abuse of ladies ' rights associated with the Islamic convention. One of the predominant issues in question was polygamy. The finding as to polygamy and Islamic law shows that polygamy can be limited and even disallowed without abusing the Qur 'an. These revelations of Sharia law are most valuable for the Ontario government on the off chance that they are willing to return to the issue of religious assertion.
Besides, proof of Sharia law is of adaptability by expressing that Sharia law changes relying upon where it is worked out. The Ontario government ought to use the