Challenging Stereotypes: Gender-Sensitive Imams and the Resolution of Family Disputes in Montreal

Challenging Stereotypes: Gender-Sensitive Imams and the Resolution of Family Disputes in Montreal

Challenging Stereotypes: Gender-Sensitive Imams and the Resolution of Family Disputes in Montreal

Challenging Stereotypes: Gender-Sensitive Imams and the Resolution of Family Disputes in Montreals

| Ajouter

Référence bibliographique [21992]

Saris, Anne. 2016. «Challenging Stereotypes: Gender-Sensitive Imams and the Resolution of Family Disputes in Montreal». Dans Women’s Rights and Religious Law: Domestic and International Perspectives , sous la dir. de Fareda Banda et Fishbayn Joffe, Lisa, p. 255-277. New York (États-Unis): Routledge.

Fiche synthèse

1. Objectifs


Intentions :
This chapter aims to explore Muslin women’s experiences during process of resolution of family disputes.

Questions/Hypothèses :
The author asks if an Islamic tribunal exists in Quebec and, if not, «how did Canadian Muslim women manage their family conflicts?» (p. 255)

2. Méthode


Échantillon/Matériau :
The author «interviewed a total of 37 persons including: 24 Canadian Muslim women (W), five community workers (ComWork), four social workers (SocWork), six accredited family mediators (AccMed), one lay mediator, two judges, six lawyers (L), and 13 Muslim religious counsellors (RC – imams and others). […] Eighteen of the 24 women had had direct experience of negotiating family conflicts while six gave their opinions on the issues. Regarding the marriage situation of the participants, two were single but 19 out of 24 had a religious marriage in their country of origin. Three married in Montreal in front of an imam who presided over both the religious and civil marriages.» (p. 255-256)

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé


According to the analysis, it «seems that the main functions that both Montreal Muslim women and religious counsellors attribute to Muslim dispute resolution processes are, first, that of religious advice, second, that of conciliation (divorce prevention), and, third, various kinds of support in the amicable settlement of the religious divorce. The last two types of practices are known in the Islamic legal tradition as sulh. Indeed, recent research shows that sulh has historically been a key institutional method of dispute resolution in the Muslim world alongside adjudication […] and arbitration […], and that it is still highly esteemed in Muslim minority communities such as in the United States. The practice of religious counsellors, as conveyed through their discourse, presents a mixed picture. First, with regards to process, less than half of them grant religious divorces in a manner completely disconnected from the civil legal system, while more than half of them see the civil legal system as serving a complementary role to theirs, based on the better recognition and enforcement of civil decisions. In addition, and even if it accounts for only a smaller part of their practice […], more than half of them deal also with matters involving payment of the mahr, of spousal or child support, custody and access issues as well as the rarer abduction cases.» (p. 270)