Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Muslim Personal Law " shariat "

2 views
Skip to first unread message

S.Ganapathy

unread,
Mar 8, 1986, 6:05:08 PM3/8/86
to

I am sure that all netters must be fully aware of
the turmoil the Muslim community in India is
undergoing due to the controversial judgement
issued by the Supereme court restoring alimony
payment to a divorced women. Inspite of this issue
being about a month old there has hardly been
any discussion on the net regarding this. This
judgement has been so bitterly opposed by the clergy
" Mullas " as no others has been in recent times.
I would like to inititate a discussion on this issue.
To me it seems to be a mix of religion and politics.
The congress party has lost the Muslim vote bank in
a spate of recent elections on just this single
issue alone. India Today also had a very good cover
article on this subject. I would like to know what
netters especially those belonging to Islam think
about all this ? In US I am not aware of any particular
law applying to a certain segment of population.
What is the role and relevance of the Muslim Personal
Law in the present day world. My purpose is to initiate
an intelligent and healthy discussion on this issue and
do not intend to downgrade or hurt religious sentiments.

Rajendra S Yavatkar

unread,
Mar 12, 1986, 1:57:06 PM3/12/86
to

First I would like to point out that the Gandhi cabinet has
given in to the exigencies of politics and introduced a new bill
titled ``Muslim Women Divorce Bill'' which would effectively
render the Supreme Court judgment ineffective. Arif Mohamad khan
(central cabinet minister) resigned in protest against the Government's
decision.

Since we claim to be a secular democracy, I think the rights of
an individual should be held higher than the rules dictated by
religious leaders. The minorities in our country do deserve
protection against discrimination. This can be ensured by making
due provisions in the constitution as has been done in case of
Harijans.

But the muslim personal law goes against the princilpes on which
our constitution has been based. It has hindered the process
of integrating moslims with rest of the population and has
benefited unscrupulous politicians and religious leaders like
Shahi Imam who foment hatred for their personal benefit.

To achieve the goal of building up a secular state, we first
need to follow a uniform personal code which would be applicable
to all Indian citizens, irrespective of which caste, creed or faith
they belong to.
Otherwise we soon will have 10 personal codes satisfying 10 different
faiths which would only accelerate the process of disintegration.

I would like to request the netters to take up the following
question for discussion:

Is(n't) it possible to have a truly secular constitution (devoid of
any religion based personal codes) and still protect the rights
of the minorities?

sw...@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu

unread,
Mar 13, 1986, 12:04:00 PM3/13/86
to

Re: Supreme Court judgement re: alimony for Muslim women, and fundamentalist's
reaction to it:

The Congress(I) introduced a bill in Parliament called the Mulim women's
rights protection act or something like that. The bill was widely opposed
as kowtowing to the fundamentalists, denying women alimony rights, and
discriminating against muslim women on the basis of religion. A Union minister,
Arif Mohammed Khan (name?) resigned in protest. Several Congress(I) members
criticised the bill. Then Rajiv asserted that the bill was intended to protect
women, and this pacified the Congress(I) members! Even 'The Hindu' which is
usually pro-Government, indicated that the bill was ill-advised. There is
also widespread speculation that the bill may be ruled unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court, on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of
religion.

My views? Evident, I think, from the tone of the above posting!

Note: The above is what i gathered from reading news reports, and my not be
entirely accurate. corrections welcome.

sw...@a.cs.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4, pur-ee, convex}!uiucdcs!swami

"i am so full of good intentions, i MUST be on the road to hell"

Arvind Kumar

unread,
Mar 14, 1986, 6:23:04 PM3/14/86
to
Timeout. Definition time:

sec.u.lar, adj.,
1. Of or pertaining to the temporal rather than the spiritual
2. Not specifically pertaining to religion or a religious body
3. Pertaining to or advocating secularism
4. Not living in a monastery or religious community. Said of the Clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century
6. Lasting from century to century

sec.u.lar.ism, n., The view that consideration of the present
well-being of mankind should predominate over religious considerations
in civil affairs or public education.

(American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin, 1981)

Take it away, guys.

Michael C. Berch

unread,
Mar 17, 1986, 1:35:58 AM3/17/86
to
Since this dialogue seems to be taking place in a world-wide forum
that is primarily of North American readership, would somebody versed
in the matter please explain briefly exactly what is "shariat", what
Muslim law says about divorce settlements, what the Indian Supreme
Court did, and what the government's proposed legislation would do?

Thanks.

Michael C. Berch
ARPA: m...@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb

0 new messages