The Christian Science Monitor is running a piece this week entitled "India awakens to its other pariahs: Muslims," by Mark Sappenfield. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Indian Prime Minister says that Muslims should have the first claim on the country's resources, and now there is this:
"Shariat courts protected under Muslim personal law: government," from IANS, with thanks to Fjordman:
New Delhi, Jan 5 : The government Friday informed the Supreme Court that Muslims under their personal law have a right to establish Shariat panchayats to settle disputes between two people and fatwas issued by these courts are not in conflict with or parallel to the Indian judicial system.Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian stated this before a bench of judges A.R. Lakshmanan and Altamas Kabir hearing a petition from advocate Vishwa Lochan Madan seeking a direction to refrain the All India Muslim Personal Law Board from establishing a parallel Muslim judicial system (Nizam-e-Qaza) in the country.
Since most of the other respondents had not filed their responses to the petition, the bench adjourned the hearing by 12 weeks.
In his public interest petition, Madan submitted that a Muslim woman Imrana was allegedly raped by her father-in-law and the village panchayat passed a fatwa asking her to treat her father-in-law as her husband.
The Darul-Uloom also declared that Imrana could not live with her husband. This was endorsed by the AIMPLB. He sought a declaration that the fatwas pronounced by various authorities were unenforceable, to direct the central and state governments concerned to take steps to disband the Dar-ul-Qazas forthwith.
In its reply, the central government said "freedom guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution to every religious denomination or every section thereof to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion would include the freedom to establish Dar-ul-Qaza/Nizam-e-Qaza (Shariat panchayats) to settle disputes between two persons professing Islam, according to Shariat."
When sharia law is allowed in a democratic society, the democratic society will go extinct.
Any non-muslim society that does not dominate the muslims in its midst will in time be dominated by them
"In his public interest petition, Madan submitted that a Muslim woman Imrana was allegedly raped by her father-in-law and the village panchayat passed a fatwa asking her to treat her father-in-law as her husband.
"The Darul-Uloom also declared that Imrana could not live with her husband."
Sorry, but I am having real difficulties in getting my head around this.
I cannot see anything in this article about bringing this alleged rapist to justice. Have I missed something?
And the victim can't return to her husband? Huh? What is going on there?
What what?
Do not learn from India, nor from Israel. No, strike that.
Learn from India, with its large Muslim population.
Learn from Israel, with its large Muslim population.
Learn what is apparently the inevitable outcome, expressed in the pusillanimous behavior of most Indian and Israeli leadrs, but which may be generalized to all Infidel lands where the proportion of Muslims becomes large.
Learn and take precautions so that it never happens here, or in any other country that is still capable of saving itself, or being saved.
Learn from India, with its large Muslim population.
Learn from Israel, with its large Muslim population.
---------------------------------------
India and Israel is what happens to a society when it allows Muslims in. True.
Do consider though that India had no choice as it was invaded. Israel had no choice as it inherited a large Muslim population. But we had a choice. We not only hade a choice, but had and still have simple, effective and legal means to prevent Muslims from entering the West. And yet we decided to emulate India and Israel.
DP111
I disagree. India had the choice of expelling all Muslims to Pakistan in 1947 and 1971, but chose not to. Israel, which found itself receiving an exodus of Jews, had the option of expelling all Muslims from the Holy Land in 1948 and 1967, but chose not to. Both countries are as guilty as we are of making our beds the way we did.
Nowhere else to flee, so might as well sleep with the fleas.
"submitted that a Muslim woman Imrana was allegedly raped by her father-in-law and the village panchayat passed a fatwa asking her to treat her father-in-law as her husband."
--------