This is a good, common-sense decision: there should be one legal code that applies to all citizens, with no special rights for particular groups or parallel legal systems. Introducing parallel systems inevitably leads to a conflict of authority between the two legal codes, as we are beginning to see, and will soon see much more of, in Britain.
“Court: Islamic law holds no legal sway in India,” by Nirmala George, Associated Press, July 7, 2014 (thanks to all who sent this in):
NEW DELHI (AP) — Islamic courts have no legal authority in India, the country’s Supreme Court ruled Monday, saying Muslims cannot be legally subject to a parallel religious authority.
Individuals may abide by Shariah court rulings if they wish, but cannot be legally forced to do so, Judge C. K. Prasad said.
“No religion is allowed to curb anyone’s fundamental rights,” he told the court, giving the decision of a two-judge bench. Indian law does not recognize Shariah court rulings, he said.
The court was responding to a petition filed in 2005 by a lawyer who said the Shariah courts should be disbanded for running a parallel judicial system in a country with 150 million Muslims among its 1.2 billion population.
Islamic courts wielded considerable influence in Muslim-dominated areas, and people often felt powerless to oppose their rulings, the petitioner Vishwa Lochan Madan argued.
The Supreme Court rejected Madan’s request to disband the Shariah courts, saying there was no point if their “fatwas” — or edicts — had no legal sanction. People were still free, however, to voluntarily consult an Islamic court for arbitration in personal matters.
Muslim leaders denounced the ruling, and encouraged India’s Muslims to continue to consult the Shariah courts on issues like marriage, divorce or inheritance.
“This is a malicious propaganda which is going on against religious beliefs,” said Kamal Farooqi, a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. “We are for Shariah courts, and we are spreading it all over the country.”
India has a judicial system inherited from British colonial rulers, but has long allowed different religious communities leeway in handling their own personal issues and disputes.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his new government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, had promised during its election campaign to bring a common legal code for all Indians.
Madan’s petition had cited as an example a case in which a Muslim woman was raped by her father-in-law. A Shariah court ordered her marriage annulled and demanded she live with her father-in-law. The case caused outrage in India after the court ordered the mother of five children to leave her husband.
Angemon says
“India has a judicial system inherited from British colonial rulers”
And now it’s time for British to learn a thing or two from India… The circle is complete
mortimer says
Indeed, the lawyers of India have shown superior wisdom, but they have a much greater experience of Sharia and of Muslim duplicity.
Duplicity is an essential core principle of Islam. The British are being too polite to observe and mention this duplicity.
Cherish Freedom says
Three cheers for India! Common sense prevails! India does not need muslims, India does not need sharia law, and India certainly doesn’t foreign* direction in how to conduct their courts.
* used here as a blanket term – easily substitute “backwards, oppressive, sadistic, unjust, or inhumane.”
AP says
One of the wierd Sharia rulings that was mentioned by the Supreme Court of India.
A muslima mother of 5 was raped by her father-in-law. The Sharia court declared her marriage with the husband as null and void.
The Sharia court further asked her to consider her father-in-law as her husband and her husband as her son !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imrana_rape_case
The Imrana rape case is the case of the sexual assault of a 28 year-old Indian Muslim woman by her father-in-law on 6 June 2005 in Charthawal village in the Muzaffarnagar district Uttar Pradesh, India (located 70 km from Delhi). The village elders and subsequently, several levels of Islamic legal opinion regarded Imrana’s marriage with her husband null, as the Sharia regards sexual relations with both the father and son as incestuous.
…. , she should now be treated as the mother of her husband and she could no longer live with him even though Imrana had not married her father-in-law.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
A muslima mother of 5 was raped by her father-in-law.
The Moslem guys are sexed out people. Sex has always been a prime driver of the Holy Islam. Misogyny, too.
The Sharia court declared her marriage with the husband as null and void.
Her marriage was null and void the moment she took the vows. Vows to the Holy Ko-Ran, where a woman is half a man, but without the beard.
Christian A. Beltram says
India’s Supreme Court has more courage than the entire government of the United Kingdom, its former colonizer does.
It is time that the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada and other countries in the Western World follow the Indian Supreme Court’s example and stop their Islamization before it is too late.
Dennis Trisker says
I applaud the courage of the Indian courts. In America we must do the same: one law, one constitution for all. Separation of church and state, the government shall not establish any church….sharia, and other religious laws must be subservient to our secular law.
Himalayan Pony says
No need for you to drag the church into this since they are not doing anything like the sharia laws. The church is normally taught to obey the law of the land… Whom are you trying to fool?
Anyway I am happy about this news.
thomas_h says
Don’t mind Dennis, H.P.
He has an absurd, incongruous agenda that makes him invent America where pushing that agenda would make some sense.
Don’t be surprised if he in his next comment calls for abolishing law against apostasy from Christianity.
AmySoldier says
If one could investigate, odds are that “Dennis Trisker” is a Muslim posing as a Westerner. His (or her) type, these hordes are all over the internet blogs, news reports, and the like, any topic of Islam attracts these Western-named Muslims to post a pro-Islam, anti-Western slant to the conversation.
I imagine many to be exchange students. Also, Western militaries in past conflicts required (Sunni) intelligence operatives within and against the (Shite) hostile Muslim communities. The military connection with these operatives allows a quick reward to these operatives with a safe haven in the West.
I’m only guessing how and why so many Muslims aren’t assimilating, as I would expect to read and see in the media.
thomas_h also raised his eyebrows at “Dennis.” If one is keen and astute while perusing blog comments, these Western-named Muslims can be identified by various clues they send. They’ll have an uncanny knowledge of Islam and Muslim sensibilities for the stereotypical Westerner. For someone with the name “Jefferey Bonner”, his syntax and semantics while writing is not conventional, and odd, if he were someone taught in public school. There are other clues. For “Dennis” to find a want to mention the Church in this blog here is a flag clueing towards the mindset of one with a not exactly critical-thinking type of analysis of the topic. Rather, it appears “Dennis” has his own agenda that others would take pains to further discuss to reveal. “Dennis” types tend to drop off suddenly after a calling out to discuss things further, though.
Just thought I’d post my thoughts for any who’d care to know.
gravenimage says
Any, Dennis certainly appears to be a solid anti-Jihadist from his posting history here.
But there are some posters who feel obliged to engage in silly moral equivalence, and pretend that the problem is “religion”, rather than Islam, and take the pose that other faiths present just the same danger that Islam does.
Jesper says
“This is a good, common-sense decision”
What ? It will lead to a disaster !
“…. The Supreme Court rejected Madan’s request to disband the Shariah courts, saying there was no point if their “fatwas” — or edicts — had no legal sanction.
The sharia courts rulings will have legal effect none the less. In the eyes of the muslim communities. Therefore the sharia courts should be disbanded.
We see the same mistake in western countries, were the individual muslim is in reality not a part of the legal system, due to the fact that the community they live in, follows the sharia courts rulings, thereby putting pressure on the individual muslim to “volentary” comply.
gravenimage says
At least the Indian state won’t be *enforcing* Shari’ah rulings.
Yes, this doesn’t go far enough—but it is a step in the right direction. The worst thing would be if the Infidel state was enforcing Shari’ah law—and here India confirms that she will not.
Khushi says
Hi Gravenimage,
Yes. You are right.
This IS a step in the right direction.
Though i was kind of hoping that our judges would disband sharia courts altogether.
Our Judiciary (especially of the upper courts) is completely independent and courageous. I am quite happy that the Judges usually disregard political correctness and ignore ‘special-interest groups’ while giving out judgments.
Hope all is well with you and yours 🙂
Indian Kafir says
Don’t get too happy over this judgement, it won’t be implemented.
I am from India, and millions of muslims living in Muslim no-go zones will live by a parallel legal system including marriage. They don’t bother about the legal system and judiciary.
Women in particular will still suffer under Sharia, and this judgement will remain on paper.
When it comes to muslim appeasement, Indian politicians are as spineless as the Brits.
Musthava RamRam says
Following are 2 tranches of information that helps the uninformed frame the problem that is Islam; and bear in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are uneducated; or rather the summation of their education is memorization of the hate manual that is the Koran. It is my belief; one based on Christian values, that for mankind to see where it is going, mankind must keep a steely eye on history and reap from history wisdom and ideas to guide the effort going forward. This is how the development of science and ideas works. Begin with a controlled experiment in a particular subject; document and analyse the results and based on lessons learned, move forward, eliminating what is discovered unworkable and incorporating lessons learned in the next experiment.
In relation to the pestilence that is Islam, there is a huge body of historical and empirical evidence from the 1947 partition of India by the vacating British, to help the West and westerners understand the size of the problem we are facing. The most significant and core fact to consider is that there are 1.6 Billion Muslims on the planet (15-20% of the world’s population). It is worse than a pandemic.
Imagine the panic the leaders of the free world, upon being informed by the World Health services that 15 – 20% of the world’s population has a aggressive strain of cancer requiring intensive radiation treatment and the strain this would place on the Health services of the free world (2 Billion people requiring costly and immediate aggressive treatment for a killer disease).
And now consider that the cancer of Islam, like cancer of the body, is metastasizing across the planet. And that instead of isolating and controlling and starving the source of the disease our leadership is instead feeding and enabling its spread and in fact declaring that the cancer is misunderstood by the experts in cancer and that in fact these experts have misdiagnosed the issue and are flat wrong, despite the evidence to the contrary. in fact they declare, the cancer is a benevolent and desirable condition for mankind. Well that is the situation our sorry civilization faces. Look no further than the history of India and Pakistan since 1947 for the first experiment in dealing with the cancer that is Islam. Many millions dead. Nuclear armed India and Pakistan and the looming nuclearization of the most insane Theocratic country on the planet, Iran. Ladies and gentlemen; we have a big problem. The planet will recover and regenerate. Will humanity?
The Partition of India, 1947
At midnight on August 15th, 1947, Pakistan was created. With the Indian Independence Act of 1947, the release of control by the British would also split what was known as British India into two distinct countries whose borders were determined by the religious groups that most densely populated the areas. The Union of India (later Republic of India) would be secular but with a Hindu majority and Muslims would control the Dominion of Pakistan (later divided further still into Pakistan and Bangladesh.) The states of Bengal and Punjab were also sliced in two along the Radcliffe Line, as well as the Army, Treasury, Navy, and Railway industry.
Growing tensions between Hindus and Muslims throughout the 1940s precipitated the desire for a Muslim state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who is regarded as the father of Pakistan, believed that a unified nation would only lead to marginalization of Muslims and, eventually, violence and civil war. An independent state seemed a solution to this danger.
However, the division of the country led to the displacement of millions of people. Hindus and Muslims who suddenly found themselves in different countries on August 15th fled their home in fear of violence. The refugees were housed in military barracks. The population of cities like Delhi swelled with the influx of Hindus. Suddenly people had to choose how to define themselves – by their homeland or their religion. Uprooted from their homes, refugees were forced to make a new life in a fledgling country. Many became homeless overnight.
Several conflicts and wars have followed Partition and tensions between the countries seem to escalate every year. Explosions of violence happen periodically, as they have in the more than 50 years since Partition, including the orchestrated attacks in Mumbai in November of 2008. Pakistani extremists claimed responsibility for the attack, targeting a railway station and hotels and cafes frequented by foreigners. Nearly 300 people were killed.
Conceived to prevent sectarian violence, Partition instead stoked flames between Hindus and Muslims by forcing a division between them.
“My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.”
– Mohandas Gandhi’s reaction to the proposal of a separate Muslim state.
Muslim Behaviour by Percentage of Population Saturation
The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book.
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
‘Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. – Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’
It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
From the UK which is approaching Hair-trigger rioting and murder in the street.
http://goo.gl/N1Ruv
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
This is an excellent review of the world Moslem situation, RamRam. But a couple of quibbles:
1) I’ve long thought the official estimate of Moslems in India is low. Once I was told by an enlightened Hindu with whom I worked here in the U.S. that it’s routine for Moslems to not allow census takers into their homes, even their neighborhoods.
2) Where’s the world’s newest Moslem nation Kosovo? This proud new nation is too important to leave off such a list.
gravenimage says
Over all good post, Musthava.
Just one issue:
Conceived to prevent sectarian violence, Partition instead stoked flames between Hindus and Muslims by forcing a division between them.
………………………….
I don’t believe that it was “partition* that caused these divisions—the divisions were created when Muslim hordes invaded India and massacred much of her Hindu and other Infidel population.
And this Muslim supremacism never changed.
And while there are some things I do admire about Gandhi, he was *in total denial* about the Muslim threat to India.
One of the most notable points about the repercussions of partition is that while the percentage of Muslim population in India has grown considerably; that the Hindu, Sikh, and Christian population of Pakistan has dwindled to low single digits due to Infidels fleeing, being driven out, forcibly converted to Islam, or murdered outright.
Compare and contrast…
Wellington says
Just for the record, gravenimage, I find virtually nothing to admire about Gandhi. He was a fool many times over and would get my vote for the single most overrated person of the twentieth century. What Gandhi really proves is the basic decency of the British Empire. If India had been run by the Russians, the Chinese, the Germans, the French, et al., they would have just shot the guy, which tends to prove that non-violent resistance only works when resisting the likes of the British, the Americans and a few others like the Israelis. Non-violent resistance against the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. is simply a fast route to death with nothing accomplished.
Gandhi was so foolish as to think that the reason that Hindus and Muslims hated each other was because the British fostered this. Hell, it was the Brits that kept the Hindus and Muzzies from tearing each other apart and what happened on their exodus from India proves this.
Gandhi was an eccentric and a fraud. He actually thought women were superior to men. You know why? Because he believed they could not experience sexual pleasure. As for his poverty stance, it was a sham. His various “assistants”—-secretaries and handmaidens—-were supported by merchants. As Paul Johnson in Modern Times relates, quoting someone close to Gandhi, “It costs a great deal of money to keep Gandhi living in poverty.” Gandhi was actually foolish enough to advise Winston Churchill to make peace with Hitler as late as 1941. He encouraged the Jews to show nothing but non-violent resistance to the Nazis in order to prove their moral superiority. He set into motion a removal of the British presence from India which was deeply premature and resulted in the murder of millions. This is a chief reason (there are others) why Paul Johnson refers to him as “the sorcerer’s apprentice.” Ah yes, the stupid Mickey Mouse of India, with all due respects to Mickey here, who I’d take over Gandhi anyday. Well, as I said, just for the record.
voegelinian says
That’s my impression too. Just like the West, India has rampant Islam Appeasement Syndrome, though it is a singular type: a hybrid of PC MC inherited from “enlightened” British (I have even detected PC MC in Rudyard Kipling), and an innate retention of dhimmitude + the PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) that tends to afflict and deform any major victim of Mohammedan depradations over time.
gravenimage says
Very true.
Leon says
The following sentence popped out at me … “The court was responding to a petition filed in 2005 by a lawyer…” Nearly 10 years but kudos!
JIMJFOX says
Ominously, India has not banned sharia though…
voegelinian says
Nor deported their Muslims.
kyzylkumkohlrabi says
There are, unfortunately, far too many Muslims for us to deport. We are in over our heads now. We can, at best, hope they retain some of their docility, and not go the way of the Pakistani Muslims who seem to have no respect for their minorities. Another measure we must take is to make sure their birth rates decrease, such that they are equal to, or below the birth rates of other religious groups in our country. But we would get an immense amount of flack for something like that. I fear Modi is a paper tiger though, and I doubt anyone who succeeds Modi will be brazenly anti-Islam, especially as they come to form a larger proportion of our population. I am young, so I might actually live to see India become a Muslim majority nation one day. That is the day Dharma dies — that is the day the Kali Yuga really begins.
FatherJon says
Very sensible decision, and I hope that the governments of America, the UK and Australia note the Indian decision. There’s been too much nonsense talked about ‘parallel’ systems of justice, mainly due to pressure from Muslim pressure groups who came as migrants to those countries.
FJ
John Haller says
One millennium of experience has showed India that Sharia laws are a liability. Let’s hope our pollies are a bit quicker on the draw.
Harish G Thakkar says
In 1400 there thousands of small kingdoms in Gulf region,kings or family heads useds to be the rulers of one region or community of that kingdom.In 21st century,there is multicultures and nation has citizfens one country one rule and only coexistance can survival possible for human beings.Only Islamic state can work on their own laws,but this is not possible in deomcractic country.Nation can not surrive if there are diffirent laws based on religions.Actually all religious must be reoformed and modernised based on world peace and coexistance.As one nuke power nation can not dominate any counrty or world ,one religion can never dominate,any efforts will produce more fierce fighters in ohter reliions for their survivals and leads to danger for human beings irrespective of cast or relgions.E.G.Isreal-Arab type conflicts every where to lead world to stone ages.
gravenimage says
Witless moral equivalence. No other faith is seeking to dominate all others as Islam is.
And the Jihad against Israel is just that—part of the global Jihad against the Infidel.
lebel says
“there should be one legal code that applies to all citizens, with no special rights for particular groups or parallel legal systems. ”
….with the exception of beth din courts, because, well, that’s it.
gravenimage says
Yet more crap from lebel.
He never actually says what he thinks about savage Jihad and Shari’ah—he just leaves periodic potshots here seeking to undermine the Anti-Jihad movement.
As for Beth Din courts, if they had as their ultimate aim the oppression of Gentiles and stoning of women in the streets, I might be concerned…
shortfattexan says
I think it is possible that one reason Americans are so complacent about Islam in general is that there are so few Muslims here that most Americans have never seen Islam “in action”.
In India, on the other hand, about over 12 percent of the population is Muslim, so everyone in the country has had the opportunity to be “blessed” by Islam. I think this is why India’s government is so much more realistic than ours regarding Islam.
Mirren10 says
” Islamic courts have no legal authority in India, the country’s Supreme Court ruled Monday, saying Muslims cannot be legally subject to a parallel religious authority.
Individuals may abide by Shariah court rulings if they wish, but cannot be legally forced to do so, Judge C. K. Prasad said”
Two points here; yes, it is good that India’s Supreme Court has made this ruling.
However, this decision is immediately watered down by the statement, ”individuals may abide by Shariah court rulings if they wish, but cannot be legally forced to do so”.
The **nature ** of sharia is oppressive, draconian, and unfair to women, in particular. What mohammedan woman, living in a mohammedan enclave which mandates she has no rights equal to those of a man, is going to be able to refuse the decision of a sharia court say, in the matter of a divorce, custody of children, or inheritance ? Is she going to take her case to the secular Courts ? Perhaps, but she will then run the risk of being murdered for ‘honour’.
”Islamic courts wielded considerable influence in Muslim-dominated areas, and people often felt powerless to oppose their rulings, the petitioner Vishwa Lochan Madan argued”
Exactly !! The Supreme Court’s decision will have little to no effect upon those sharia ‘judges’ who make unfair and unequal rulings, and those who have little choice but to abide by them, unless they are extremely courageous and determined.
”The Supreme Court rejected Madan’s request to disband the Shariah courts, saying there was no point if their “fatwas” — or edicts — had no legal sanction. People were still free, however, to voluntarily consult an Islamic court for arbitration in personal matters”
This is giving with one hand, and taking away with the other. It is also extremely *stupid and short sighted*. Indian judges should **know**, that ‘free and voluntary’ does *not* apply to women in a mohammedan enclave/society/culture.
Whilst this decision sounds good on the face of it, it has no teeth, if the Indian government **still allows sharia courts to exist**. The **only** way to protect the rights of the weak and powerless, and to make **all** subject to Indian law **only**, is to **outlaw sharia courts entirely**.
As should be the case **everywhere** in the West. **No** civilised country, if it wishes to retain its civilised nature, can afford to allow the vicious and draconian sharia the tiniest toe hold. sharia directly contravenes the whoe concept of justice, and imprisons those who have no rights under it. Therefore to say people are ‘free’ to ‘voluntarily’ consult a sharia court is sheer, immoral and wicked nonsense. How free will a fifteen year old mohammedan girl be, if she is first married, and then her husband decides to divorce her, take her children, and refuse to support her, all of which he is able to do under sharia ?
What recourse will this putative girl have ? **None**.
I suspect the Indian Supreme Court is actually quite well aware of this, but given the number of mohamedans in India, lacks the moral courage and guts to make such a ruling, because they are terrified the mohamedans will do what they usually do when denied what they want; riot, destroy, and murder.
J says
Here, here, Mirren10. My thoughts exactly. All very well for those who hold power in Islam (men), but of absolutely no use to women; the possessions of men! India, be brave – the Sharia must be put in it’s place – the 12th century – not the 21st!
Joe Murphy says
Also my thoughts exactly, Mirren10!! You saved me some typing!!
Jaladhi says
It is good that SC has given this decision and emphasized that those Muslims who go to sharia court don’t have to abide by their decision as it is not legally binding. Millions of Muslims in India do not know this and they will still not know it. However, Muslim clerics still want to minimize the impact of this decision by saying that sharia court rulings were not really binding before this ruling if they didn’t want to.
But the question is how many Muslims will dare to go against sharia kangaroo court of these imams, mullahs, qazis, maulanas, and religious leaders of every stripe??? Very few or none!!!
nacazo says
India’s Supreme Court: “Islamic courts have no legal authority in India” *
* Unless you can bamboozle some female muslima or fool into accepting their ruling.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
I’ve noticed over the years how automatically reticent Hindus are to discuss Moslems. Mention the Jihad and Sharia, or just Moslems in general, and I’m met with a polite frozen smile and silence. But they all remember the Moghul, and what was done to them, and why.
I’m gonna like this Modi guy. It’s about time.
voegelinian says
Indians will talk about how evil the British were (and are?) at the drop of an angocha, but other than their small minority of “right wing fanatics”, have nothing to say about their worst enemy, the Mohammedans.
As I noted above, it’s due to a combination of PC MC inherited from the enlightened British and to the psycho-cultural deformation that tends to afflict any people who have suffered at the hands of Mohammedan depradations over time.
Himalayan Pony says
You are right voegelinian. I have thought about this a lot too, why Indians talk a lot about how evil the British had been but not enough about the Islamic invasion. But strangely enough our history text books (for schools) don’t write enough about the atrocities done by the Muslims before the British arrived. So not many people really know that “millions” of Indians were slaughtered by the Muslims. No one has much information about this. I myself (as an Indian Christian) came to know about it only through the Internet! Of course we read about Muhamed Ghori and such other horrible people in text books but it is not much. Akbar’s period is seen as a Golden Age! On the other hand, we have a lot of information about the British Era in India in history books. May be it is all a planned thing.
gravenimage says
Voegelinian and Himalayan Pony, it is the usual.
The British are not going to do anything to those who criticize them, and many Brits are inclined to agree with the criticism themselves—either on the principle that criticism can be constructive, or just out of abject and unearned cultural self-hatred.
But Muslims don’t take criticism from anyone well, and criticizing these violent and touchy Mohammedans can, of course, be quite hazardous.
Add in “political correctness”, with the threat of being considered a “Communalist”—about as bad as being considered a “racist” here— and the fact that Muslims constitute a dangerous fifth column right in India itself, and Hindus and other non-Muslim Indians tend to be very, very quite on the subject.
twvolck says
Does this mean that Muslims in India who married in accordance with sharia law are not married in terms of Indian law? Or, perhaps worse, that Muslims divorced in accordance with sharia law are not divorced under Indian law? How does this affect questions of inheritance? Does India have laws about inheritance that are applied without regard to the community to which the deceased belonged? This certainly has not been the case in the pa st.
Nora Kay says
India leads the world.
Richie says
It amazed me how Muslims claim that they have always been oppressed by Hindus in India, when in fact the Muslims are the ones who have massacred Hindus and seiks all throughout India for centuries. Do Muslims have any ability to be honest? I hope India stands its ground against these Muslim savages