Haji Ali Dargah ruling is path-breaking as court relied on Constitution, not Quran or Hadiths

[Joe Shearer]

What happened in shah Bano?

You don't know? Or you know and are asking a rhetorical question?

In that case, the courts interpreted the law, because it was represented that it was being implemented to the detriment of a section of the citizenry. The Ulama did not accept that interpretation, many felt for no good reason. The government changed the law to reflect the opinions of the Mullahs. The courts took the new law, and interpreted it to give women exactly the relief that they wanted.

That is what happened in the Shah Bano case.

You have a problem with that?

 

[Djinn]

Neither shia nor sunnii declare anyone kafir, its soley a wahabi/deo forte, yoou dont like Saints , good for you but don't discredit them.
P.S itni shaan e bayniazi theek nahee ay jin o Ins

Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, Barelvi, deobandi or whoever is out there..... what all this has to do with the topic, too much high on sectarianism? Seriously and whats with these preposterous allegations? I chose not to worship their graves and this means i am insulting them? You prove to me which Saint said that "when i pass away, make me a shrine and worship it or at least do these weird rituals?

 

[Mentee]

Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, Barelvi, deobandi or whoever is out there..... what all this has to do with the topic, too much high on sectarianism? Seriously and whats with these preposterous allegations? I chose not to worship their graves and this means i am insulting them? You prove to me which Saint said that "when i pass away, make me a shrine and worship it or at least do these weird rituals?

Leave it bro you are too logical to grasp the subtlety of Deen

 

[SarthakGanguly]

What happened in shah Bano?

Law took its course.
Then came politics. And Shariah won.

 

[Loafer]

You don't know? Or you know and are asking a rhetorical question?

In that case, the courts interpreted the law, because it was represented that it was being implemented to the detriment of a section of the citizenry. The Ulama did not accept that interpretation, many felt for no good reason. The government changed the law to reflect the opinions of the Mullahs. The courts took the new law, and interpreted it to give women exactly the relief that they wanted.

That is what happened in the Shah Bano case.

You have a problem with that?

The court in order to maintain its independence and integrity extended the benefits till the time the divorced lady remarries. Lol. Half baked judgment.

 

[nair]

@Joe Shearer sabarimala issue is totally different from this one - the restriction is only for age between 10 and 50

 

[sankranti]

Care to tell me where it says Muslim women are not allowed into mosques? Women are without question allowed in mosques, but they pray in a separate section or floor.

My wife attends Eid prayers at the mosque.

What we have in the subcontinent is a tradition of women NOT going to the mosque.

Why does you wife pray in a different section ? Why not next to you ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

The court in order to maintain its independence and integrity extended the benefits till the time the divorced lady remarries. Lol. Half baked judgment.

Perhaps. I see only enormous benefits to Muslim women through this exercise of judicial integrity. You see a LOL. So who is half-baked?

@Joe Shearer sabarimala issue is totally different from this one - the restriction is only for age between 10 and 50

It is an unfair restriction.

 

[livingdead]

courts become powerless when it comes to gay rights but sure they can order about dargah and temples... its none of the business of courts... secularism means religion does not interfere with affairs of govt and vice versa.

 

[Sky lord]

courts become powerless when it comes to gay rights but sure they can order about dargah and temples... its none of the business of courts... secularism means religion does not interfere with affairs of govt and vice versa.

Where do you draw the line though? Suppose a religion said that it is ok to forcefully marry off children? Doesn't the state have a duty to protect said children? The state does need to interfere if there is material harm to any innocent party.

I agree with you on the gay rights part though...if the court is standing up for female equality they should have stood up for gay equality too.

 

[livingdead]

Where do you draw the line though? Suppose a religion said that it is ok to forcefully marry off children? Doesn't the state have a duty to protect said children? The state does need to interfere if there is material harm to any innocent party.

I agree with you on the gay rights part though...if the court is standing up for female equality they should have stood up for gay equality too.

i agree that you got to draw the line somewhere... like the case you mentioned...
however i don't think women's right(I dont buy equality bs, women can have their temple/masjid/club/whatever and stop men from entering) is big enough reason to force something on a religious trust...

 

[Cherokee]

Women are not barred from entering any Shrine in Pakistan. I always wondered why Haji ali shrine in India was stopping women to enter. ANyway visiting shrines is not a basic part of Islam. It is just a custom which is not mandatory

Same was the case with India before but in 2012 some "board members" decided to Bar women .

 

[Hellfire]

Is India still SECULAR??

Last night when I went to sleep, it still was. Now ... wait .... yes I just googled .. Still secular

We must declare our nation atheist, relegate religion to the four walls of a house. Ban building of religious places of worship any more. Regulate all places of worship by fixing religious place of worship to a ratio of population, and of course, declare any show of religion as an act of terror

 

[Abba_Dabba_Jabba]

What Indian safroni court says about Dalits in upper caste Hindu temples?

Why don't read the above posts, I mentioned Temples.

What happened in shah Bano?

For me it is a black day in India's political history, where a women was left on the road with no support, to die ,just to appease a minority community by a pathetic political party. This is one of the reason why I never vote for that party.

courts become powerless when it comes to gay rights but sure they can order about dargah and temples... its none of the business of courts... secularism means religion does not interfere with affairs of govt and vice versa.

Courts in India are not allowed to make laws, they work according to the law in the case of gay rights there is a law, so the matter is left to the parliament to decide, whenever it comes to religion if there is a conflict with HR or right to worship then court will have a sort of discretion power, only way to deal with it is to ask parliament to make law.

Court will always interfere if there is any violation(by any law/religious custom) of "basic structure" of Indian Constitution, there is no exact definition of "Basic Structure", the court enjoys infinite power in this area.