India Declares Sharia Courts/Laws as illegal

[scholseys]

Modi will like make the burning of Qurans a ritual.

 

[Ayesha Liyanapatirana]

Mere existence of non-Muslims is an anti-Muslim act.

Language of the SC verdict suggests that the UPA government managed to appoint some Sickular Judges in the court. May be they fear beheading hence the verdict was properly sugar-coated.

What is a "Sickular" judge?

 

[Screambowl]

What is a "Sickular" judge?

secular* and its not anti Muslim verdict.

 

[TejasMk3]

What is a "Sickular" judge?

Sickular, or Psecular (derives from Pseudo secular), is a term used to describe people who do things to please the minority through unfair means and practices, under the garb of "minority rights", which ultimately serve to divide and fracture communities rather than bring them closer. A few examples of such people are Congress party Samajwadi party and so on.




pakistanis. Why dont they declare Sharia law in their country? Why fight with TTP then, all they want is Sharia law....no need for this zard e zap nonsense, just make friends and be happy.

 

[Chronos]

Finally something good from modi,hope he bans those panchayats to.

Yeah right. Apart from the knee jerk reactions from the usual suspects (Pakistani posters etc) what the Supreme court has done is a passive affirmation.

They can declare Shariat courts and it's fatwas have no legal sanction, or Khap Panchayats have no legal sanction but the reality is, a lot of Kangaroo courts have enough social clout to carry out their diktats.

We have seen that in tribal areas where they order the rape of women, the sanctions of Khaps. If the shariat courts pass a ruling and the both the parties consent to it, how can the Indian legal and law enforcement agencies, as cumbersome and as inept as they are do anything?

The only thing I got worthwhile out of this thread was having a laugh at the Pakistani posters getting their knickers in a twist of Indian Supreme Court affirming, without the means to impose their ruling what should have always been.

That secular, evolving man made laws must reign supreme.

Otherwise, they should leave the western countries and go live in a country where Sharia is the law of the land. They won't, because they enjoy the fruits of a secular society. Bunch of hypocrites especially since Pakistan is under siege from forces wanting to impose Sharia.

 

[amitkriit]

Yeah right. Apart from the knee jerk reactions from the usual suspects (Pakistani posters etc) what the Supreme court has done is a passive affirmation.

They can declare Shariat courts and it's fatwas have no legal sanction, or Khap Panchayats have no legal sanction but the reality is, a lot of Kangaroo courts have enough social clout to carry out their diktats.

We have seen that in tribal areas where they order the rape of women, the sanctions of Khaps. If the shariat courts pass a ruling and the both the parties consent to it, how can the Indian legal and law enforcement agencies, as cumbersome and as inept as they are do anything?

The only thing I got worthwhile out of this thread was having a laugh at the Pakistani posters getting their knickers in a twist of Indian Supreme Court affirming, without the means to impose their ruling what should have always been.

That secular, evolving man made laws must reign supreme.

Otherwise, they should leave the western countries and go live in a country where Sharia is the law of the land. They won't, because they enjoy the fruits of a secular society. Bunch of hypocrites especially since Pakistan is under siege from forces wanting to impose Sharia.

Was putting Sharia Court and Khap Panchayat in the same sentence a balancing act? Was that voluntary?

 

[ZYXW]

Don't mind! I think anything that treads on the rights of individuals should be banned and it specifically says that only the ones that tread on HR are banned.....Not everything is an act against islam people!!

 

[Ayesha Liyanapatirana]

Was putting Sharia Court and Khap Panchayat in the same sentence a balancing act? Was that voluntary?

Are you trying to suggest that Khap Panchayat is different to a Sharia Court?

 

[amitkriit]

Are you trying to suggest that Khap Panchayat is different to a Sharia Court?

Khap Dictats are not being peddled as commands from God. Khaps haven never declared that those who don't accept the dictate are not worthy of being called Hindus and are Bajib-E-Qatl. Those who refuse to accept Khap dictate won't have to burn in Hell-Fire.

 

[Ayesha Liyanapatirana]

Khap Dictats are not being peddled as commands from God. Khaps haven never declared that those who don't accept the dictate are not worthy of being called Hindus and are Bajib-E-Qatl. Those who refuse to accept Khap dictate won't have to burn in Hell-Fire.

Did the Khap Dictats instruct you to Hunt Dinosaur?

 

[Arya Desa]

Did the Khap Dictats instruct you to Hunt Dinosaur?

When the khap makes an order we follow it like a fatwa.

 

[amitkriit]

Did the Khap Dictats instruct you to Hunt Dinosaur?

You don't seem to like the idea of a Hunter becoming Hunted. I heard that Australia has asked people to leave Australia if they want to live under Sharia Law. Now that was a harsh statement and the response must be nothing less than a Global Jihad.

 

[MastanKhan]

Sharia Courts, fatwas illegal: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment on Monday and declared that no legal sanctions have been given to the Sharia Courts and religious decrees or fatwas are illegal if they tread on the rights of an individual.

The apex court further objected to the Shariat Courts ordering punishments against innocent people and said that no religion permits the same.

The SC also said that 'Darul Qaza' should not pass any judgment pertaining to the rights of an individual unless asked by the concerned person.

The deliver by the apex court was given after a petition challenging the legality of the Shariat Courts was filed by a Delhi based lawyer Vishwa Lochan Madan in 2005.

In his petition, he stated that institutions like Darul Qaza and Darul-iftaa are operating like parallel courts which take decisions on the fundamental rights of the Muslim citizens.

He also reportedly said that religious clerics qazis and muftis appointed by them cannot take a call on the liberty of the Muslims by issuing fatwas and curtail their fundamental rights.

The petitioner further argued that the Darul Qaza and Darul-iftaa operate in Muslim dominated districts where people cannot oppose the rulings.

Citing an example, the petitioner stated that a Muslim girl had to desert her husband because a fatwa directed her to live with her father-in-law who had allegedly raped her.

The apex court had reserved the judgment in the case in February earlier this year and had reportedly said that it cannot interfere with the religious decrees issued by the Muslim clerics.

The court further told the petitioner that “some fatwas may be wise and issued for the general good also,” the news report stated.

Shariat Courts Have No Legal Sanction: Supreme Court - NDTV

First Published: Monday, July 07, 2014, 09:12
-----------------------------
This is truly a landmark decision. Country can not afford parallel Islamic courts. Its good they are now banned now forever and its is also been ruled that even opinion can not be passed in light of islamic laws untill concerned parties themselves approach to shariya adaalat. Disobeying Supreme Court would invite serious punishment to sharia courts

What a moment of pride for the indians---. I am impressed---.

 

[amitkriit]

Modi will like make the burning of Qurans a ritual.

In places like Saudi Arabia they confiscate, shred and burn non-Islamic literature including Bible at airports. If the confiscator believes the crime to be too serious the carrier might get "legally" executed.

In Maldives a non-Muslim cannot become a citizen. A Historical museum was totally destroyed by the Islamists recently.

So I guess time has arrived to start things in tit-for-tat fashion.

 

[notsuperstitious]

What is new in this? Of course courts not sanctioned by law are illegal in India and their judgements not enforceable. There is nothing anti islam in this case, except the specific case in question that lead to this ruling. That incolved a young woman separated from here husband because her father in law had raped her. They are muslim, and this was the ruling of the sharia court. You guys do know where they found inspiration for this ruling, and you will find it insulting hence I won't mention it.

If anything is anti islam, then its such retarded beliefs by some muslims, not the supreme court's obvious ruling that extra constitutional courts are illegal (duh!) lust like in ANY other country on earth.