Triple talaq: Supreme Court can't interfere in religious freedom, says Muslim Personal Law Board

[third eye]

To all Indian members here, I have a question...

So why do people like Subramanian Swamy and others talk about "unified civil law" in context of Muslims?

Are Muslims the only community in India to have their own personal law-code in terms of marriage, divorce, inheritance (?) etc or Hindus/Christians also have their own personal law in these matters?

How is Muslim practice of their personal law different from say Christians in India?

Can somebody please enlighten me in this regard? Thanks


@SamantK @Joe Shearer @gslv mk3

In India the constitution takes precedence over everything. Laws / rules of any kind cannot violate the constitution.

Case in point the issue of non entry to Shani Shinglapuri near Shiridi & Haji Ali , both in Maharastra. This violated the constitutional right of a citizen. They had to go. Similarly, temples in South too Will have to change themselves.

The shah bano case highlighted the anomalies in Muslim personal laws which went against fundamental rights of a citizen.

In this case Muslim ladies have sought redress from the court on a glaring anomaly . Social contracts cannot be annulled at the whim of one party. Assuming it can, then women too should have the right to cancel the contract on similar terms.

To my knowledge all other religions laws confirm to what the constitution enshrines

 

[Indrajit]

Fundamental rights cannot & should not be overruled by any religious dogma. The Supreme Court must stick with its basic structure doctrine under which this clearly falls.

 

[VivasvatManu]

Hindus dont have a concept of a religious personal law. there is not even a standard holy book for the Hindus. There is a general common law that the Hindus follow

Christians have their personal law as do other minorities

It is only the Muslims who cry hoarse whenever personal law or the concept of Uniform Civil Code is brought up

Nope, you are Wrong.

Hindus have many books that define code of conduct. Primary being the Vedas which provide the broad outline. The book that defines the code is the Dharmashastra which derives from the Vedas and hence its a Smrithi.

In that the various texts that define the Dharma, the Vyavhara and the prayaschitta are Manusmriti , Yajnavalkya Smriti, Naradasmriti , Visnusmriti , Brhaspatismriti and Katyayanasmriti.


The method of understanding and debating the laws is explained in the Purva Mimamsa.

 

[John Reese]

Hindus have many books that define code of conduct. Primary being the Vedas which provide the broad outline. The book that defines the code is the Dharmashastra which derives from the Vedas and hence its a Smrithi.

Vedanta's are Different
There Many other Sect as well

 

[VivasvatManu]

Actually Secular Means Panth Nirpeksh It Has Nothing To do With Dharma

Secular Folks Will Get heart burn When they Search What Is Written on Emblem of Supreme court of India

Wrong.

In India, "secularism" is defined as "Sarv Dharma Sama bhava" which means "Equal respect to ALL religion".

Vedanta's are Different
There Many other Sect as well

Veda is not the same as Vedanta.

Vedanta means "Veda antha" or "End of the Vedas". It means the Upanishads.

 

[John Reese]

Wrong.

In India, "secularism" is defined as "Sarv Dharma Sama bhava" which means "Equal respect to ALL religion".

Go See the hindi Translation of Constitution It Panth Nirpeksh

I don't what Your Personal beliefs i am quoting constituion

Veda is not the same as Vedanta.

Vedanta means "Veda antha" or "End of the Vedas". It means the Upan

Do you Know Concept of
Āstika and nāstika

 

[VivasvatManu]

Go See the hindi Translation of Constitution It Panth Nirpeksh

Do you Know Concept of
Āstika and nāstika

Wrong. India constitution says "Sarv Dharma Sama bhava" which is why each religion is allowed to have its own personal law.

Though the guiding philosophy of the Constitution and one if its directive principles is to have A Uniform Civil Code.

I very well know the concept of Astika and Nastika, but what YOU do not know is that the Concept of "Dharma" is the same in both the schools. So Dharma shastra transcends all the schools.

 

[John Reese]

Wrong. India constitution says "Sarv Dharma Sama bhava" which is why each religion is allowed to have its own personal law.

i think you should read constitution in hindi

 

[VivasvatManu]

i think you should read constitution in hindi

You don't seem to understand.

The Indian constitution is WRITTEN in English.

The Hindi Version is a TRANSLATION.

So in order of preference and weight, the English constitution becomes the Final say.

The guiding philosophy for writing the constitution was "Sarv Dharma Sama bhava" which was coined by Gandhi and that gave the constitution makers scope for inserting personal laws.

The word "Panth" means "Path". so "panth nirpeksh" becomes "irrespective of Paths".

This would also mean that concepts of Hindu dharam cannot be in the constutiton.

Alternatively if Panth means "various paths of Hinduism" then the constitution becomes a Hindu constitution and ALL other personal law becomes Illegal.

The most logical outcome is the definition of "secularism" as "Sarv Dharma Sama bhava".

 

[Soumitra]

You don't seem to understand.

The Indian constitution is WRITTEN in English.

The Hindi Version is a TRANSLATION.

So in order of preference and weight, the English constitution becomes the Final say.

The guiding philosophy for writing the constitution was "Sarv Dharma Sama bhava" which was coined by Gandhi and that gave the constitution makers scope for inserting personal laws.

The word "Panth" means "Path". so "panth nirpeksh" becomes "irrespective of Paths".

This would also mean that concepts of Hindu dharam cannot be in the constutiton.

Alternatively if Panth means "various paths of Hinduism" then the constitution becomes a Hindu constitution and ALL other personal law becomes Illegal.

The most logical outcome is the definition of "secularism" as "Sarv Dharma Sama bhava".

I dont have any comments about this

But I will say one thing. You seem to articulate your points well. You are a nice addition to the right side.
I would have loved to see you have a one to one with @Joe Shearer. Unfortunately we just celebrated his withdrawal from this forum 2 days ago

What do you say @Stephen Cohen @Levina @hellfire

 

[VivasvatManu]

I dont have any comments about this

But I will say one thing. You seem to articulate your points well. You are a nice addition to the right side.
I would have loved to see you have a one to one with @Joe Shearer. Unfortunately we just celebrated his withdrawal from this forum 2 days ago

What do you say @Stephen Cohen @Levina @hellfire

LOL.

 

[Hellfire]

I dont have any comments about this

But I will say one thing. You seem to articulate your points well. You are a nice addition to the right side.
I would have loved to see you have a one to one with @Joe Shearer. Unfortunately we just celebrated his withdrawal from this forum 2 days ago

What do you say @Stephen Cohen @Levina @hellfire

Actually Joe would have liked him. He is accurate to quite an extent. And Joe was dead accurate on his facts. We once had a member on the member trying to tell us about the origin of sanskrit ....!! He was in full form ... till as such time giving the alternate of Sanskrit from South ... and also of origin of Hindu religion .... it was fun watching him tear the person making fun of Hinduism as a philosophy.

On topic ... Article 44 is the concerned article .. nothing wrong if you want Uniform Civil Code under it. In fact, I welcome such a move.

 

[randomradio]

I dont have any comments about this

But I will say one thing. You seem to articulate your points well. You are a nice addition to the right side.
I would have loved to see you have a one to one with @Joe Shearer. Unfortunately we just celebrated his withdrawal from this forum 2 days ago

What do you say @Stephen Cohen @Levina @hellfire

Why did he leave?

 

[911]

The Board said the Muslim personal law were from the holy Quran and Hadith of the Prophet and were not covered by Article 13 of the constitution. Thus it could not be tested on the touchstone of fundamental rights.

We need UCC. Otherwise our country will go back to 600 CE.

 

[SamantK]

To all Indian members here, I have a question...

So why do people like Subramanian Swamy and others talk about "unified civil law" in context of Muslims?

Are Muslims the only community in India to have their own personal law-code in terms of marriage, divorce, inheritance (?) etc or Hindus/Christians also have their own personal law in these matters?

How is Muslim practice of their personal law different from say Christians in India?

Can somebody please enlighten me in this regard? Thanks


@SamantK @Joe Shearer @gslv mk3

UCC is not only in context of Muslims though it will have the biggest impact on them.

Hindu, Muslim and Christians have personal laws and this is not tenable in a lot of scenarios, esp when it comes to Muslim laws because they stand in contravention of other laws, like triple talaq and polygamy which robs people of their rights.

Most of the regressive Hindu customs were abolished and Hindu personal law is more or less in line with civil code of various countries so it will not matter much for Hindus and probably Christians (Not very sure here).

It is a state directive to bring about UCC, our founders did not want the pot to boil (In the context of Muslims) so these personal laws were introduced and passed on the buck to the future.