So your saying, courts should decide about Muslims practices and not ulema who studied Islam for generations?
Not at all. That means you were listening with your ears - and your mind - shut tight.
It means that the courts have to decide if what has been brought to their attention is covered under Art. 25 or Art. 26 of the Indian Constitution.
I'll take this further, once you have grasped this.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Indian courts do not even consider consulting ulema of Deoband while many Indian Muslims are Deobandi.
That is because the ulema of Deoband cannot discuss what fits or doesn't fit into the cover of those two articles of the constitution.
I repeat again, get your mind off the religious aspect, and try to understand that the courts, and ONLY the courts, decide on constitutional matters.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Indian courts do not even consider consulting ulema of Deoband while many Indian Muslims are Deobandi.
That is because the ulema of Deoband cannot discuss what fits or doesn't fit into the cover of those two articles of the constitution.
I repeat again, get your mind off the religious aspect, and try to understand that the courts, and ONLY the courts, decide on constitutional matters.
So essentially Deobandi Muslims have 0 rights in India since their view isn’t even heard in court while others decide their fate.
They have every right in India that is guaranteed to them under the Indian constitution.
It is sad, but you have not even tried to understand the difference between deciding on a question of religion, and deciding on whether a particular observance deserves the protection of the constitution or not.
You cannot “interpret” the evidence you have because Indian courts are not ulema of Islam and each school of fiqh and aqeedah have their own way to interpret things.
Again, I repeat, the interpretation is to the extent that the Indian constitution allows protection.
This is the exact reason why Muslims around the world are calling out Indian for its injustice against Muslims. Y’all only listen to views of a minority and “interpret” your false interpretations and impose it on the majority.
If you shut your eyes, stick your fingers into your ears, and decide to scream loudly, it won't change things around.
How does this change what I said? It is easy to slip up but how does it make a difference or effect anything I said?
Simple.
The courts didn't decide what a Sikh can or cannot do. It decides what part of being a Sikh is protected.
And my point was to inform those who wanted to know why issues like these can’t be solved in courts and neither should be brought to courts especially when those courts are led by non Muslim and the panel discussing the issue doesn’t even include ulema of the leading aqeedahs of Muslims in India.
If you are saying that constitutional matters can be decided outside our courts, that is wrong, as far as India is concerned.
If you didn't know earlier, you should know now, the law is radically different in Pakistan.
India is “secular” right? Why is the state interfering with one’s religion? Why is the state saying what a Muslim woman can and cannot wear? How is india “secular” if courts interfere on the matter if Muslims?
How will it be decided what is protected and what is not? By whom?
If ways continue like this, the Quran and Hadith tells us Muslims what to do when outsiders interfere in our religion and try to change it and ban some stuff (P.S. when Muslims go for this option, it always ended bad for the opponent side).
It will always be like this, as long as we have a constitution, particularly one that offers protection to the practice of religion, and one that refuses to take sides for one religion and against another.
(P.S. when Muslims go for this option, it always ended bad for the opponent side).
NO Muslim will go for any 'option' because Muslims who think and read and discuss these understand what courts are deciding.
This is where the issue comes in. Indian courts hold no right to decide what’s essential part of Islam or not. Instead of doing their own “interpretations” and “investigations” they should have called leading ulema of all schools of fiqh on Islam and asked them if hijab isn’t essential part of Islam or not. Even if 1 ulema says it is, it should have been considered as such and be protected.
This is indeed where the issue comes in.
There is no provision in the Indian constitution for alternative systems to the courts of law.
In Pakistan, that is explicitly embodied. No court will take the opinion of any but what it determines, to its own satisfaction and not in the opinion of others, what is the core of a religion, and what constitutes its essential religious practices.
Again, I repeat, you are applying the customs and practices of Pakistan to India; we have no Federal Shariat Court, for example. There is no provision for taking into account either the fatwas issued by a religious authority, or the rulings of a panchayat, or the rulings of a khap panchayat. Those are all considered the same; their rulings are not binding in law.
No court will take the opinion of the leading ulema, or of one alim or of anybody outside the court system at all. That applies to all religions.
Indian courts made their own “interpretation” of the “evidence” but Indian courts hold no right to interpret any Islamic matter and as “evidence” they used Quran and Hadith whereas I posted the verses of Quran and a Hadith which interprets to why hijab is mandatory. So Indian courts came up with a wrong interpretation and based off that wrong interpretation decided hijab is not mandatory thus making it not protected and allowing it to be banned if places want to.
Unfortunately for your argument, in India, the courts have all the right and exclusive rights to decide these. If they consult what they consider authentic definitions of the faith, and conclude that x, or y, or z is or is not essential, the only authority that can contradict them is either a higher court or parliament, by passing a law that specifically has the effect of contradicting the court's ruling, provided that in making such a law it does not violate the basic structure of the constitution.
That means that there is nothing higher in authority on all matters than the courts. Nothing.
During the notorious Shah Bano case, where the lady was represented by Jinnah's associate, Daniyal Latifi, no less than three separate, self-appointed, self-certified Muslim Personal Law Boards sought to be heard. None of them was heard. The judgement went against what they had proposed should be held to be the law, and it was only by act of Parliament that the judgement was reversed. That it was interpreted by the law courts in their own way is another matter altogether.
I posted the verses of Quran and a Hadith which interprets to why hijab is mandatory. So Indian courts came up with a wrong interpretation and based off that wrong interpretation decided hijab is not mandatory thus making it not protected and allowing it to be banned if places want to.
I understand what you believe is important for you. It is still very unlikely that the Indian law courts will agree with you, or with any other opinion, other than what it thinks is correct after its own investigation.
There is not much point in your suggesting that your evidence has value, or that the opinions of the ulema have value. Those opinions are not considered.That is the reality.
So Indian courts tryna do their whole investigation on their own and decide if Hijab is essential part of Islam or not (while many scholars over generations already came up with the answer and have it), have cans up with a conclusion that would make woman expose their awrah which is against Islam.
That is how it is, that the interpretation is the exclusive territory of the courts of law.
You call leading scholars of all schools of fiqh in Islam in India. You decide based on consensus. If there even is one school if fiqh which says it’s essential part of Islam, then since india is a “secular” country, hijab must be protected due to at least 1 school of fiqh believing it is essential part of Islam.
Then should the khap panchayats also be summoned on matters relating to the Jats? Or Deoband's fatwa that a daughter should not massage her father's legs be considered binding in law?
Only the courts can decide.
What do they have to do with human religions ?
