India's Supreme Court sets rules for Sharia courts
107
NEW DELHI: India's Supreme Court Monday rejected a petition seeking to ban Sharia courts, but stressed that they had no legal powers over Muslims and their decisions could not be enforced.
India's 150 million Muslims follow their own laws governing family life and other personal issues such as marriage and divorce, with Sharia courts used to rule on such matters and mediate in disagreements.
The top court said that Islamic judges, who interpret religious law, could only rule when individuals submitted voluntarily to them and their decisions, or fatwas, were not legally binding.
“Sharia courts are not sanctioned by law and there is no legality of fatwas in this country,” C.K. Prasad said Monday as he read out the judgement from a two-judge bench.
The different personal laws followed by India's religious minorities are a sensitive political issue. The new Hindu nationalist government is committed to bringing in a common legal code for all.
Vishwa Lochan Madan, who petitioned the Supreme Court to disband Sharia courts, told AFP on Monday that his demand had been rejected.
“The Supreme Court observed that Sharia courts have no legal sanctity. But if people still want to approach these courts, it's their will,” he said.
He filed his petition in 2005 and cited a case in which a woman was told to leave her husband and children and live with her father-in-law who had raped her.
“No religion is allowed to curb anyone's fundamental rights,” the court added in its judgement while taking note of the case.
Qasim Rasool Niyazi, from the Muslim Personal Law Board, said the Supreme Court ruling vindicated his group's contention that Sharia courts were not a parallel judiciary.
They issue notices which are not legally binding, he explained. “It is just like an arbitration,” he told the NDTV channel, adding that qadis (Islamic judges) were required to follow the law of the land.
Read more
On DawnNews
Jul 07, 2014 01:48pm
makes sense there should not be two parallel courts. we should have to courage to either have the sharia court or the British justice system...
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 01:52pm
This is what we should do as well.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 01:52pm
Bring Uniform Civil Code and make common law for all the Indian citizen. Do not let any religion interfere in the legal process. Law should be above all religion.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 01:57pm
According to sheria law the fatherinlaw shall be put to death for raping his daughter in law
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 02:05pm
indian muslims are so lucky.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 02:14pm
By enforcing external law on Sharia law Indian Govt do not want to create any new Muslim Jihadi group. SIMI is enough for us for threatening law and order issue.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 02:20pm
I think a sensible decision, two parallel legal systems are not good for any nation. India has a wonderful system based on a constitution developed by late Dr. B. R. Ambedkar which gives justice to any person. So, nothing to worry about.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 02:35pm
Mr. Iqbal. You are right that under Sharia, a father in law will be sentenced to death if he rapes daughter in law. But Sharia also says such rape must have 4 male witnesses.
Now wouldn't the 4 male witnesses stop rape if they are witnessing it? Or they could also join the rape in which case they'll not testify.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 02:36pm
Modi started showing his true colors.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 02:41pm
remarkable judgement by India's Supreme Court,this once again shows and proves the supremacy of SC in India which is there for the right of all section of people in India.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 02:58pm
India needs to bring in the Uniform Civil Code. There should be no compromise. There should be only Indian. No Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian,etc.,
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 02:59pm
Good to see that at least some country is behaving in responsible and logical way. High time we also need to do the same to get rid of these mullahs running the country towards self destruction.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:01pm
When a judge announces a verdict, the verdict should not reflect his/her religious or political disposition or even the judge's gender. It should be strictly based on facts, logic, and sound reasoning. The only system that comes close to delivering this type of justice is secular court, not the ones inspired by religion.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:01pm
@Junaid What has Modi got to do with this? It was a SC observation. And don't you think its a correct and progressive decision.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:12pm
@Anwar Thats where you are wrong, 4 witness is for fornication not for rape... rape can be verified using medical test/advice...
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:24pm
@Khalid
Absolutely
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:25pm
Have to admit that this Indian parliament building photograph is excellent.. tricolour flag added more colour to it...hope secularism prevails in this part of world for ever...
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:33pm
@Iqbalrangoonwala .... The daughter in law will be stoned to death for adultary.......
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:43pm
There should not be two parallel systems . Only one judiciary system should be there . Thanks to SC to put restriction on these Kangaroo courts . Father in law raped her daughter and daughter has to marry him . What kind of justice is it ?
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:43pm
@Far sight
That is the problem in Pakistan.
They do not understand that Supreme Court in India is an autonomous institute and does not tag along politics.
Whereas in Pakistan, the supreme court sides with politics (cultivated by military rules) and rarely few judges deny political siding and often they have to pay a heavy price.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:49pm
The ruling seems targeting minorities in India, the situation shall aggravate once again if such rulings carried on flourishing.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:54pm
@Junaid Can a prime minister or any other Politian interfere in Judiciary proceedings?
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 03:55pm
Excellent move!
Can we do the same in Pakistan???
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 04:06pm
@Junaid I thought the judgement was by Indian SC not Modi. However, @Junaid has displayed his true colours.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 04:06pm
@hafiz,
It is not parliament building but Supreme Court of india.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 04:10pm
@hafiz - Dear Hafiz this is the photo of Supreme court of India and not Parliament House
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 04:12pm
@hafiz : Bhaai this is Supreme Court building in Delhi, not the Parliament house. N how did you come to think about Indian Parliament, discussion here revolves around the Supreme Court!
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 04:17pm
The SC ruled that the Sharia court has no legality, but people may approach them voluntarily. This is because only the lawmakers, aka, the Parliament, can change the law. The court can only interpret the law. Notice that in the current case injustice has already won. A rapist is free, a woman had to leave her husband and children. We will see if the politicians now have the courage to proclaim sharia illegal, something that Rajiv Gandhi backtracked from doing in the infamous Shah Bano case
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 04:24pm
@Junaid ....How so? What did he do in this case? Just want to blame him ...don't you?
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 04:35pm
It is one of the most timely judgement after some scientific thoughts. For example if a hindu man marries a muslim lady, can such sharia court intervene asking the unfortunate lady to leave her religion? Thus the sharia court can only pass some passing comments like pedestrians, what it only should do
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 04:45pm
@hafiz Thats not their Parliament house,,this is India's Supreme Courty building,
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 05:03pm
@M.M.Sherazi Who is being targeted here? if someone is born in a muslim family does not mean he should be subject to some other legal system which curb the fundamental rights of the person guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It only protects the muslims from being subject to pedestrian judgments like the one mentioned in the above article.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 05:04pm
@SPar In that case what is the point of having a democracy without an independent and fearless judiciary?
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 05:05pm
Modi have nothing to do with this decision.
This is charactrstc of true dramocracy.
To treat all people equally.
Law and order is above religion
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 05:19pm
@Far sight Some people are thinking that it is Modi stuff because in their country judiciary and executive are both ultimately ruled by military.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 05:19pm
@Junaid
It is supreme Court decesion. What Modi has to do with it? You do not know how independent legal Systems works.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 05:44pm
Sharia courts are kangaroo courts without much thought process and uniformity. It is more a feudal based system of justice where the rich and powerful can buy their way out of trouble while the poor man bears the brunt of all punishments, including mutilation.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 05:48pm
This only shows that India is built on sound fundamentals and is not a house of straw!
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 05:48pm
Not only India must adopt Uniform Civil Code for the Country but also abolish Caste system prevailing in Hindu Religion. As a first step in this direction, govt should take necessary steps to abolish mentioning of Caste and Religion from Govt records . Reservation in Govt jobs should be based on purely economical grounds not basing on the caste he or she belonged. Poor and down trodden people ,irrespective of the caste/ religion they belonged must be eligible for reservation quota for jobs/asistance from govt etc
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:05pm
@Junaid In India Supreme Court is an independent body. Nothing to do with Modi as the petition was filed in 2005. Please get your facts straight. Entire country even muslims want uniform civil code. If Sharia law has to be enforced imagine the number of muslims whose hands will have to be amputated for stealing!
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:13pm
@zakir
There is no medical device in the world that can tell whether it was a rape or by mutual consent. Only thing the rape case is based on is a statement from the victim and presence of semen. Now to check semen, you need DNA test which as per your Sharia Board, is not permissible.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:14pm
No compulsion in the Religion.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:17pm
@ranganath I say bring in Uniform Civil Code but keep Personal Laws also. Then allow the individual a choice. for example if a Muslim woman wants her divorce case to be judged according to the Uniform Civil Code then it should be judged according to the Uniform Civil Code and not according to sharia which does not give adequate alimony to the woman. In all instances if an individual chooses UCC then UCC should prevail. So if woman chooses UCC but her husband wants sharia, UCC must be used.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:17pm
Why they have Sharia courts when their decision are not legally binding? Are they kangaroo courts? Looks like a facade of the so called democracy. Nothing more then PR stunt of India. While in reality it means nothing. If Muslims are not even allowed to have their own judgement (no legal cover on sharia courts decisions) on very basic issues like marriage or divorce, what does it says about state itself?
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:21pm
attain 100% literacy rate, better economic growth then only we can dismiss Hindu/muslim personal laws with uniform civil laws
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:22pm
This was such a bad decision by Supreme court. They should have declared Sharia laws as illegal courts. What if tomorrow I start my own religion and make by own book with personal laws of my own choice and gather some followers and start my own courts? Supreme court has set a bad precedent.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:26pm
Great and make sense decision ... Requirement of eye witnesses to testify if rape occured in this time and age is beyond stupideness. Its time to look at what's wrong with. God never said not to educate yourself or use scientific methods to prove the wrong doing in courts but quite the contrary. Kodos to all those support for sensible, make sense, fair for all rules and decisions and equal rights. Education, education, education is the key my friends ...
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:34pm
@SPar - you both missed the news of CJ standing up to everyone just a year ago or maybe you purposely sticking your head in the sand. Stop being an ostrich and stop generalising wrong and dreamed up thoughts
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:47pm
"He cited a case in which a woman was told to leave her husband and children and live with her father-in -law who had raped her." Would anyone like to comment on the sagacity and wisdom of the Sharia Court.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 06:51pm
@VASU MOOTTU KUZHIYIL Excellent suggestion but then how will politicians like survive? :P
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 07:04pm
This time we can really learn something from Indians: "...No religion is allowed to curb anyone's fundamental rights..." and "....Sharia courts have no legal bearing. But if people still want to approach these courts, it's their will....".
No country can proceed with two different legal systems.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 07:06pm
@Anwar These are very sensitive issues. Interests of the lady involved need to be taken. Point raised by Anwar needs serious introspection.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 07:08pm
@someone
With Civil matters it is OK. it is like your local elders. Some time they will try to solve the problem. If it works that fine. with Civil maters some time arbitration cheaper, But litigants should have right to go to a regular court,
But as far as Criminal cases is concerned It should be regular Courts appointed by Government.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 07:26pm
@baakhlaq Better don't. Even a person of less than average IQ will call such judgement as extremely stupid and to me it seems funny how a judge can pronounce such a sentence. There should be a case against him for ruining the life of this lady.
Recommend
0
Jul 07, 2014 07:43pm
At long last, pious around the world have a real choice in opting to live in Levant, the new land of milk, honey and a dash of sand. Here they can follow allow of the teachings laid down near thousands of years ago and show the rest of the world how it is done. With the wisdom of the good book and under the leadership of Ibrahim, here is your chance. Get on your camels and head due west. Leave behind you Munnis, Shielas and smartphones, please.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:06am
Well done SC of India and nice to read positive response from Pakistan and India.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:15am
@Junaid
"Modi started showing his true colors" - you must understand in a true democracy like India, executive and judiciary functions are separated to ensure that laws do not change with each new Government. Similarly, Religion and Government are also separate. If these fundamental principles are missing, you are guaranteed CHAOS.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:15am
@Junaid Please keep your hatred of Modi out of it. The Court has interpreted the Constutution. TheCourt is not under Modi.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:24am
@Anwar You guys are so naive and far far from understanding a simple islamic law. If you don't understand the reasoning and logic behind 4 witnesses, please don't comment!
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:28am
The building in the picture! I thought it is Amitabh's house, have seen it in lots of movies!
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:30am
Excellent! I applaud the Indian SC and my hearty congratulations for such a ruling to all our Indian neighbors. I wish we could do the same in Pakistan. A uniform sense of law is an excellent manner to unite a people, same law same justice.
On a side note, by proclaiming the Sharia court to not be legally binding, gets the same effect as banning it but with less riots :D
A very intelligent route to handle a very volatile situation!
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:48am
@Far sight Not necessarily. For the Muslim vote bank, the Congress and Sonia Gandhi would have overruled the Supreme Court and given full legality to the Sharia courts to do as they please. No one and I repeat no one should forget the Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum case where the Supreme Court judgement was overruled by the Congress which was in majority by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. It was the most shameful chapter of India's legal system being subverted for populist purposes.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:50am
@raja hindustani Yes and it will stop anyone from subverting the legal system like the way Congress behaved in the Shah Bano case.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:55am
@Taimoor Khan asked "If Muslims are not even allowed to have their own judgement (no legal cover on sharia courts decisions) on very basic issues like marriage or divorce, what does it says about state itself?"
It says that the state is a modern, secular democracy, where no anachronistic practice pertaining to marriage and divorce, inheritance, or rape/sexual abuse, based on any religion, is above the law.
Why did the Supreme Court not declare Sharia courts to be illegal, you asked. That is simply because annulling Sharia courts completely would invite a Muslim backlash. Besides, freedom to follow any religion is a fundamental right accorded to all Indians under the constitution.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 01:56am
@Taimoor Khan asked "If Muslims are not even allowed to have their own judgement (no legal cover on sharia courts decisions) on very basic issues like marriage or divorce, what does it says about state itself?"
It says that the state is a modern, secular democracy, where no anachronistic practice pertaining to marriage and divorce, inheritance, or rape/sexual abuse, based on any religion, is above the law.
Why did the Supreme Court not declare Sharia courts to be illegal, you asked. That is simply because annulling Sharia courts completely would invite a Muslim backlash. Besides, freedom to follow any religion is a fundamental right accorded to all Indians under the constitution.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 02:14am
@Junaid How is Modi showing his true color. I'm a Pakistani and Muslims and I will say his main responsibilities are the majority not minority. I know his background is tainted but honestly us Muslims needs to see ourselves before we condemning others for looking after their own interest. Islam clearly states, where Muslims are in minority, they must follow the law of the land or migrate to other places where Islam rules. So please stop this nonsense and lets work on getting ourselves better so we can show true representation of our faith and ethnic identity. As far as Modi goes, he is 10 time better than any Muslim leaders in this world. Our leaders massacre our own and destroy our land.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 02:45am
@Mujtaba
I agree with you about Modi. He certainly is a Hindu fanatic. But he is good for the Indian economy and that is why he had (and still has) my strong support.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 04:21am
An unfortunate decision by Indian Supreme Court! There should be no sharia court. The ignorant mullahs who sit on these sharia courts have no understanding of judiciary and give irrational and controversial decisions. In a secular country like India there should be common laws for every citizen and should not be based on religious background. India should learn from the West where laws are not religion based and everybody is treated according to the law of the state.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 04:34am
@Junaid What are his true colors? There should be only one law for the whole country. A law based on real justice, especially justice for women. Sharia law has too many loopholes and besides I do no trust any Mullah type of a person.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 04:35am
I am not against sharia or British justice system, but I agree no parallel judiciary should exist in a country
Indian
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 04:40am
@Far sight So there should be separate laws for Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christians, Budhists, Sunnis, Shias, Ahmedis....?????
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 04:42am
@Mujtaba Right on Mujataba!!! Our leaders know how to only fill their coffers, create ethnic and religious divisions so that they can rule
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 05:08am
@raj
No Raj,Its not ok even for civil matters. For that we have village Panchayats who work under Indian constitution. We should abolish all courts who have no legal basis.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 05:14am
I believe that there should be one law for all the citizens. Take the best from sharia, and from modern humanistic laws, and do what is fair for all the citizens, irrespective of religion, caste, gender, or any other factor.
We do not need to amputate hands of thieves in India. If we do, who will sign the bills that are passed in Parliament?
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 05:18am
One country one law.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 05:36am
Time for India to aggressively push for an uniform civil code.Personal law as per religion is a throw back to the British rule when they ruled India and did not wish to ruffle any feathers of various religious groups living in the country.
Today,secularism is in demise in most Muslim countries including Pakistan and Bangladesh.
India should join EU to curb the play of religion-based politics..not to mention women's rights which are curbed under traditional Islamic law....
Good decision by the Supreme Court of India!
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 06:56am
@Junaid
lol
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 08:01am
@hafiz
The world is beautiful just because of so many varieties.Similarly different religion to suit spiritual appetite.....secularism should prevail for the betterment of mankind.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 09:48am
@hafiz Its not India's Parliament building but it is India's Supreme Court building.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 12:36pm
@someone because the Supreme Court knows that it will ignite religious tensions.
To all the Pakistanis who have congratulated the Indian Supreme Court, as an Indian I would like to say hold your praise.
There are Kangaroo Courts like Khaps, Tribal councils who pass all sorts of inane judgement.
The problem is enforcement.
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 04:00pm
@Junaid india is a secular country...pandering to minoritism is a no go
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 04:04pm
@M.M.Sherazi u eradicate minorities in the name of religion. we are a secular country....no secular country will allow kangaroo courts to function in the name of religion
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 04:10pm
@Taimoor Khan show me one secular country which allows laws like shariat. Many muslim majority countries also do not follow shariat
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 08:33pm
I am an Indian and I should confess that this newspaper's forums have enlightened countless Indians that there is indeed a large number secular broadminded Pakistani folks. May your tribe grow!
Recommend
0
Jul 08, 2014 11:58pm
Just a correction. Indias Muslim population in 2014 is 197 million and not 150 million
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 12:25am
@Anwar Make it four male Muslim witnesses.
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 12:48am
Great Verdict by Supreme Court!! It
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 02:48am
Interestingly, this actually means MORE rights for India's Muslim citizens; they may choose to submit to Shariah courts for personal status decisions if they wish, almost in a sense like religious mediation, but are not legally obligated to do so. For firm decisions of law, the constitutional legal system has precedence. This is an excellent model for Pakistan, and indeed more or less was the model until the 1970s as I understand the situation back then?
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 07:36am
I am happy to see so many positive responses from Pakistanis / Muslims on this forum. This augurs well for a bright future for the sub-continent. But for that we have work towards eliminating abject poverty, social injustice against minorities, women, children and weaker sections....rather than fighting with one another.
Resolving issues with a little give & take should be the order of the day.
Religion should take a back seat in public life....it should be strictly a private affair.
Countries in the region should ban all religious parties and any public figure trying to incite people with racial / religious speeches should be kept behind bars permanently.
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 07:50am
@yogesh That is flawed sensus, it would be more than 450 Million in 2001 and in 2011 according to official 2011 sensus it is 656 Million , we can be rest assured we will have a muslim PM next elections and all outstanding issues with Pakistan will be resolved.
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 09:51am
@Junaid This was a Supreme Court verdict; Modi has nothing to do with this. But if he was instrumental, then we all should be proud of him
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 09:52am
Very interesting, that this comes from Indian courts. Progressive Muslim countries like Pakistan are in love with Mullahs to come up with such logical reasoning.
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 11:24am
We dont have a BhagavadGita law, neither a Bible law which is above Supreme Court law in our Country, So there should not be a Islam law in our Country... There should not be any parallel Courts, It should be only one Court that is Supreme Court...
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 11:47am
@someone - You are mistaken about the SC stand. It says if any one voluntarily wants to follow these courts and laws, they are free to do so. As long as they do not curb the rights of others and do not break any civil laws, they are free to follow any law or rules. It cannot be imposed on unwilling person. But legal courts have sanctity and they are not voluntary. Any one breaking its rules will be punished and cannot say I have different set of rules. SC says, religion cannot curb fundamental rights of the person granted by the constitution. If person refuses to follow judgement of sharia law, there is no way its judgement can be imposed on any one. Also no judgement can be against the rules of constitution of the country. You can have marriage, incoherence etc. as per your wishes. Nothing more.
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 12:42pm
@hafiz It is the Indian sumpreme court, not parliament
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 12:51pm
@Taimoor Khan it says the country is a secular country. Why do Muslims insist on Islamic laws. Laws are made keeping in mind the current socio-political condition of a country, beside a law is made so that it would deter criminals from committing crimes, religion has got nothing to do with it
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 01:00pm
@Taimoor Khan
Your language sadly has too much negativity and venom in it and your choice of words leaves a lot to be desired. We can disagree but it doesn't give us the right to be rude. Forget about the Sharia courts in India, what are we doing in Pakistan is what you should be concerned with. Also, to get the blood boiling (our blood boils 10 times a day on a good day) you make statements that are untrue, illogical and simply not how I would show my displeasure. For all of my Pakistani and India friends, please watch Dr. Ram Punyani's videos and learn from this man. He used to be a professor at IIT Mumbai and since 2004 has devoted all his energies into eradicating the disharmony in the Indian society. I guess there is a lesson for us all in his videos.
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 01:03pm
@Rao
Your comment is full of intelligent and heart warming remarks. We just need more people on both sides of the border to think like us.
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 01:15pm
"India's Supreme Court Monday rejected a petition seeking to ban Sharia courts, but stressed that they had no legal powers over Muslims and their decisions could not be enforced."
Now if the Rest of the world would follow suit it would be great. No person should have the power to pass judgement on others if he is incompetent himself, and clearly those who have no sense of reality are totally incapable of making reasonable decisions.
Misquoting Voltaire, it can be said "Those who believe absurdities, will commit atrocities."
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 10:24pm
The idea is simple. In a civilized society, there are arbitrators, and there are courts of law. After this Supreme Court judgment, it is clear that Sharia Courts can only act as arbitrators in matters of civil disputes in India between parties that accept the Sharia Court as an arbitrator, and will have no say in criminal cases. As long as both parties to a civil dispute agree to the arbitration, and the 'suggested' solution doesn't infringe on a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of any citizen of India, the 'suggestion' from the Sharia Court arbitration would be an acceptable alternative, and avoid court proceedings. If any party refuses to accept that 'suggestion', the arbitration proceedings will lapse, and the aggrieved party has the recourse to the secular courts of law. As for criminal cases, the Sharia Courts will have no locus standi at all. Only the legal enforcement agencies, the judiciary and the Indian Penal Code will decide the nature of the crime, the indictment process, the trial and its punishment verdict.
Recommend
0
Jul 09, 2014 10:42pm
@zack - Amitabh' house.........you are a classic joker, aren't you?
Recommend
0
Jul 10, 2014 12:04am
@Anwar
No you are wrong about rape. In the case of rape, victim's testimony is enough. In case of adultery you need for EYE witnesses. That is another thing that "learned ulema" have bent the sharia laws according to their whims.
Recommend
0
Jul 10, 2014 12:46am
Pakistan should also have the similar system. Islam has several denominations and the interpretations of the Sharia laws defer from one sect to another. Imposing one interpretation on another group increases resentments and can lead to civil unrest. If a person believes in a certain faith and wants to volunteering agree to the "Devine laws" of that faith, then that is great, but to impose those same laws to another person who doesn't believe those laws to be "Devine" is not fair.
Recommend
0
Jul 10, 2014 12:55am
@Taimoor Khan What it says is that all citizens are governed by one set of laws without fear or favour. One country one constitution and one law.
Recommend
0
Jul 10, 2014 12:58am
@Krish Doubt if it ever occured to them that judiciary and executives are separate in a true democracy seeing what passes for democracy in their country.
Recommend
0
Jul 10, 2014 09:26am
Seeing the positive comments on this development coming from progressive Pakistanis-Muslims I am heartened and optimistic about the future of the sub continent,
It is perhaps time for all citizens of the sub continent-be it Indians or Pakistanis or Bangladeshis...to seek a new identity away from religious one and one that was crafted by Partition?
Should we think of economic unity of the subcontinent under an over arching secular identity? Think it over everyone?:):)
If that can be achieved first,down the road perhaps a confederation or union can be thought of as a possibility? If that happens there are very few countries that can match this behemoth?:):):)
Recommend
0
Jul 11, 2014 09:06am
@M.M.Sherazi
dear it is for the relief of minorities and is for their more freedom .... this will allow muslims to not follow any additional rules and regulation above the existing indian law..
Recommend
0
