Why I disagree with Shri Sandeep

In his latest post Shri Sandeep takes to task the AIMPLB (All India Muslim Personal Law Board) for expressing it’s disapproval of the Supreme Court’s judgement in a recent divorce maintainance case –

This is the jist of the court’s decision Shri Sandeep carried:

“In the recent judgment, delivered on December 4, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Deepak Verma and Sudarshan Reddy upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman Shabana Bano to get maintenance from her husband.”

This is the rebuke from the AIMPLB:

The Supreme Court judgment is a direct interference in Muslim personal law. It is also against the Shariat, which states that marriage is a contract between two individuals and it becomes null and void after divorce,” said Maulana Khalid Rashid, a member of the board.”

– Namaste

–Varta–

Palahalli S – I am of the opinion that Hindus as such have no say in the matter. The rationale and logic of Personal Law dictates this course, and it is most sensible in the situation Hindusthan finds itself.

Hindusthan is a religious society which is deeply traditional and conservative – no matter what the liberals say otherwise. Hindu Personal law has been codified and it’s family laws have been amended and altered a number of times without incident. This is not true of Muslim Personal Law. The gate-keepers, self-appointed or state nurtured, of Muslim Personal Law are fairly adamant that it is Muslim authority that must decide or be consulted with, before re-interpreting what has been already decided. I find little that is wrong with their argument since they are merely following the logic of Personal Law.

Now, since Hindusthan is also “liberal heavy” in it’s establishment-side, it (this establishment) every now and then feels the itch to interpret laws that it sees as regressive, progressively. The latest case of Shabana Bano is pertinent to this theme.

It would have been perfectly alright for the likes of AIMPLB – who have the obvious support of the Muslim minority in Hindusthan – to have interpreted or re-interpreted Muslim Personal Law as per their lights. However, for an institution of the state (Judiciary) that is widely seen as Hindu or in any case inimical to the interests of the Muslim minority to take it upon it’s honorable self to do this deed is downright arrogant.

There are some basic changes that need to be brought about whereby the Judiciary, composed of non-Muslims, who are lacking in the relevant theological authority/credibility, must make way to Muslim judges and allow them to decide cases pertaining to issues under Muslim Personal Law. If this should logically lead to Shari’a courts, then so be it.

I have linked to several relevant references and this is enough to prove the kind of footsie non-Muslims are forced to play just so that Muslim women maybe protected from the depredations of Muslim men – all of which ultimately lead to no good for the non-Muslim.

Ref : One

Ref : Two

Ref : Three

Ref : Four

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: