this post was submitted on
108 points (88% upvoted)
shortlink:

india

64474 readers
1024 users here now

/r/India Rules

PushBullet Notifications

Telegram Group

Filters & Hot Topics:

Welcome to /r/India

  1. What is Reddit?
  2. Reddit India Wiki
  3. Follow us on Twitter - @RedditIndia
  4. All India related sub-reddits

Requests

  1. Please see this for further details.
  2. Do read the Reddiquette and refrain from personal/vindictive attacks while commenting.
  3. Please provide translations if comment in languages other than English.
  4. Please use spoiler tags where needed. [](#s "Modi") becomes .

Community

  1. Travel Information
  2. State of the Week Threads
  3. IRC
  4. Special mentions
  5. Available rage faces

Avoid duplicates: Check /r/india/new

128 comments | 7 [removed]
sorted by:
best
[-]MyLostKarma 109 points (2 children)
then go to saudi arabia
[-]ayituhc 54 points (2 children)
Pakistan will do just fine!
[-]2RsPeople 16 points (2 children)
But we don't have subsidy for travelling to Pakistan.
So saudi is a cheaper option
Edit: corrected typo
[-]shash747 9 points
subsidiary
subsidy*
[-]ayituhc 3 points (1 children)
You can go to pak by foot if you are creative enough.
[-]2RsPeople 2 points (1 children)
Well, nobody wants to be accused of being a RAW's spy by Pak just because you wanted to save some bucks
[-]LuciferinBeastMode 3 points
Be honest and take permission at border like our dear Bajrangi bhaijaan
[-]vehlijanta 11 points (1 children)
Pakistan has actually done away with triple talaq system
[-]ayituhc 2 points
But its just a matter of crossing a border by foot, instead of swimming across the arabian ocean to reach their mother in law land.
[-]firasd -14 points (2 children)
The comments on this post show why Muslims are suspicious of the government's maneuverings on this front. Very little is based on actually caring about Muslim women, Muslim marriages, or clear thinking about divorce and laws. The agenda is mostly driven by spite and assuming Muslims are the "Other".
[-]GoldPisseR 24 points (3 children)
They are the ones alienating themselves by not embracing the socio cultural changes.
[-]azfun123 3 points (2 children)
Of course.
Imposing your religious beef views on others - Fine, stay in India. Slaughtering beef carries 10 years imprisonment in some states.
Imposing your views that gays cannot have sex - Fine, stay in India. According to section 377, it carries life imprisonment or 10 years.
Courts trying to ban unilateral divorce. i.e basically forcing the uninterested spouse to stay in marriage against their will - Fine. Anyone opposing it can either go to Saudi or Pakistan. They don't belong in India.
It's even more ironic that Muslim personal law is already in the constitution. It's basically Muslims telling don't change the constitution. For that, they have to go to Pakistan and Saudi.
Did anyone tell you to go to America if you oppose marital rape or beef or gay laws? It's even more ironic that America has unilateral divorce. So why Saudi and Pakistan, not America?
[-]GaliKaHero 11 points (2 children)
Bhai I am with you but Muslim religion does not espouse slaughtering beef and there is no hadid that makes it mandatory for every muslim to slaughter. So not slaughtering cows does not make you any less muslim.
Muslims must coexist with Hindus. You can't have your own 100% nation bro. I'm sorry but that's how it will work.
[-]azfun123 0 points (2 children)
Sure. The majority religion can impose their beef views on Muslims. They can also impose their views on gay relationships on others. But what's not acceptable is Muslims imposing their own views in their own personal lives.
and there is no hadid that makes it mandatory for every muslim to slaughter. So not slaughtering cows does not make you any less muslim. So not slaughtering cows does not make you any less muslim.
It does affect others although it's not compulsory.
[-]gcs8 5 points
But what's not acceptable is Muslims imposing their own views in their own personal lives.
'Just let them be': this logic was used by those who justified vegetarian/savarna segregationism in housing; they should be fine with this as well.
[-]LuciferinBeastMode 2 points (1 children)
Wow, now what did our gay brethren do to you ?
[-]azfun123 3 points (1 children)
Nothing. Just like those who eat beef or those who have gay relationship or those who follow personal laws in their own lives. None of those affect me in any way or the others. But it seems like a lot of people take offense to it because it doesn't agree with their ideology.
[-]LuciferinBeastMode 3 points (1 children)
Oh, so triple Talak is good thing huh? OK? Can you justify it though ? Would like to know your view on it
[-]azfun123 2 points
I have argued for unilateral divorce many times in the past.
If you don't like my arguments, you can look up debates around No fault divorce.
Basically, it boils down to Fault vs No fault divorce. Indian judges still favor fault divorces. Other countries have No fault divorce.
[-]Earthborn92 1 points
You can't have your own 100% nation bro
Actually, that's what Pakistan IS.
[-][deleted] 1 points - [removed]
[likely removed by automoderator]
[-]Priyon 1 points
More like, the retarded clerics (especially those of AIMPLB) are alienating the Muslims by not allowing them to embrace socio-cultural changes.
[-]firasd -1 points (1 children)
I actually consider easy divorce a feature of modern society. We can talk about triple talak etc being too easy but the conversation has to have genuine intent. Not about "they".
[-]TemptNotTheBlade 12 points (1 children)
I actually consider easy divorce a feature of modern society.
Can women issue triple talaaq?
We can talk about triple talak etc being too easy but the conversation has to have genuine intent.
I agree. For BJP, UCC is more about votebanks rather than any genuine interest to see uniform laws. If they were worried about uniformity of law and rules, then they would also talk about Hinduism related Taxation laws, concession of Helmets for Sikhs, Sikhs being allowed to grow beards in the Armed forces etc.
[-]odiab 4 points (1 children)
So the fight should be to get women triple talaq , no ?
[-]TemptNotTheBlade 5 points (1 children)
You mean the muslim bodies should fight for this?
[-]odiab 3 points (1 children)
Yes , and everyone who claims to fight for women's right as well.
[-]TemptNotTheBlade 1 points
Not necessarily. People may want to eliminate triple talaaq for men & can still fight for women's rights - that's a legitimate position.
[-]MyLostKarma 1 points
Sure use the minority card , lets all ignore the fact the government has banned dozens of backward hindu practices.
[-]ca_hu_bhai 31 points
Prominent Muslim bodies have warned the central government
Warned? Warned about what huh?
[-]thisguyfukss 70 points (4 children)
Well In that case I would like to have my personal laws as well. My first personal law would be I won't pay any taxes.
[-]ls_ltr 45 points (2 children)
in this country 97% people follow this law
[-]thisguyfukss 26 points
Direct Taxes yes maybe even less, but almost everyone pay indirect taxes.
[-]TemptNotTheBlade 10 points
Not really. Almost everyone pays indirect taxes.
About income taxes, a great majority of the 97% do not pay tax mainly because they are piss poor & their income comes within the taxless slabs. Plus there is agricultural income which is tax free.
[-]metaltemujin 1 points
Start your own religion and then have a following.
[-]singham 1 points
Reminds me of a time when Arundhati Roy wanted her own country within India after writing 10,000 pages of diatribe.
[-]azfun123 -7 points (2 children)
Paying income tax is not personal law. In India, it's a separate act. It involves you and the state. Personal law is about how you want to lead your own life. Like whom you want to marry, when to divorce etc. Other than the husband and the wife it affects no one else.
[-]thisguyfukss 39 points (2 children)
Well paying taxes is haram in my new made religion and doing so will cause rage in my comrades and they will hurt everyone so fo*f government and everyone I will not pay any taxes.
[-]hsnk42 12 points
Can I join? Sounds fun.
[-]azfun123 -7 points (3 children)
Wrong comparison again. Income tax is not personal. I don't see why people try to be edgy. Make up imaginary things for arguments.
Income tax and personal laws are separate acts in India. Income tax is same for everyone else. In personal law, it has many different personal laws for different communities and religions(Somewhere around 200). If your new religion becomes has a sizeable population you can make a new personal law to govern your own personal life which bothers no one else. Not paying taxes affects other who pay taxes. They have to pay more for you. Governing your own personal lives affects no one else. If you don't want to pay taxes in your new religion you can buy some private land and make your own roads etc and not use anything paid by other taxpayers, but not go on Reddit and make idiotic comparisons.
[-]thisguyfukss 12 points (1 children)
By the way answer this honestly how would you feel if someone's daughter is thrown out of the house for no apparent reason just by saying talak x 3?
[-]azfun123 -2 points (3 children)
The exact same way I would feel if a girlfriend dumps her boyfriend for no apparent reason. Nobody is entitled to a marriage. If the wife or husband wants out of a marriage I don't see why there would be a problem with it.
Also, I don't get the throwing out of house thing. First of all, it implies that wife went to her husband house after marriage. If you wanted equality you would interfere in the personal lives and ban wife from living at her husband/in-laws home because a lot of oppression today happens from the in-laws. Wife basically has to serve her in-laws and become somewhat of a maid and in many cases dowry harassment takes place.
[-]GoldPisseR 9 points (1 children)
You are putting marriage and a relationship under the same purview?
The problem is in case of a marriage the wife is usually rendered helpless along with her kids.
[-]azfun123 3 points (1 children)
You are putting marriage and a relationship under the same purview?
Yes.
The problem is in case of a marriage the wife is usually rendered helpless along with her kids.
Nope. Under Muslim personal law when the husband and wife marry, it's basically a contract for the time you are married. After divorce, i.e the contract breaks, it's exactly the same as it was before. Basically they become strangers again.
The wife's mahrams - Father, brother, son and her family are responsible for her maintenance after divorce. Her husband has nothing to do with it because he is a stranger after divorce. It's exactly like a relationship. After you break up with your girlfriend are you going to maintain her if she doesn't have a job? Or is her father or her family going to support her? How does she become helpless after a breakup?
[-]elder--wand 9 points
Fair points made. But you do realize that Islam allows men to have upto 4 wives. Now seeing this a man has every reason to divorce(talak) a wife who doesn't give him "permission" to marry again. The whole system is rigged in favour of men to have their way, and women nothing more than an sideline object to please the husband.
[-]kaoticreapz 2 points (1 children)
If the husband can say "Talaaq talaaq talaaq" and be done with the marriage or have more than a single spouse, I'd like the same privilege be extended to the wife for both cases.
[-]Preacher_1893 2 points (1 children)
Yeah man,I will invent a new religion which says robbing banks is glorious act,so now we legalize robbery for a new set of people?
[-]kaoticreapz 1 points
If you only allowed the males in your religion to do something like this and shouted that this is a "progressive" law everytime, least I could do is ask that women be allowed the same laws because the religious idiots will oppose every instance that anybody asks them to have a uniform code.
[-]gilgamesh-of-babylon 1 points
The exact same way I would feel if a girlfriend dumps her boyfriend for no apparent reason
This does not exist in Islam. Wife has to give reasons to divorce while a man can easily divorce without giving any reason.
[-]TemptNotTheBlade 8 points
Are you saying that personal laws can never be wrong?
[-]thisguyfukss 12 points (1 children)
My point is simple bro either have uniform civil code and make law equal for everyone no matter what religion anyone follows or let everyone create new so called "personal" laws to suppress a part of community.
I hope you know about sati-pratha where widows were burnt along with their husbands would you justify that under "personal" law? That was crime and hence discontinued it's high time islamic religion give basic freedom to their people as well but freedom is least expected from you guys.
I hope I made right comparison now.
[-]azfun123 -3 points (1 children)
My point is simple bro either have uniform civil code and make law equal for everyone
I have a problem with that. It's basically the majority community imposing their views on everyone else. Like their banning of unilateral divorce.
The courts are trying to ban unilateral divorce. From the article,
It shows that couples in other religions are forced to live as 'separated couples' for years before the divorce becomes legal. Sometimes, it takes 10 years before a divorced male or female could remarry,"
Under Hindu personal law there is no divorce without a reason. If your spouse doesn't consent there is no divorce. If you combine it with not recognizing marital rape, then it means once you get married you can rape your wife for ever. There is no divorce without mutual consent.
islamic religion give basic freedom to their people
Islam already gives freedom to not live with someone you don't want to. It's the courts which are trying to take away that freedom by banning unilateral divorce.
Although it's not equal, both men and women have the right to unilateral divorce under Muslim personal law. Women can file it under irretrievable breakdown of marriage and men triple talaq.
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not available under any other personal laws. It means once you get married you need to stay married forever if there is no fault with your spouse. Not liking etc or just wanting out of marriage is not reason enough for divorce in any other personal laws.
It's ironic that you call it freedom when the courts are forcing you to stay with your spouse.
It's high time that courts make unilateral divorce the norm or else stop imposing their views on others.
[-]darklordind 12 points (2 children)
I have a problem with that. It's basically the majority community imposing their views on everyone else. Like their banning of unilateral divorce.
What exactly is unilateral divorce? Should such a right only be given to the Husband? Also, given marriage is a contract, how does one walk away from a contract without consent as well as compensation to the other party. No-fault divorce should be allowed at the same time, there is an alimony component which should not be denied and which should be based on living standards rather than 1400-10000 year religious rules.
Also, laws everywhere are made by majority. Only the principle of equality before law needs to be maintained rather than this sophist argument of majority will over everyone. Tomorrow, the rich will say income tax act, land ceiling act etc are a imposition of will of majority over minority.
[-]gcs8 2 points (1 children)
Also, laws everywhere are made by majority.
Wrong! The minority can buy out those who claim to ideologically represent the majority, and implement measures of appeasement. Case in point: the Mumbai Paryushan meat ban.
Only the principle of equality before law needs to be maintained rather than this sophist argument of majority will over everyone.
The principle of equality would also require non-vegetarians to be considered equal citizens when it come to buying into any housing complex.
[-]darklordind 0 points (1 children)
Wrong! The minority can buy out those who claim to ideologically represent the majority, and implement measures of appeasement. Case in point: the Mumbai Paryushan meat ban.
Wrong! You have no evidence of 'buy out'. Law still needs to be passed by majority. If majority not happy, they will vote for representatives who will repeal prayushan laws.
The principle of equality would also require non-vegetarians to be considered equal citizens when it come to buying into any housing complex.
Non-vegetarian citizens are free to form their own housing society which will not grant access to vegetarians - hence equal before law.
[-]gcs8 2 points
Wrong! You have no evidence of 'buy out'. Law still needs to be passed by majority.
I don't think we need evidence to prove why an organization whose primary field of work is politics, and that prides itself on being the torchbearer of a rational, balanced and encompassing way of life like Hinduism can resort to cheap tactics like appeasing militant, segregationary vegetarianism.
If majority not happy, they will vote for representatives who will repeal prayushan laws.
That will happen only if a referendum on just that one issue were held. And this doesn't happen, and BJP and their supporters know that. This is why BJP indulges in things like promising the moon before elections - statehood for Gorkhaland, quotas for Jats, Dhangars, Marathas and then backs out once elected. Because they know they cannot be recalled for just that one lie. So, your contention that majority will vote for representatives who will repeal Paryushan laws is in fact a sly and cruel play upon the unfortunate drawback of our system. But even if this doesn't find resolution given said drawbacks of the system, it will eventually find a way out. Probably to the detriment of society at large. But by then, songs of glory to BJP would have been long sung and even forgotten.
Non-vegetarian citizens are free to form their own housing society which will not grant access to vegetarians - hence equal before law.
So let Muslims do whatever they want to do too.
[-]azfun123 2 points (2 children)
What exactly is unilateral divorce? Should such a right only be given to the Husband?
I have no problem with unilateral divorce extended to both men and women. I already pointed out that it's already available under Muslim personal law for both men and women although it's not called the same. Look up irretrievable breakdown of marriage. It's only available under Muslim personal law.
Triple talaq/ahsan e talaq - Instantaneous or 3 months.
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - I think one year separation. Available to both men and women.
Under Hindu personal law it's not available. What happens is 5,7 or 10 years before divorce can be reached. In most case that will also not happen without the consent of other party.
Also, given marriage is a contract, how does one walk away from a contract without consent as well as compensation to the other party.
Alimony is a separate component which is irrelevant to unilateral divorce.
Given the number of arranged marriages in India where the husband and wife don't even meet or meet one or two times before marriage, it's idiotic not to allow unilateral divorce. It's basically just forced marriage if one spouse doesn't like the other and wants out.
Let's say a woman gets married after one meeting with her husband. Then she finds out that she doesn't like her husband after marriage because they are not compatible, but there is no fault with him. Basically, under Hindu law there is no possibility of divorce without his consent. So the whole life all she can do is stay married to him. By any luck, if there is some fault with him, she can spend 5-10 years in the court proving it and getting a divorce.
Now what the courts want to do is ban unilateral divorce. I don't see how that's acceptable to anyone when the courts are forcing you to stay with each other.
[-]darklordind 4 points (1 children)
If it is not available under Hindu Personal law, it does not imply that it would not be in UCC. Also, as I understand, under the Hindu Personal law amendments proposed 2010/2012, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage was introduced - changes passed in Rajya Sabha but not yet passed on Lok Sabha.
What the muslim organisations are doing is creating a mass hysteria and fear. They are not allowing any sane discussions on UCC to take place in public to defend their deplorable practices.
[-]azfun123 2 points
There is a reason that was not passed.
If people can't even bring an amendment, there is zero chance of every single religion and all communities agreeing to a single law.
Also, 1 year will not be agreeable to Muslims. I guess 1-3 month separation would be agreeable.
[-]TemptNotTheBlade 2 points (1 children)
A wife cannot divorce her husband of her own accord. She can divorce the husband only when the husband has delegated such a right to her or under an agreement.
[-]azfun123 2 points
Irretrievable Breakdown:
Divorce on the basis of irretrievable breakdown of marriage has come into existence in Muslim Law through the judicial interpretation of certain provisions of Muslim law. In 1945 in Umar Bibi v. Md. Din , it was argued that the wife hated her husband so much that she could not possibly live with him and there was total incompatibility of temperaments. On these grounds the court refused to grant a decree of divorce. But twenty five years later in Neorbibi v. Pir Bux, again an attempt was made to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This time the court granted the divorce. Thus in Muslim law of modern India, there are two breakdown grounds for divorce: (a) non-payment of maintenance by the husband even if the failure has resulted due to the conduct of the wife, (b) where there is total irreconcilability between the spouse
Although not the same for both genders, it nevertheless exists for both genders. It's not available in other personal laws.
[-]rsa1 2 points
Other than the husband and the wife it affects no one else.
If it didn't affect anyone else we wouldn't need to have laws for it, the same way we don't have laws regulating whether couples can eat paneer or dal at meals. The reality is that the way marriages and divorces happen, and how property rights work, has a major significance in gender equality for the society at large.
[-]ls_ltr 57 points
ok sure ...u want all benefits from country and all protection and infrastructure of counrty...but laws your own
[-]clanlord 32 points (1 children)
Nation first religion second...
[-]space_probe 3 points
Nation first religion second...
Nation first.. Religion can go to hell.. There you go.. I fixed it.
[-]Club27Maybe 29 points
Get the fuck out then
[-]Abzone7n 24 points (1 children)
Oh shut up, Well let's also incorporate beheading and hand cutting into personal laws of Muslims then.
[-]kalo_asmi 9 points
Go the whole hog or not at all. Full retard.
[-]kalo_asmi 25 points - [removed] (1 children)
Don't meddle in Constitutional law making process: secular Indians to Muslim bodies.
[-]mgroad_trafficjam 9 points - [removed]
>secular Indians
Isn't the popular tag "bhakts" for anyone appearing even slightly pro-BJP?
[-]Not_a_kulcha 19 points
Personal laws will be tampered with when a group cherry picks them to oppress another and grab all the benefits.
[-]LuciferinBeastMode 32 points (2 children)
In the Census report, the number of separated couples in other communities is much higher than in Muslims
Duh!! Well no one wants to be stoned to death
[-]ponniyin_selvan 14 points (2 children)
Also, I am not sure why divorce or separation looked down upon. It's more mature than being locked in an incompatible marriage.
[-]LuciferinBeastMode 6 points
Well it's looked down in all religions but mostly be the old mindset unkils.. Some of the unkils who are open minded are a pleasure to talk to
[-]GoldPisseR 6 points
Because liberty scares everyone.
[-]azfun123 1 points (1 children)
Well no one wants to be stoned to death
What are you trying to imply?
[-]azfun123 1 points (2 children)
What does stoning have to do with divorce? Divorce is perfectly valid in Islam. The prophet's first wife was a divorcee as well as many of the women who were living at that time.
All arab states have high rates of divorce. It's only desi culture(india, pakistan, bangladesh) which has low divorce rates.
[-]LuciferinBeastMode 5 points (1 children)
I'm sorry but I searched about the Prophet's first wife but it says she was a widow not a divorcee here's the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadija_bint_Khuwaylid#Biography
[-]azfun123 1 points (2 children)
Okay. I may have been confused about it.
But it still doesn't explain where you got the idea that stoning is the punishment for divorce.
[-]-crossword- 10 points
u/azfun123 admits he may have been confused.
achhe din aa gaye mitron!
[-]LuciferinBeastMode 6 points (1 children)
Well when people divorce, then they can either remarry or stay single, and when they do that ( remarry) , people start rumours that this was going on during marriage and voila, there you got adultery and I've found a loophole to exploit.
[-]azfun123 1 points
Pure bullshit.
Go look at divorce rates. All Arab states have high rates of divorce. People remarry all the time.
Now you have invented imaginary things like people starting rumors etc. Basically, you have nothing to show that people get stoned for divorce. It's the most idiotic thing I have heard.
And basically, nothing to even do with India. When was the last time you heard someone getting stoned in India?
Divorce is perfectly valid in Islam and carries no stigma.
Here, from Sahih al Bukhari one of the most authentic books after Quran. Divorce granted for not liking her husband.
The wife of Thabit bin Qais came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! I do not blame Thabit for defects in his character or his religion, but I, being a Muslim, dislike to behave in un-Islamic manner (if I remain with him)." On that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said (to her), "Will you give back the garden which your husband has given you (as Mahr)?" She said, "Yes." Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said to Thabit, "O Thabit! Accept your garden, and divorce her once."
Some of the most idiotic things get upvoted here. Like the reason that there are low divorce rates is because people getting stoned to death in India.
[-]ilovemilfcreampie 7 points - [removed]
Kyu tumhare baap ka desh hai?
[-]derp_trooper 6 points
Or else?
[-]GoldPisseR 9 points (1 children)
Its amazing how some groups are so scared of progression,or believe the yesteryear laws to be the word of god and which are not to be amended.
Why such a narrow perspective ?
[-]LuciferinBeastMode 3 points
Coz then they loose that power that they have duh..
[-]behen-ji 3 points
You shouldn't tamper with personal lives, then. :\
[-]galeej 3 points (1 children)
So why not follow Sharia in criminal law as well?
[-]Polawo 2 points
How it will be benefits them??
[-]KabaliBilla 4 points - [removed] (1 children)
Oh yeah you scums, we will and what you going to do about it ?
[-]WizOfGauze 0 points - [removed] (1 children)
Not vote for bjp
[-]KabaliBilla 0 points - [removed]
:D
[-]MrJekyll 2 points (1 children)
Bunch of muslim men trying to sermon Indian legislatures !
Things would have been so much better if muslim women grew some balls & ask for their just rights.
[-]Preacher_1893 1 points
I have seen some women protesting to keep the law,was like,WTF,the prime victim of the law are brainwashed into beleiving it to be true.
[-]sleepless_indian 2 points
Don't tamper with personal freedom.
[-]samacharbot2 0 points
Prominent Muslim bodies have warned the central government against tampering with the Muslim personal laws, including triple talaq.The views came during the national conference on 'Shariat Bachao' held in Kota on Tuesday.
  • "In the Census report, the number of separated couples in other communities is much higher than in Muslims.
  • Sometimes, it takes 10 years before a divorced male or female could remarry," said Shafi.Over 40,000 Muslims from Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi attended the rally.
  • KM Shareef, chairman of Popular Front of India , asked the representatives of other religions to join them in protecting the 'personal laws' of each other.
  • "Here, I am glad that Muslim sex ratio is better than the national average.
Here are some other news items:credits to u-sr33
I'm a bot | OP can reply with "delete" to remove | Message Creator | Source | Did I just break? See how you can help! Visit the source and check out the Readme
[-]anti_anti_adblock 0 points
Don't tamper with personal laws: Muslim bodies
JAIPUR: Prominent Muslim bodies have warned the central government against tampering with the Muslim personal laws, includingtriple talaq. The views came during the national conference on 'Shariat Bachao' held in Kota on Tuesday. The clerics from the different schools of Islam - jurisprudence, Sufi orders and schools of theology - came together to attend the conference.
The clerics agreed that pronouncing triple talaq is a sin in Quran but is valid when possibility of amicably resolution of this matter becomes impossible. Mohammad Shafi, general secretary ofSocial Democratic Party of India, quoted the Census 2011 report that Muslims have the lowest rate of separated couples to justify the religious provision of triple talaq.
"In the Census report, the number of separated couples in other communities is much higher than in Muslims. It shows that couples in other religions are forced to live as 'separated couples' for years before the divorce becomes legal. Sometimes, it takes 10 years before a divorced male or female could remarry," said Shafi.
Over 40,000 Muslims from Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi attended the rally. KM Shareef, chairman ofPopular Front of India, asked the representatives of other religions to join them in protecting the 'personal laws' of each other. "Almost all religions follow their own laws when it comes to marriage, divorce and succession of property. Why Muslims are being singled out by the regime at the Centre," asked Shareef. The clerics directed the crowd to spread the message that Muslim couples should first consult the matter with their families and maulanas before taking the extreme step of pronouncing talaq thrice. Saying that the condition of Muslim women in India is far better than in other countries, Yasmeen Faraqui, head ofWomen India Movement, stated that the sex ratio is one of the main parameters which reflect the social condition of women.
"Here, I am glad that Muslim sex ratio is better than the national average. Divorce is any form is a sin and efforts are being made to educate the married couples, young boys and girls," said Faraqui who has been a counsellor for years at a family court.
Version : 0.6a | Changelog
Function : I post the article's text as a comment if the website is adblocker unfriendly.
Rendered by PROMETHEUS
NO CONTENT OR DATA IS HOSTED HERE!!! This is an API client written in javascript.
This is NOT reddit.com, It is the V for reddit client AKA snew Privacy Policy
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
Privacy Policy All code is licensed under WTFPLv2.
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%