• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Uniform civil code survey is a `war' on religious rights: Muslim bodies

Status
Not open for further replies.
It shows their true colors! Despite getting all rights to practice their religion they do not want to follow the laws of the land!!

Uniform civil code survey is a `war' on religious rights: Muslim bodies

TNN | Updated: Oct 14, 2016, 07:02 IST

Highlights


  • Muslim groups have opposed the law panel's questionnaire on the uniform civil code.
  • The organisations said they will start a campaign to withdraw the law commission's move.



NEW DELHI: Led by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, several Muslim organisations on Thursday opposed the law commission's questionnaire on the uniform civil code (UCC), declaring that the move amounts to the Modi government declaring "war" on their religious rights.

The threat of Muslim organisations to "boycott" the law commission process also comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court hearing a challenge to triple talaq where the Centre termed the custom unconstitutional and violative of gender equality .

Accusing the government of waging "war" against the community and contending that the UCC, if implemented, will threaten the country's pluralism, the organisations said they will start a campaign to withdraw the law commission's move.

FM Arun Jaitley said the move was an "academic exercise" and that an UCC will need Parliament's approval. Jaitley also said personal laws of all religions should be "compliant" with individual rights granted by the Constitution, adding that Hindu and Christian personal laws had been amended in the past.

"The triple talaq case is not connected to the UCC. Religious practice can apply to rituals of death, birth and marriage. But there should not be discrimination between male and female with regard to inheritance and divorce. The right to human dignity must be protected. Personal laws must be compliant with the Constitution," Jaitley said.

Speaking to the media, AIMPLB general secretary Wali Rehmani, Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani and representatives of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, Milli Council, Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadees said all the Muslim sects and women were "one" on the issue of personal law. Rehmani said he did not agree with the law commission's claim that the step is an endeavour to address discrimination against vulnerable groups and harmonise the various cultural practices. He said an UCC will end the country's pluralism and paint all in "one colour" and end diversity .

"The questionnaire of the law commission is vague and confusing. It gives an impression that the personal laws are responsible for social inequalities and gender disparities and have nullified the rights of women," the AIMPLB said."The intention of the affidavit by the central government on issues of triple talaq, polygamy , maintenance of divorcees and now the questionnaire are all aimed at clearing the way for a uniform civil code," the Muslim leaders said.

Muslim leaders also sought to counter the government's stand on triple talaq by claiming the community has reported lesser number of divorce cases vis-a-vis other communities, especially Hindus.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...rights-Muslim-bodies/articleshow/54841785.cms
 
This issue is quite hot and that's the reason all previous governments were avoiding it. Now since Hon'ble SC has taken a stand, it was impossible for this government to avoid it. Don't think the vote bank politics will allow this issue to go beyond the present stage..like Ram mandir this will also only remain in news..
 
509965-pol.jpg
 
[h=1]Don't make triple talaq debate political: Centre to Muslim Law Board[/h]October 14, 2016 12:51


Asking All India Muslim Personal Law Board not to make political statements over the issue of triple talaq, the Centre on Friday said that the core issue is gender justice and not politics.

Referring MPLB's press conference on Thursday, Union Minister M Venkaiah Naidu said some people are confusing triple talaq with Uniform Civil Code.

He also called the Muslim body for a debate on Uniform Civil Code.

"What is the objection I dont understand and why to bring in the PM? Let us have a healthy debate on the core issue," Naidu said.

"You want to boycott Law Commission then its your choice but dont force your view on others and dont make it political," Naidu said.

He also sought to know why the MPLB called the PM a dictator.

The All Indian Muslim Personal Law Board and various other outfits on Thursday opposed the Law Commissions questionnaire on Uniform Civil Code and announced their boycott of the move, accusing the government of waging a 'war' against the community.


http://news.rediff.com/commentary/2...im-law-board/678559af14243d3bb5b8761a2dd973ef
 
I think that India should have an uniform Civil Code. I supported that when I was in India, and still do.
Constitution should supersede any religion in the matters of civil liberties.

Amid the ongoing debate over 'Triple Talaq', Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Sunday said the government is of the clear view that personal laws should be constitutionally compliant and in conformity with norms of gender equality and the right to live with dignity.

Some people may hold a conservative, if not obsolete, view that personal laws need not be constitutionally compliant, he said, adding "the Government's view is clear. Personal laws have to be constitutionally compliant...".
 
Last edited:
We will die, but the Sharia law will not change: Scenes from an anti-UCC meeting in Hyderabad


AIMIM_protest_meet_(Facebook%20-%20AIMIM).jpg



Thousands gathered to protest against the Uniform Civil Code, at the AIMIM headquarters in Hyderabad.
There was a pleasant lull at Darussalam, the headquarters of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) in Hyderabad on Wednesday evening as the sun set.

People scurried about making arrangements, setting up chairs, lights, checking the sound system, even as a large battalion of policemen were huddled in a corner of the ground, with a senior officer addressing them.
Police had been deployed as part of regular bandobast for a public meeting. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had called a meeting to discuss the Uniform Civil Code. Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owasi, a member of the Board, would be one of the speakers.

Read more at: http://www.thenewsminute.com/articl...hange-scenes-anti-ucc-meeting-hyderabad-51675
 
I happened to see an old debate in times now where justice katju was opposing the triple talaq... he said that (paraphrasing) "a man saying talaq thrice to divorce his wife is a practice of savages". And that was it. All the other panelists (who were muslim) with the exception of one woman, started deriding katju. Finally, the debate had to conclude without even discussing on logic.

Muslims, as a whole, are opposed to amending anything religious selectively. Just as kanchi kamakoti (chandrasekharendra) refused to denounce any unfair practices in the current social setup, the muslims also do not want anything changed or banned. Instead they say that they have their own redressel mechanism and any woman can go through the procedure.

-------

This is not a matter of muslim religious rights alone. What begs the question is that fact that will other religious groups also do the same if logic or humanity is appealed to? We had a similar instance where JJ banned animal slaughter in temples. It was subsequently revoked after stiff opposition. Will tamilians acquiesce to the demand to ban jallikattu on grounds of cruelty to animals? Will hindus stop the vinayaka chathurthi procession on grounds of damaging the environment?

I feel that UCC should govern all kinds of rituals and customs associated with religion, society, and we should move towards a more humane environment.
 
I have the following doubts. Will someone knowledgeable clarify?

1. If the wife to whom the husband says triple talaq is deaf and dumb will the talaq be effective? Will it be translated and explained to the wife by some third party? If so how reliable will that third party delivered talaq be if later the issue becomes a dispute?

2. Will the man pay maintenance to the woman for life time or is it that it is enough if he returns the dowry?

3. In the eye of law is personal law superior to the law for the society?

4. Will it be violating the rights of religious rights assured in the constitution if the personal law is amended?

5. Are there not modern muslim nations in the world where this triple talaq has been banned? which are those nations? Have they ceased to practice Islam? Have they been declared to be Kafir?

6. I am told (not sure whether true) that the three repeats of talaq can be said in instalments and yet it will be an effective divorce. Say just talaq today and then go about your usual life. Say it a second time when you are irritated and still go about your life as usual until you decide enough is enough and say it for the third time. Is this true?

7. I am also told (again not sure whether true) that a talaq can also be sent from another country across the world in an ordinary post and still it will be effective as a divorce. Is this true?
 
Last edited:
I have the following doubts. Will someone knowledgeable clarify?

1. If the wife to whom the husband says triple talaq is deaf and dumb will the talaq be effective? Will it be translated and explained to the wife by some third party? If so how reliable will that third party delivered talaq be if later the issue becomes a dispute?

2. Will the man pay maintenance to the woman for life time or is it that it is enough if he returns the dowry?

3. In the eye of law is personal law superior to the law for the society?

4. Will it be violating the rights of religious rights assured in the constitution if the personal law is amended?

5. Are there not modern muslim nations in the world where this triple talaq has been banned? which are those nations? Have they ceased to practice Islam? Have they been declared to be Kafir?

6. I am told (not sure whether true) that the three repeats of talaq can be said in instalments and yet it will be an effective divorce. Say just talaq today and then go about your usual life. Say it a second time when you are irritated and still go about your life as usual until you decide enough is enough and say it for the third time. Is this true?

7. I am also told (again not sure whether true) that a talaq can also be sent from another country across the world in an ordinary post and still it will be effective as a divorce. Is this true?

Just a summary question - would you accept a uniform law that says marriages ought to be only registered and directs that any other ritualistic practices of marriage have to be banned?
 
I can try to answer some of Vaagmiji s questions.

Muslims marriage and divorce are governed by two acts

1.The Muslim personal law[shariat] application act 1937

2. The dissolution of muslim marriages act 1939

In the former the husband is put in the position of giving his own divorce informally as specified by islamic clerics.

Muslim men consider it a dehumanising experience.

In case of the latter act, is to facilitate muslim women to get divorce either by approaching islamic clerics or they can go court. In case of latter alternative, women in

order to avoid social stigma of divorce ,file dowry harassment case first instead

It is a considered view that these laws require a re look.

Maintenance in islamic law is forbidden. In shahbanu case in 1986, the plea of a muslim woman for maintenance accepted by supreme court was nullified under the

1939 act.

Talaq is of two types. Triple talaq in one sitting in presence of two witnesses.The other he can give talaq in three monthly instalments. In case of the latter, those men who

follow the installment route land their family members in trouble in fake dowry cases.

I hope this answers the basic issues raised by vaagmiji
 
As regards talaq,Cyprus and turkey have secular laws. Countries like tunisia,algeria one has to go to court for divorce.In shia countries like iran triple talaq does not have validity.

It is there only in some sunni countries.

It is difficult to amend personal laws in india as the minorities constitute a vote bank. They also have fears that their religion gets diluted by a hindu majority state.
 
Just a summary question - would you accept a uniform law that says marriages ought to be only registered and directs that any other ritualistic practices of marriage have to be banned?
Hi auh,
I do not call an Abdul Khader Vadhyar to help me perform my amavasai tarpanam. Perhaps you do. LOL.
 
Just a summary question - would you accept a uniform law that says marriages ought to be only registered and directs that any other ritualistic practices of marriage have to be banned?

Even now registration of marriage is compulsory as proof of marriage ir-respective of whether you conduct the marriage in a traditional way , modern way . That is why you can see the newly married couples rush to the nearest Registration Office after Muhurtam is over to register their marriage .
 
Just a summary question - would you accept a uniform law that says marriages ought to be only registered and directs that any other ritualistic practices of marriage have to be banned?

Variety adds immensely to the pleasure and beauty of an otherwise humdrum human life.

Each group in the society can have their own rituals and cultural practises. That gives them a unique kind of satisfaction.

When the law practiced by these groups comes to clash with the laws of a modern democratic society of the land, the later law will take precedence. This is the accepted rule of community life.

When I build a temple on my own land, pay and appoint an archakar and arrange to conduct pujas and utsavams in such a temple, it is a private temple. I decide which all utsavams are to be conducted and how many deities are to be installed in the temple for worship etc., I have only to take care and see that none of the practices followed by the temple become an affront to the public at large or cause nuisance to the public. As long as I do not come in conflict with the law of the country's civil society I have the freedom to run the temple as I decide.

On the contrary if the temple belongs to the community and is financed by endowments created several years back by a community, and it accepts contributions from the public by placing hundis and by appealing for contribution, the rules of conducting the affairs of the temple are decided by Government as Government represents people at large who own the temple.

Similarly as long as a community manages its affairs without coming in conflict with the society at large-meaning the civil law of the country-it can go about keeping its un ique identity and rituals and culture.

In simple terms (summary answer) if there is a conflict between the interests of a small group and a larger society, the latter takes precedence in implementation. The former has to accept it. Within its own domain it will have the full freedom to practice its other rituals, prayers, values and culture peacefully. Period.
 
Last edited:
Muslims, as a whole, are opposed to amending anything religious selectively. Just as kanchi kamakoti (chandrasekharendra) refused to denounce any unfair practices in the current social setup,

This can be only classified as an attempt to bring in false equivalency.

the muslims also do not want anything changed or banned.

The moot question is whether the "Right to equality" guaranteed by the Constitution percolates to citizens of all religions and gender and it is as clear as daylight that the divorced muslim women hold the wrong end of the stick in the 3-talaq scenario.

Instead they say that they have their own redressel mechanism and any woman can go through the procedure.

It is again as clear as daylight the redressal mechanism is biased against women and there are "n" number of women seeking justice from the courts citing constitutional provisions.

This is not a matter of muslim religious rights alone. What begs the question is that fact that will other religious groups also do the same if logic or humanity is appealed to? We had a similar instance where JJ banned animal slaughter in temples. It was subsequently revoked after stiff opposition. Will tamilians acquiesce to the demand to ban jallikattu on grounds of cruelty to animals? Will hindus stop the vinayaka chathurthi procession on grounds of damaging the environment?

I feel that UCC should govern all kinds of rituals and customs associated with religion, society, and we should move towards a more humane environment.

This is the net-oriented response of the people just conflating the issue under discussion with all and sundry issues, such as bringing up environmental issues, cruelty to animals etc. etc. and stall the whole process. Why is there no appeal to ban "moharram" or "thaipusam" which cause self cruelty or there are no serious protests during Thanks-giving in which thousands of turkeys are slaughtered?

Why raise these issues only when triple talaq is questioned ?

What has Uniform Civil Code got to do with vinayaka chathurthi Ganesha Idol immersion, seriously?

There have been many fundamental changes in the life of an average citizen and the society and government have assumed so many protective roles. About 50 years back these women were left as "destitutes" with no one to care for (and exploited by any and everyone who had but the chance), but in the present day the government takes their responsibility and gives them as much subsidy as possible. Sure, the subsidy is grossly insufficient but there should be an enabling provision in Law to make the delinquent husband pay instead of giving him an opportunity for him to run away citing personal laws.

You may also ask the muslims whether they are prepared to chop off their limbs for petty crimes like small time thievery or public stoning for adultery etc. and whether we as a civilized nation can go back to those barbaric days.

Triple talaq is INVALID in most of the islamic countries where sharia is the base.

"Vrundavan widows" cases come near about the issue at hand and one can see progress on that front.
 
Last edited:
Even now registration of marriage is compulsory as proof of marriage ir-respective of whether you conduct the marriage in a traditional way , modern way . That is why you can see the newly married couples rush to the nearest Registration Office after Muhurtam is over to register their marriage .

The moot point is whether a religious injunction can be brushed away based on its irrelevance to the current social and constitutional construct.
 
When the law practiced by these groups comes to clash with the laws of a modern democratic society of the land, the later law will take precedence. This is the accepted rule of community life.

There is the concept of social justice wherein every individual is entitled to equal privileges. The law cannot be impartial in its applicability; it would be gross injustice to seek to wipe out a religious law, on the basis of its non-adaptability with the "laws of a modern democratic society of the land" of the muslim community while conveniently ignoring similar constitutional violations of the hindu community.

Hence it is being seen as an assault of the majority on the minority. If the intent of the party in power is sincere, let it bring forth a white paper on all such religious practices and laws where it is a constitutional violation. That would be a fair case then, I feel.
 
The moot question is whether the "Right to equality" guaranteed by the Constitution percolates to citizens of all religions and gender and it is as clear as daylight that the divorced muslim women hold the wrong end of the stick in the 3-talaq scenario.
What about social justice. There was a TED short video of two monkeys who were given a cucumber and trained to give back a stone. They both did just fine, but when one monkey was given grapes the other monkey anticipated the same treatment. When it was given the cucumber, it lost control over itself and, after a couple of instances, it refused to do the job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMoK48QGL8

So to be fair, we have to look at all religious practices and then strike them off the book.

It is again as clear as daylight the redressal mechanism is biased against women and there are "n" number of women seeking justice from the courts citing constitutional provisions.
So let the government do a referendum...

This is the net-oriented response of the people just conflating the issue under discussion with all and sundry issues, such as bringing up environmental issues, cruelty to animals etc. etc. and stall the whole process. Why is there no appeal to ban "moharram" or "thaipusam" which cause self cruelty or there are no serious protests during Thanks-giving in which thousands of turkeys are slaughtered?
So bring in all those items under the same banner. I was just giving an example and there is no need for us to become polarized over it. Let us see all through the same eye.

What has Uniform Civil Code got to do with vinayaka chathurthi Ganesha Idol immersion, seriously?
Well, bring in an uniform environmental code then. Religious activities cannot damage our world, right?

There have been many fundamental changes in the life of an average citizen and the society and government have assumed so many protective roles. About 50 years back these women were left as "destitutes" with no one to care for (and exploited by any and everyone who had but the chance), but in the present day the government takes their responsibility and gives them as much subsidy as possible. Sure, the subsidy is grossly insufficient but there should be an enabling provision in Law to make the delinquent husband pay instead of giving him an opportunity for him to run away citing personal laws.
I am only saying that when we talk about correction, do it in a fair way.
You may also ask the muslims whether they are prepared to chop off their limbs for petty crimes like small time thievery or public stoning for adultery etc. and whether we as a civilized nation can go back to those barbaric days.
But that is criminal law, which supercedes every other.
 
I know it is one sided argument in this site. Auhji is trying to give balancing opinion.
I am biased.

I think there should be uniform laws for all citizens of a country. A similar set of laws should also be applicable to residents of that country.
Referendum on laws is a dangerous proposition. The minority will not be protected.
I propose a constitution committee, that should take all opinions and come up with all modifications to the constitution.
 
So to be fair, we have to look at all religious practices and then strike them off the book.
So let the government do a referendum...

1)One religion has enshrined the right of a husband to beat his wife black and blue except on her face if she refuses to come to bed when demanded by him.

It also fiercely defends the practice of talaq said three times in instalments or by post to break a marriage without any qualms and the women being left high and dry.

2)Another religion has the practice of sati or the woman going in flames in the funeral pyre of the man.

It also has the practice of child marriage denying the woman/child the informed choice of a husband.

The two religions are equal.

Until the practice of sati and child marriage goes by legislation the practices of triple talaq and beating the wife in the other religion can not be touched. Let the hapless muslim women, who are affected, pray to Allah for the hindu women to get their rights as along with that as a freebee they too would get their rights. ஒன்று வாங்கினால் ஒன்று இனாம்.

Social justice is indeed a funny word and people discover newer and newer meanings to that word. Long live social justice and contrived, false equivalency in barbarian practices in the religions. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top