Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
randomGuy

Supreme Court declares triple talaq unconstitutional, strikes it down by 3:2 majority

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

How is it unfair to them?

It is kind cheating for women if you marry one and marry another woman. Would woman like that ? Sharing husband ? What about the property ? How is it divided ? The husband can give more to younger wife children just because she is cute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gattaca said:

It is kind cheating for women if you marry one and marry another woman. Would woman like that ? Sharing husband ? What about the property ? How is it divided ? The husband can give more to younger wife children just because she is cute. 

Islamic Laws hai,  Hum Kya kar sakte hai. Women should abandon Islam if it's so discriminating against them instead of advocating for a watered down version of Islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farah Faiz, Zakia Suman, Noorjehan Niaz and the All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board (AIMWPLB) either described the verdict as a "moment of big victory," "big relief" or as "half the battle won."
"The court has given a direction to the government to frame a law. We have won half the battle. We will be victorious in the true sense only once the law is framed so as to make this practice punishable. There is no remedy for women against the practice till a law is framed," Faiz, also the President of Rashtrawadi Muslim Mahila Sangh, said.                        

\

@Malcolm Merlyn

 

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/feel-victorious-and-protected-by-sc-verdict-muslim-women/articleshow/60175361.cms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, rageaddict said:

Islamic Laws hai,  Hum Kya kar sakte hai. Women should abandon Islam if it's so discriminating against them instead of advocating for a watered down version of Islam. 

You call India a democracy and then ensure that part of its population live under different law simply in name of religious freedom.Its failure on part of Law of land.  My gut feeling is, Not just women, Majority of Muslim men would be happy too. Its just the so called experts/gate keepers of Muslim religion, who dont want to change.

 

I hope Government says no consultation or law is needed on the issue. Existing laws are enough and should apply to everone in terms of divorce

Edited by mishra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trichromatic said:

How is it unfair to them?

Because Polyandry is not allowed? One right for one sex and another for another one?

Also, You need to divorce before you marry becaause if you marry again, despite what the first wife says in terms of consent or mutual agreement, It is considered that she is under duress.

Edited by mishra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mishra said:

Because Polyandry is not allowed? One right for one sex and another for another one?

Also, You need to divorce before you marry becaause if you marry again, despite what the first wife says, It is considered that she is under duress.

What's the reason for banning polyandry and polygamy both? Socially it's not seen as good practice, but is it bad enough to be a criminal activity? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

What's the reason for banning polyandry and polygamy both? Socially it's not seen as good practice, but is it bad enough to be a criminal activity? 

If women/men complain extramarital affair as ground of divorce then if polygamy is practiced then assumption is that there is resentment, duress, coercion, force involved. After all, humans are not just monkeys that the stronger monkey can keep shagging any female monkey.

 

Polyandry is not allowed in religion which allows polygamy. Inherent contradiction

Edited by mishra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, rageaddict said:

Islamic Laws hai,  Hum Kya kar sakte hai. Women should abandon Islam if it's so discriminating against them instead of advocating for a watered down version of Islam. 

Ya right. All western countries don't allow polygamy actually any civilized country doesn't allow. Why India should ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aggressively for TT have toned down today. But, we cannot forget what they actually said, like women have less intelligence and that Congress supported TT alongside its Kapil Sibal. Leave the judgement on one side , but the arguments placed by the TT team has to be the important issue as many people have such hatred for women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, PBN said:

I don't understand the politics of left and left journalists. Bjp and modi are happy triple talaq is gone. The left journalists are not happy and trying to divide people based on religion. Most of educated Muslim males and females would agree this is a good decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PBN said:

That b!!tch !!! Reminds me of an article by Suhasini Ali talking about how in a village some burkha clad Muslim women know how to ride a cycle and hence all Muslim ladies are more progressive than all Hindu ladies and how Hindu women must learn from the niqaabis. WTF is wrong with these so called leftists? They seem heartbroken after this verdict. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, surajmal said:

How do in country that is 80% hindu, 4/5 judges end up belonging to minorities in a given bench? Someone explain this. 

 

How do you say Apartheid in hindi? 

Lol, Out of 27 currently sitting judges in SC, only 4 are seemingly non-hindus :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sitting_judges_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_India

These  4 were included in the bench constituted for this case so that anti nationals can't claim the verdict as hindus oppressing muslims.

Edited by randomGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, surajmal said:

How do in country that is 80% hindu, 4/5 judges end up belonging to minorities in a given bench? Someone explain this. 

 

How do you say Apartheid in hindi? 

This is the latest version of secularism invented in India. The logic is that since India is a secular country, all religions should be represented equally on the SC bench. 

 

The word secular literally means that something should have no religious/spiritual basis, yet in India, the nakli-liberals have warped it to mean literally the opposite: Judges are selected based on their religion. 

 

They are also acknowledging that judges can't be impartial regarding the constitution, and put their religious beliefs first: after all, if the judges were impartial, it wouldn't matter that what religion they were from, as they would be ruling solely based on constitutional law, not religious scriptures and sentiments.   

 

 

 

What's even funnier, regarding the triple talaq case. The 3 judges who ruled to abolish TT were: Hindu, Parsi, and Christian. 3 non-Muslims, none of whom know anything about Islamic law, are saying that TT is un-Islamic as the basis of their judgement. The only actual person who would even remotely be familiar with Islamic law, Nazeer, ruled to keep it. 

 

Now the AIMPLB or Imam Council can, if there is an avenue to re-look at this issue in the SC again, simply find a Koranic verse or some Hadith, etc and show the SC and they will have to overturn their ruling. The bench laid the judicial precedent that the practice is un-Islamic and thus illegal, rather than an issue of "women's rights" or "equality" and thus illegal. Kya vaat hai :rofl: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/scs-3-2-triple-talaq-verdict-deserves-two-and-a-half-cheers-not-three

 

This kind of judgement is dangerous, for it wrongly places holy books above the Constitution. If upholding the Constitution needs a reference to holy books, it follows that the law is about interpreting different religious laws so as to align them with the Constitution rather than upholding the Constitution itself.

 

Worth reading in full. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, someone said:

this does not so much as set a dangerous precedent- IMO, the ruling is perfectly fine and logical. It however, exposes the fatal flaw of India's version of secularism, which is not seperation of religion and state, but a clear goal of 'equal platform to all religions, till it fatally interferes with the state' mentality.

Judges are expected to make judgement on basis of constitution. if constitution says 'refer to religion for act (marriage) defined by said religion', then the judges have to do exactly that and 'put religion on test'. 

We need to change the focus of Indian secularism, from trying to appease everyone (which in real world ends up being appeasing the minorities and snipping off majoritarian views), to a complete 'cut' of state acknowledgement of religion in any practical capacity,bar the holidays.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 0:17 PM, Stuge said:

why did they let a woman reporter go in that dangerous place?

Edited by rkt.india

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2017 at 6:58 AM, randomGuy said:

Lol, Out of 27 currently sitting judges in SC, only 4 are seemingly non-hindus :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sitting_judges_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_India

These  4 were included in the bench constituted for this case so that anti nationals can't claim the verdict as hindus oppressing muslims.

Good its representative..must be one jain one christian one buddhist one parsi rest hindu. Way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×