Deoband fatwa: It's illegal for women to work, support family

[Desi Cartman]

LUCKNOW: Darul Uloom Deoband, the self-appointed guardian for Indian Muslims, in a Talibanesque fatwa that reeked of tribal patriarchy, has decreed that it is "haram" and illegal according to the Sharia for a family to accept a woman's earnings. Clerics at the largest Sunni Muslim seminary after Cairo's Al-Azhar said the decree flowed from the fact that the Sharia prohibited proximity of men and women in the workplace. "It is unlawful (under the Sharia law) for Muslim women to work in the government or private sector where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without a veil," said the fatwa issued by a bench of three clerics. The decree was issued over the weekend, but became public late on Monday, seminary sources said. At a time when there is a rising clamour for job quotas for Muslims in India and a yearning for progress in the community that sees itself as neglected, the fatwa, although unlikely to be heeded, is clearly detrimental. Even the most conservative Islamic countries, which restrict activities of women, including preventing them from driving, do not bar women from working. At the peak of its power, the Taliban only barred women in professions like medicine from treating men and vice versa. But there was a never a blanket ban on working, although the mullahs made it amply clear that they would like to see the women confined to homes. The fatwa, however, drew flak among other clerics. "Men and women in Sharia are entitled to equal rights. If men follow the Sharia, there is no reason why women can't work with them," said Rasheed, the Naib Imam of Lucknow's main Eidgah Mosque in Aishbagh. Mufti Maulana Khalid Rasheed of Darul Ifta Firangi Meheli -- another radical Islamic body which also issues fatwas -- criticized the Deoband fatwa as a retrograde restriction on Muslim women. The fatwa was in response to a question whether Muslim women can take up government or private jobs and whether their salary should be termed as `halal' (permissible under the Sharia) or `haram' (forbidden). Well-known Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad, however, justified the fatwa. "Women in Islam are not supposed to go out and earn a living. It's the responsibility of the males in the family," he said. "If a woman has to go for a job, she must make sure that the Sharia restrictions are not compromised," he added, citing the example of Iran, where Muslim women work in offices but have separate seating areas, away from their male counterparts. In Lucknow, a city with strong secular and progressive traditions, where Muslim families train their daughters to be doctors, engineers and executives, there was a sense of shocked disbelief even in conservative quarters that such a decree could come from those who consider themselves to be advocates of the community. "I am also a working woman and also ensure that my Sharia is not compromised," said Rukhsana, a lecturer at a girl's college in Lucknow and a member of the executive committee of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). "It's not necessary that one would have to go against the Sharia when going to work." "Name one Islamic country which does not have a national airline and does not hire airhostesses? If I know correctly, even the Saudi Airlines has hostesses and they don't wear a veil," said Shabeena Parveen, a computer professional in the city.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[punjabi_khota]

moorakhon ki toli hai bhai..:clap:

[Desi Cartman]

"It is unlawful (under the Sharia law) for Muslim women to work in the government or private sector where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without a veil,"

This bit cracked me up the most

[ViruRulez]

They are a bunch off fools .. BTW does anybody listen to their fatwas .. it seems it is becoming a style to issue fatwas nowadays :giggle:

[Sir john]

rude rules for uneducated people

[Clarke]

A much more intriguing headline was the Allahabad HC's view that a Muslim man's marriage to a woman of another religion shall be considered void and against the tenets of Islam if he fails to get her converted to the religion before wedlock. "For a valid Muslim marriage, both the spouses have to be Muslim. In the present writ petition, this condition is not satisfied", the court remarked and quoted from a verse in the Holy Quran which says, "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe... Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe". http://ibnlive.in.com/news/muslim-man-wedding-hindu-woman-void-hc/115106-3.html?from=tn Expected i guess when there's a different rule for every religion and there's no common law for Indians.The court thus has to rely on religious texts to pass a verdict for such cases.

[Sachinism]

It would suck to have no women in the workplace

[Precambrian]

A much more intriguing headline was the Allahabad HC's view that a Muslim man's marriage to a woman of another religion shall be considered void and against the tenets of Islam if he fails to get her converted to the religion before wedlock. "For a valid Muslim marriage, both the spouses have to be Muslim. In the present writ petition, this condition is not satisfied", the court remarked and quoted from a verse in the Holy Quran which says, "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe... Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe". http://ibnlive.in.com/news/muslim-man-wedding-hindu-woman-void-hc/115106-3.html?from=tn Expected i guess when there's a different rule for every religion and there's no common law for Indians.The court thus has to rely on religious texts to pass a verdict for such cases.

[ViruRulez]

A much more intriguing headline was the Allahabad HC's view that a Muslim man's marriage to a woman of another religion shall be considered void and against the tenets of Islam if he fails to get her converted to the religion before wedlock. "For a valid Muslim marriage, both the spouses have to be Muslim. In the present writ petition, this condition is not satisfied", the court remarked and quoted from a verse in the Holy Quran which says, "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe... Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe". http://ibnlive.in.com/news/muslim-man-wedding-hindu-woman-void-hc/115106-3.html?from=tn Expected i guess when there's a different rule for every religion and there's no common law for Indians.The court thus has to rely on religious texts to pass a verdict for such cases.

This is really worrying. I mean a court verdict is really worrying and not reflecting good on the future. Does the court mean that it would not be a valid marriage under Indian law .. if this trend continues then after a few days inter-caste might not be accepted valid and many other such things.. I could have expected the foolish bashturds and religious show-offs like Bajrang Dal or Deobandhi to make such comments or fatwas etc. but never expected a court to give such a rubbish verdict .. it seems not only UP is corrupted but the whole legal system there is also corrupted and rubbish .. this is a joke in the name of court verdict

[The Outsider]

A much more intriguing headline was the Allahabad HC's view that a Muslim man's marriage to a woman of another religion shall be considered void and against the tenets of Islam if he fails to get her converted to the religion before wedlock. "For a valid Muslim marriage, both the spouses have to be Muslim. In the present writ petition, this condition is not satisfied", the court remarked and quoted from a verse in the Holy Quran which says, "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe... Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe". http://ibnlive.in.com/news/muslim-man-wedding-hindu-woman-void-hc/115106-3.html?from=tn Expected i guess when there's a different rule for every religion and there's no common law for Indians.The court thus has to rely on religious texts to pass a verdict for such cases.

This is really worrying. I mean a court verdict is really worrying and not reflecting good on the future. Does the court mean that it would not be a valid marriage under Indian law .. if this trend continues then after a few days inter-caste might not be accepted valid and many other such things.. I could have expected the foolish bashturds and religious show-offs like Bajrang Dal or Deobandhi to make such comments or fatwas etc. but never expected a court to give such a rubbish verdict .. it seems not only UP is corrupted but the whole legal system there is also corrupted and rubbish .. this is a joke in the name of court verdict

Courts cannot legislate - they can only interpret the laws and the constitution. Unfortunately, when the courts had upheld the demand for alimony, Rajiv Gandhi's government basking in it's two thirds majority amended the constitution to dictate that Muslim marriages will be governed by the Muslim Personal Law as determined by the Waqf board. However, there is a workaround to it in the sense that if the marriage takes place through the courts rather than through a religious ceremony, it will be held valid for people marrying from any religion.

[Guest Hiten.]

As Outsider pointed out it was the handiwork of kaangres govt to mollycoddle the minorities. Take a guess which was the only party that opposed this legislation back then.

IPL after match night parties ? :woot:

[Texy]

if 1 billion ppl were stupid enough to handover the reigns of the country to the italian lady then they deserve to get more verdicts like these backed by the govt

[CSK Fan]

if 1 billion ppl were stupid enough to handover the reigns of the country to the italian lady then they deserve to get more verdicts like these backed by the govt

Still way, way, way better and peaceful than the alternative

[Lurker]

A much more intriguing headline was the Allahabad HC's view that a Muslim man's marriage to a woman of another religion shall be considered void and against the tenets of Islam if he fails to get her converted to the religion before wedlock. "For a valid Muslim marriage, both the spouses have to be Muslim. In the present writ petition, this condition is not satisfied", the court remarked and quoted from a verse in the Holy Quran which says, "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe... Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe". http://ibnlive.in.com/news/muslim-man-wedding-hindu-woman-void-hc/115106-3.html?from=tn Expected i guess when there's a different rule for every religion and there's no common law for Indians.The court thus has to rely on religious texts to pass a verdict for such cases.

Intriguing indeed. First the good news: It should make every Indian, definitely makes me, proud to belong to a land where the minority rights are protected to the point where it may even seem illogical(which in my humble opinion this particular instance definitely is). Can one imagine being in any other country where this is possible? Would liberal West allow local Christians to be told "Nope you cant marry a Muslim(or any other religion for that matter)". And we can only laugh at the idea of this happening in an Islamic state. So that does makes me happy, partly as an Indian and partly also as a Hindu because this wont be possible without the latter. The bad news now: How can Court pass this kind of judgement and effectively box people into two groups? Muslims and non-Muslims? In most likely UP High Court judgement would be turned over in Supreme Court but what if its not?? What about couples who marry across religious lines? Would a Hindu boy married to a Muslim girl now become a criminal since "Muslim girls are supposed to marry within religion" only? What about Muslims guy wanting to marry a Hindu? And what about all those who are married already?? The worse news: My major gripe against Islam has always been this whole marriage nautanki and once again this proves the point. On a different thread there was this whole talk of "free will". Yeah free my :bumsmack: :bumsmack: It is high time Muslim intellactuals worked this notion out on how best to address this scenario. Which non-Muslim would ever want to get close to the opposite gender from Muslim knowing fully well, "We can be friends but thats it"?? It is a clear case of dividing humans into two groups. More so since the other group(in case of India that would be Hindus) does not press for anything like this. Of course the answer should come from the followers and not external factors like me. Ghalib was right when he said - Jannat ki chah mein duniya ko jahannam kar diya. xxx

[The Outsider]

The bad news now: How can Court pass this kind of judgement and effectively box people into two groups? Muslims and non-Muslims? In most likely UP High Court judgement would be turned over in Supreme Court but what if its not?? What about couples who marry across religious lines? Would a Hindu boy married to a Muslim girl now become a criminal since "Muslim girls are supposed to marry within religion" only? What about Muslims guy wanting to marry a Hindu? And what about all those who are married already?? xxx

Bhai sahab, read my earlier post. The court cannot legislate. The legislature is drawn up by the parliament and assembly. It can only interpret and for me is completely correct in the interpretation. But, as I said in my post there is no need for anyone to be bound by this inter religious marriage constraint - all you have to do is marry in the courts instead of a religious ceremony.

[DomainK]

Outsider is right. I dont think its bad though. In India not every couple can or will register their marriage. The awareness levels are just too low. Therefore, a marriage conducted in a religious way (which is the most popular way of marriages in India) has to be legally binding. Such marriages however are subjected to other related law like the minimum age of marriage and the dowry laws etc. Once you allow marriages in a religious way, you have to allow certain differences in different religions. However, if a religious marriage is legally binding, its necessary for both parties to belong to the same religion. And the interpretation is clear: if the marriage is valid according to the religion, its legally binding. Islam clearly says that both parties must be Muslims in order for the marriage to be valid. Since in this case one party was not Muslim, it's not a valid marriage according to Islam and hence can not be legally binding. If the couple wanted to get married without converting, they should have done it in the legal way by signing an agreement. I can not see why they still want to follow a religion if they have already decided to defy it. Convenient, huh? I think the law and the government should encourage people to start registering their marriages. This law can be waived off later. If you want to marry religiously, do it. But then also take care to sign the agreements in front of a magistrate afterwards. The first thing government needs to do for this is to make marriage registrations easier and faster. In some places it takes months to find an appointment for the registration leaving most people disinterested. A couple that wants to get married against their parents' wishes find it much more convenient to go to a mandir in stead of a marriage registrar's office leaving the marriage open to legal challenges later. The law is way more difficult to follow than religion.

[ViruRulez]

Whatever the case but one thing is for sure .. India needs an honest political party which is really concerned about the nation and its development rather than for their vote banks .. every political party in India has turned into highly corrupted parties which cares about vote banks and hardly gives a sh*t to India ... Congress tries to garner every vote bank they can and will do nearly anything for getting some votes, BJP is also a vote bank party and will do even worse for vote bank politics but the only difference is that they will work for Hindu vote banks, Mayawati and her BSP will do nearly anything for her Dalit vote bank, the Yadav parties are the known biatches of Indian politics while the Left have their own insane ideologies where it is difficult to say if they are more inclined towards Indian democratic ideology or Chinese communist ideology .. and to add to that Left will always oppose any bill ever brought by any other party and I have never understand what dire need is there to oppose nearly every bill in the country. India as a country needs a honest political party which does not give a sh*t to vote bank and is modern in its outlook and the only concern is for the development of the nation and to end our culture of corruption.. I really hope that within my life such a political party will emerge and we will see a new India united by the zeal for development and modern in its outlook. These are the few things that should be the ideology of thew new party. You might see a few ideologies common to a few parties of India including Congress, BJP, Left etc. But to be frank there are some good points in each and every party but as a whole most of the parties still work in reality if not only on paper on sh*t ideologies. Here are my ideologies and hope such a party emerges: 1. The first and foremost ideology and aim should be to take India to the no.1 position in the world in terms of all fields and mainly economic power. But only taking India to no.1 position is not enough as that might still be possible considering our population but it should also work for increasing the per capita income of Indians to at least the top 5 in the world. 2. End all kind of vote bank politics completely. Make Indians vote for you from their hearts and soul after seeing their own development rather than by inciting their votes. 3. Eradicate corruption and this culture of corruption from India completely. Unless corruption ends at all levels, even 10-20% of the money allocated for development would never reach the people or projects they are allocated to. 4. Work for 100% literacy in the country with at least 95% educated till college levels. And implement the needed legislation with heart and soul. 5. Work for economic development of all classes of society but in a democratic way and not a communist way. 6. End the present sh*t quota system and instead bring a quota based on economically backward people rather than all the sh*t caste, religion or loads of other things. I would say remove all other quotas except the handicapped quota. Even remove the freedom fighter quota as it does not make sense as it is quite evident that all freedom fighters and all their dependents have also died long time ago. I have great respect for them but it does not make sense to give their grandsons or great-grandsons benefit when those kid have not done anything to deserve it. Keep only economic criteria for quotas and make it around 30-40% at least and include maybe 3-4% handicapped quota thats it. 7. Bring on uniform marriage act in India where a person regardless of religion can marry only one wife and can have two kids at the maximum. I am a Muslim but polygamy is a sh*t rule and it should be banned. There can however be an exception where a person from any religion can marry under exceptional circumstances like his first wife is infertile etc. but then he must take legal permission from his first wife too. Same goes with a woman if her husband is impotent but she must take legal permission from first husband. But in such cases it must only be allowed if it is economically viable for them to sustain two wives or two husbands in the family. And maximum of two kids for every married couple should be made mandatory. Though it sounds a bit undemocratic but that is the only way India can maintain the population explosion bomb. Exception can be there too if needed but only if the parents file a legal petition for a third child and if they can economically support the third child with a very good life. 8. Work for increasing the male:female ratio back to 1:1. It can however only be done if both the sexes are given equal rights and if dowry system is completely abolished as these are main two reasons of female foeticide in India. 9. Ban all organizations making illogical, divisive and other tactics which affects India's development. Ban all the organizations which try to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region etc. Any organization making any such tactics or inciting people in the wrong manner should be banned with immediate effect. Bajrang Dal, BSP, Deobandhi, MNS, Shiv Sena, the Andhra Muslim party (forgot the name), Yadav Parties, VHP and any damn other organization should be banned. Maybe it sounds undemocratic but unless such steps are taken India can not progress properly because such bastards will try to disrupt India's development with their obnoxious tactics. 10. End all disputes in India including Kashmir, Maoists, North Eastern states insurgency etc. at first peacefully but if it does not happen with a strict action. Dont give a **** to Pakis, the Maoists or the other terrorist organizations including NE states and work with a firm hand. If anybody tries to disturb in this attack and end their sh*t. Remove Article 370 and make uniform law all across India. At the same time, work for the development of the affected states and the affected people so that they remove any sympathy if they have for the terrorists. I am really hopeful that such a selfless political party would emerge at least during my lifetime but then I dont know who will bell the cat. Unless the above points are implemented we can never be the ideal nation which we desire. Hope that our dream of such a great and ideal nation turns into reality someday. :isalute:

[coffee_rules]

But Hindu marriage laws can be amended at will. I don't believe in gotra etc., but still India seems to so sensitive to minorities rights, but can abuse majority rights. So, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Same-gotra marriage legal, court had ruled 65 years ago NEW DELHI: The sustained effort by aggressive khap panchayats and their influential political backers to force leading political parties to have a rethink on same gotra marriages is patently illegal. Sixty-five years ago, in 1945, the issue was settled by the Bombay High Court which categorically declared same gotra marriages were legal. And that's been the law of the land since. In wake of the khap panchayat's defiance of the law, not only have top politicians like Om Prakash Chautala and Naveen Jindal caved in - no doubt to retain the political support of these medieval organisations - but national parties like BJP, too, have been wavering. The BJP on Thursday talked about building a "consensus" on the issue, indicating there was scope for modifying the legal view on same-gotra marriages. Even the Congress is said to be keeping its cards close to the chest. So, even as khaps spit fire at courts for holding such marriages legal, it is instructive to learn about the rigour with which two reputed judges went into the issue in 1945, much before Hindu personal law was codified. They consulted the writings of leading experts and delved into the wisdom of the Hindu scriptures to arrive at their verdict. The case, 'Madhavrao vs Raghavendrarao', involved a Deshastha Brahmin couple and the two-judge bench comprised Harilal Kania, the first chief justice of independent India, and P B Gajendragadkar, who became CJI in the 1960s. The essence of the case was whether 'sagotra' marriage or marriage within the same gotra was valid under Hindu custom. The court initially relied on a landmark 1868 case where the Privy Council had stated, "under the Hindu system of law, clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of the law". However, a custom, which was at variance with the written text of Hindu law, had to be ancient, certain and reasonable if it was to be recognised by the court. After going over several court rulings on the evidence to prove a custom, the bench concluded that the marriage in question between a husband and wife belonging to same gotra was valid. This argument could, however, be turned around by the khaps of Haryana to say that it is customary for Jats not to marry within the same gotra. But, the court anticipated this sort of an argument and garnered textual proof for intra-gotra marriage. German scholar Max Mueller had defined 'gotras' as descending from eight sages and then branching out to severalfamilies. The Court, however, referred to eminent scholar P V Kane, author of the 'History of Dharmashastra', who had said: "The mass of material on 'gotra' and 'pravara' in the sutras, the puranas and digests is so vast and full of contradictions that it is almost an impossible task to reduce it to order and coherence." On this ground, the court concluded that it was impossible to accept the suggestion that in reference to the Brahmin families of today, their gotras and pravaras represent anything like an unbroken line of descent from the common ancestors indicated by the names of their respective gotras and pravaras. After consulting the texts of Manu and Yajnavalkya, the court observed that the requirements on gotra were recommendatory, rather than mandatory. Finally, the court stressed on the need of Hindu society and law to keep up with the times. It said, "Courts have to construe the texts of Hindu law in the light of the explanations given by recognised commentators. But it must always be remembered that since the said commentaries were written, several centuries have passed by and during this long period the Hindu mode of life has not remained still or static. Notions of good social behaviour and the general ideology of the Hindu society have been changing. The custom as to marriages between persons of the same gotra in this case is an eloquent instance in point." This is something that the khaps and the Haryana politicians seem to have forgotten. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ But other religions need not keep up with the times, but can follow age-old practices like the Sharia law.

[Precambrian]

A much more intriguing headline was the Allahabad HC's view that a Muslim man's marriage to a woman of another religion shall be considered void and against the tenets of Islam if he fails to get her converted to the religion before wedlock. "For a valid Muslim marriage, both the spouses have to be Muslim. In the present writ petition, this condition is not satisfied", the court remarked and quoted from a verse in the Holy Quran which says, "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe... Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe". http://ibnlive.in.com/news/muslim-man-wedding-hindu-woman-void-hc/115106-3.html?from=tn Expected i guess when there's a different rule for every religion and there's no common law for Indians.The court thus has to rely on religious texts to pass a verdict for such cases.

I dont' see what's the problem in that. The court ruled such a marriage would not come under Islamic law, but Mixed Marriages Act apply to it right?

[someone]

Same good points by coffee_rules, wonder what will now muslims say as they according have enough opportunities and there are more regulations for the majority