| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Jamiat-ul-Ulama: Supreme Court has no power to intervene in talaq issue |
| 2006-04-23 |
| Taking strong exception to the Supreme Court verdict directing Orissa government to provide security to a muslim couple who wanted to stay together after talaq, Orissa unit of Jamiat-ul-Ulama on Sunday threatened to ostrcise the couple if they went by the apex court decision. “Supreme Court has no power to intervene in religious matter. The apex court should have confined itself to other litigations. It should have consulted religious institutions and clerics before taking such decision,” Aameere Shariat (president) of Jamiat-ul-Ulama Maulana S S Sajideen Quasmi told PTI from Cuttack. “We will certainly drive the couple out of Muslim society if they stay together defying clerics decisions and abide by the Supreme Court verdict,” Sajideen said. He said, “had the apex court directed the state government to give the couple protection for any other reason, we would not have objected. It is purely a religious matter. The court should not have hurt sentiments of any religious community.” The Jamiat-ul-Ulama, the highest religious body of Sunni sect in the state, said it would write to President of India, Prime Minister, Chief Minister and Law ministers of both state and union governments to look into the matter. “We are not showing any disrespect to Supreme Court. We will continue to abide by its law. But we will certainly appeal the court to review its decision,” he said adding that it could create “distrust” in the community. The whole issue should be discussed in the parliament. It was high time the legislative body should take a firm decision on religious independence, he said. Najma Bibi and Seikh Sher Mohmmed of Orissa’s Bhadrak district had incurred the wrath of clerics after the husband pronounced triple talaq in a drunken state in 2003 but subsequently wanted to stay together. However, Supreme Court on April 21, 2006 had directed Orissa government to provide security to the couple who wanted to stay together. “No one can force them to live separately. This is a secular country. All communities — Hindus or Muslims should behave in a civilised manner”, a bench of Justice Ruma Pal, Justice C K Thakker and Justice Markandey Katju had observed. Reacting to the apex court verdict, Orissa Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik had said “let the state government receive the verdict. Then only needful steps will be taken.” Jamiat-ul-Ulama said it would soon convene a meeting of qazee shariat (district unit) to deliberate on the issue. “We are waiting for the Supreme Court order and all heads of district units would discuss on the subject. Future course of action would be taken according to the resolution passed in the meeting,” Sajideen said. Meanwhile, clerics in Bhadrak district have given guarded response. Abdul Bari, president of Bhadrak Muslim Jamait, said “we will take a stand after we get the copy of Supreme Court judgement.” He said, “we are examining response of administration on the issue.” A report from Najma’s village said some residents were opposed to Najama and Sher Mohmmed’s reunion. “we will not let anybody, who had defied fatwa, stay among us,” they warned. |
| Posted by:john |
| #6 I really feel for them. Pass the ammunition |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-23 18:46 |
| #5 The court should not have hurt sentiments of any religious community.” For a culture that is denied thought and can't fight back on reason, this cloak of "hurt feelings" focuses their rage. Hurt feelings is the reason for all the carnage by muslims. Everywhere. And feelings are directed to rage against infidels. Sublimation of jealousy. Rage at the uhmah that denies them the dream. |
| Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-04-23 18:33 |
| #4 Exactly. They have managed to obtain rights in India that even muslim majority countries do not give. Triple Talaq ("I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you") is not permitted in most islamic nations but it is in India. Muslims are now pushing for affirmative action quotas in the public and private sector. An attempt to impose quotas in the army has failed though... |
| Posted by: john 2006-04-23 17:10 |
| #3 they refuse to be civil |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-23 16:34 |
| #2 The muslims have bitterly resisted a uniform civil code. When the Indian President and former rocket scientist, Abdul Kalam (ironically a muslim) recently reminded the parliament that the Indian constitution states that a uniform civil code should be enacted by the parliament (and it has not done so in 50 years), muslim groups protested calling for that part of the constitution to be amended as it was "a sword hanging over the head of the muslim community". |
| Posted by: john 2006-04-23 15:06 |
| #1 That is why the US has a civil marriage that takes legal precedence over a religious marriage. In this case, the government could say that while the religion might decree them divorced, they are *not* divorced according to civil law; therefore, both the husband and the wife were still bound by their marriage agreement. That is, any sexual activity outside of marriage would be legally adultery; if the husband or the wife left their shared house it would legally be abandonment (which could be a petty criminal act), etc. This would trump the Ulama by negating their power. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-04-23 14:40 |