Toronto Hindus oppose Muslim prayers at school

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
This is a very interesting topic in terms of law for me. Marriage is recognized by the state on the basis of it being a " contract" and not on a religious basis. IMO in most countries the flaw is in the denial of not allowing polygamy under these terms.

Why? because IF it's a fact that a marriage simply recognized by religion does not constitute as a " marriage" till the state issues a license. Then people should be able to get into multiple contracts just like they can with business entities.
Marriages in India are not even registered. Almost all records of marriages are either with the Qazis or Pandits and the witnesses of the marriage.

Only recently did the govt make it compulsory to even register marriage.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
Lol are you pissed at not being able to have a Harem because of your religious beliefs and jealous about those who can?? He he.

Believe you me, you would not want to have a Harem. Ek hi samhalti nahi barabar se.
No sir.

I was just pointing out how different citizens of the same country have different laws even though they are totally out of sync with the modern practises.

Even if Hinduism permitted polygamy I would not support it because I feel Marriage is not a gamke but a life long commitment whereby one person commits his inner self to the betterment of his 'other half'.

There cannot be four 'halfs', if you know what I mean.

I want a single law, in tune with the 21 st century that gives equal rights to both man and woman not some seventh century tribal laws, be it from any religion.

I personally know a woman (used to be our servant maid) suffering because of these regressive laws. She does not get any alimony from her husband and she lives in utter poverty unable to raise her children and give them the childhood they deserve while that turd sleeps away with another woman after divorcing her by just uttering three words.My hatred for these separate religious laws stems primarily from that apart from India being a 'secular' state where religion is NOT supposed to play any role in judiciary.

DO you think it is fair ? Atleast the other marriage laws are some what beneficial to the woman as it protectc their alimonmy rights and so on.

In a secular country why are we having these regressive laws when we know fora fact that all they do is divide on religion and discriminate against a gender ? Is this not reason enough to bring in an Uniform Civil Code whereby the rights of everyone is protected.

Laziness, inaction....They don't want to disturb status quo.....
...and their vote banks.
 
Last edited:

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Kartick, all good. I don't give a rats ass to Muslim personal law, but the question I want to ask the proponents of the law, do you sincerely wish to introduce a common law to help the hapless Muslim woman or do it with other reasons?

All in all it's good. Triple Talaq was actually abolished by the Prophet (saw) but introduced by Umar. It was a pre islamic practice there.
One sect of Islam accepted it, one didn't as it said the Prophet abolished it.

Again interpretations of convenience I would say. When it suits you, say the Prophet said so, when it's not say it was amended by his trusted aide.

But I would say that Indian Muslims at large are also influenced by local culture too. Demanding of dowry is unislamic. But it's rampant in India.

My domestic help has just paid up 80k demanded by his going to be groom. When I asked her why did she accept such a demand? She said, kya karein, Aisa hi Chala aa raha hai.
 

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,513
Likes
22,526
Country flag
This is a very interesting topic in terms of law for me. Marriage is recognized by the state on the basis of it being a " contract" and not on a religious basis. IMO in most countries the flaw is in the denial of not allowing polygamy under these terms.

Why? because IF it's a fact that a marriage simply recognized by religion does not constitute as a " marriage" till the state issues a license. Then people should be able to get into multiple contracts just like they can with business entities.
Hindu marriage is a "sacrament" which happens once in a life,and state is bound to see marriage from the eyes of concerned personal law. On the other hand Muslim marriage is believed to be "Civil Contract" and "Meher" is the consideration of that contract.

IMO Harem were basically for "Baadshahs" and "Rajas", common people didn't have harems, what do you guys think about it?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Harems could mean the entire household.


The word harem is strictly applicable to Muslim households only, but the system was common, more or less, to most ancient Oriental communities, especially where polygyny was permitted.

The Imperial Harem of the Ottoman sultan, which was also called seraglio in the West, typically housed several dozen women, including wives. It also housed the Sultan's mother, daughters and other female relatives, as well as eunuchs and slave servant girls to serve the aforementioned women. During the later periods, the sons of the Sultan also lived in the Harem until they were 16 years old, when it was considered appropriate for them to appear in the public and administrative areas of the palace. The Topkapı Harem was, in some senses, merely the private living quarters of the Sultan and his family, within the palace complex. Some women of Ottoman harem, especially wives, mothers and sisters of sultans played very important political roles in Ottoman history, and in times it was said that the empire was ruled from harem. Hürrem Sultan (wife of Süleyman The Magnificent, mother of Selim II) and Kösem Sultan (mother of Murad IV) were the two most powerful women in Ottoman history.

Moulay Ismail, Alaouite sultan of Morocco from 1672 to 1727, is said to have fathered a total of 525 sons and 342 daughters by 1703 and achieved a 700th son in 1721.He had over 500 concubines.

Outside Islamic culture
[B/]
Ancient Egyptian pharaohs are said to have made a "constant demand" of provincial governors for more beautiful servant girls.

Ashoka, the great emperor of the Mauryan Dynasty in India, kept a harem of around 500 women. Once when certain lot of these women insulted him, he had the whole lot of them burnt to death.

In Mexico, Aztec ruler Montezuma II, who met Cortes, kept 4,000 concubines; every member of the Aztec nobility was supposed to have had as many consorts as he could afford.

Harem is also the usual English translation of the Chinese language term hougong, 後宮 "the palaces behind." Hougong are large palaces for the Chinese emperor's consorts, concubines, female attendants and eunuchs. The women who lived in an emperor's hougong sometimes numbered in the thousands.

A similar institution existed among the ÅŒoku during the Edo period in Japan.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
^ King Dhasrath Maharaj, father of Lord Ram, was said to have 63000 wives (yes 63000) - but are they in tune with the modern world ?

While some religious practises may not be mutable things like these need to evolve with time and nowadays when the women are considered the equal of men in all fields why have these regressive laws which treats women as just an article of pleasure.

There are enough 'shops' all over India for such items.
 

sanjay

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
459
Likes
186
Yusuf, "other reasons" will always be muttered about by the paranoid.

A Uniform Civil Code doesn't have to be derived from any one set of religious practices, and can be achieved through modern legal reforms based on rational and practical requirements. Western countries have been able to do it - meanwhile India looks like a laughing stock next to them.

There has to be a single law of the land, and not a fractured patchwork. Like I said, if everyone is driving on the same highway, then everybody has to be driving according to the same single set of traffic laws, otherwise there are going to be a lot of collisions and chaos.

I don't see 10 sets of laws in Pakistan. It then begins to look like: "where I am in the majority, I will ask for my religious law to be the law for everyone - but where I am in the minority, I will make sure to have my own personal religious law for myself"

aka. "what's mine is mine, but what's yours we share!"

That's hardly a credible basis for social relations.
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
Allah, Jesus or Ram - does it really matter?

We do not even know they exist and we curse, fight and kill each other in the name of unseen things.
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
Why are we arguing in India about a dispute in Canada?
If we are a secular country it shouldn't matter to us what is happening to non-Indian Hindus, neither non-Indian Muslim problems should be of any concern to us.
Nationality above all.
 

sanjay

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
459
Likes
186
Allah, Jesus or Ram - does it really matter?

We do not even know they exist and we curse, fight and kill each other in the name of unseen things.
As a fellow atheist, I agree that it's foolish for the religious people to assert their superstitions against the real world. And that's why the real world has to be defended by us atheists and rationalists, by our unrelenting pursuit and application of physics.

Physics always wins - you can't cheat or defy physics - whether it's the physics of the economy, the physics of medicine and biology, the physics of society, the physics of the environment and ecology, the physics of science and technology, etc.
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
As a fellow atheist, I agree that it's foolish for the religious people to assert their superstitions against the real world. And that's why the real world has to be defended by us atheists and rationalists, by our unrelenting pursuit and application of physics.

Physics always wins - you can't cheat physics - whether it's the physics of the economy, the physics of medicine and biology, the physics of society, the physics of the environment and ecology, the physics of science and technology, etc.
I am not an atheist.

I love & respect all religions.
 

sanjay

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
459
Likes
186
I am not an atheist.

I love & respect all religions.
What does love and respect for all religions have to do with disbelief in them?
I see your "respect" for all religions below by questioning the existence of their deities:

Allah, Jesus or Ram - does it really matter?

We do not even know they exist and we curse, fight and kill each other in the name of unseen things.
An odd thing to say if you're not an atheist.

A man who claims to be all things to all people, ends up being nothing to anyone.
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
What does love and respect for all religions have to do with disbelief in them?
I see your "respect" for all religions below by questioning the existence of their deities:



An odd thing to say if you're not an atheist.

A man who claims to be all things to all people, ends up being nothing to no one.
Too early to make comments hotshot. I have had my moments. You would too in due course of time.

And how come my questioning the existence of Gods make me an atheist?

A man who claims to be all things to all people is a human being.
 
Last edited:

sanjay

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
459
Likes
186
Too early to make comments hotshot. I have had my moments. You would too in due course of time.
You talk like you think you're older than me.

And how come my questioning the existence of Gods make me an atheist?
Then at the very least you're an agnostic, which is much closer to being an atheist than it is to being religious.

A man who claims to be all things to all people is a human being.
Since nobody can be all things to all people, then that's called being a liar - not just to others but to himself.
 

sanjay

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
459
Likes
186
Last edited:

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Sanjay,

The uniform civil code revolves around only marriage and succession laws. I think marriage seems to be the one on the radar.

I really don't know the reason why Muslim Law Board opposes reform in marriage laws.

I think the Shia laws are more reformed from the beginning itself. Very difficult to get a divorce in the sense you just can't say 3Ts and walk away. A long period of consultation with the priests, family etc and trying to understand the reasons for demanding divorce and trying to solve it. Similar to Indian court laws and this has been the Shia method from day 1.

Again Shias have many sects internally. To talk about my community, we give enough gifts "read gold" to the bride that is for her to keep even if there is a divorce.

If there are kids, then sustenance is provided depending on who demands to keep the kids. If the man wants to keep the kid(s) but the woman says no then she loses her claim for sustenance. If the man does not want to keep the kid(s) then he has to provide for the woman.

Whole thing boils back to interpretations. Its the problem in every aspect of following Islam.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
Sanjay,

The uniform civil code revolves around only marriage and succession laws. I think marriage seems to be the one on the radar.

I really don't know the reason why Muslim Law Board opposes reform in marriage laws.

I think the Shia laws are more reformed from the beginning itself. Very difficult to get a divorce in the sense you just can't say 3Ts and walk away. A long period of consultation with the priests, family etc and trying to understand the reasons for demanding divorce and trying to solve it. Similar to Indian court laws and this has been the Shia method from day 1.

Again Shias have many sects internally. To talk about my community, we give enough gifts "read gold" to the bride that is for her to keep even if there is a divorce.

If there are kids, then sustenance is provided depending on who demands to keep the kids. If the man wants to keep the kid(s) but the woman says no then she loses her claim for sustenance. If the man does not want to keep the kid(s) then he has to provide for the woman.

Whole thing boils back to interpretations. Its the problem in every aspect of following Islam.
So you are saying that 'talaq' exists only within Sunnis ?

Just curious as I'm not much versed in intra-Muslim differences.

Also as a personal observation I've seen Bohris and Shias are much more modern than the Sunnis who mostly are ultra-orthodox.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
So you are saying that 'talaq' exists only within Sunnis ?

Just curious as I'm not much versed in intra-Muslim differences.

Also as a personal observation I've seen Bohris and Shias are much more modern than the Sunnis who mostly are ultra-orthodox.
Question is, what is defined as orthodox? Again back to interpretation thing that I keep harping. Bohras consider themselves to be orthodox but modern. Kind of oxymoron but that is how it is. Orthodox in terms of following obligations, "wajib" and "sunnah". Modern in terms of moving with the time. We make use of IT in managing community affairs as we are a small community.

Use of telecommunications etc. Taliban will tell you no TV, we don't have any problem with that. We go to shrines to pay our respects to Islamic saints including Ali(AS), Imam Husain (AS) etc.
It us our desire to make a mausoleum befitting the Prophet and His daughter, but the Wahabis in KSA deny us that.

There has to be a will to change. In the little bit of sermons that I attend, the talk is always about how beautiful Sharia is and how it is relevant in modern times if followed in the true spirit.

Unfortunately I am not well versed with intricacies of Islam as I have never taken active interest in it. But from what I know about (Shia angle), Islam is not as bad at all to be demonized as it is today particularly because of some extremists. I really wish I knew more to share, I will try to gather more on various aspects and share on this forum on any relevant topic if and when it arises.

Regarding Talaq, well no we don't have the triple Talaq system. Like I said in my earlier post. Divorce "majlis" is just like "Nikah" majlis in the presence of appointed witnesses (2 in number) and a gathering of sone of the members of the community holding some stature.

Added later:

Check the picture. This is the Bohra veil, "hija" if you will. It is a Burkha with lots of color, laces, embroidery etc. These things cost a bomb if you really want top of the line stuff.
The reason why I put this is to show you can follow Sharia but stay with the time.


In fact it's such a fashion statement now that ladies in my community prefer to wear this now than thinking it's being forced on them.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top