• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • 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.

Supreme Court says that Muslims cannot have multiple wives

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is how religion has been twisted by the mullahs and maulvis for their own interests! You can be a Muslim but your fundamental right to profess Islam does not connote that you can have multiple wives! Nothing but truth! Welcome this! Hope it does not become another Shah Bano!

[h=1]The Indian Supreme Court Just Told Muslims They Can't Have Multiple Wives[/h]Feb 10, 2015

Although their personal law permits men to have four wives, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a Muslim's fundamental right to profess Islam did not include practicing polygamy. "What was protected under Article 25 (right to practice and propagate any religion) was the religious faith and not a practice which may run counter to public order, health or morality. Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25," said a bench of Justices T S Thakur and A K Goel.


The bench said that polygamy was not integral to religion and the practice of polygamy did not acquire sanction of religion simply because it was permitted. It upheld the UP government's decision to sack one of its employees on the ground of misconduct for opting for a second marriage during existence of the first marriage without its prior permission.


Referring to its earlier verdict, the bench said that Article 25 protects religious faith, not a practice. It noted that the court had upheld the views of the Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad high courts in this regard. The bench upheld conduct rules framed by UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, saying that it did not violate Article 25 of the Constitution.


In this case Khursheed Ahmad Khan, employed as irrigation supervisor, had married Anjum Begum during existence of first marriage with Sabina Begum. Sister of his first wife had filed a complaint before National Human Rights Commission which ordered a police probe in the case. The police submitted its report before the commission saying that Khan had married a second time during the existence of the first marriage. On this basis, the state government had initiated proceedings and later removed him from service for failure to take prior permission for second marriage as was required under rule 29 of the conduct rules. Khan had then approached the Allahabad high court and challenged his removal from service. The HC had dismissed his plea.

The Indian Supreme Court Just Told Muslims They Can't Have Multiple Wives
 
A welcome decision... however I found this to be a bit strange
On this basis, the state government had initiated proceedings and later removed him from service for failure to take prior permission for second marriage as was required under rule 29 of the conduct rules.

It is open to other interpretations also.
 
About time the muslims are treated like other citizens of India. Constitution of India is being followed by all the citizens except muslims regarding marriage. However, they were enjoying the Indian citizens status. Double standard !:clap2:
 
Apparently in Islamic culture, second marriage is allowed if the first wife permits it.

I don't know why they should be restricted to 4 though. Muhammad had 13 or 19 wives.
 
I feel the Supreme Court should not interfere in religious matters cos there is the Shariah law to deal with Polygamy.

I think for the next few years I should avoid going to India..the religious intolerance is becoming too high and might escalate into violence soon.


It just seems to me that the current government is more interested in making India a Hindu majority nation and one of the ways to "decrease" the Non Hindu population is by not allowing polygamy.


Instead of doing this..may be the SC should allow Polygamy for Hindus too since the new government is hell bent on increasing the Hindu -Non Hindu ratio.

I feel the current government is not interested in developing the nation..they seem to feel that if India is 100% Hindu it will be Ram Rajya and everything would fall in place.

Would it?
 
Last edited:
I think for the next few years I should avoid going to India..the religious intolerance is becoming too high and might escalate into violence soon.

Renukaji,

Do not take such decisions...What is that you fear now will happen that you have not faced before in India?
 
People should set aside their own religious laws for their worship and pledge to their country's laws first.
If there are conflicts between religious laws and country's laws they should get country's laws amended by proper means. If they are unable to they have to live by the only law of their land which is their country's laws. Supreme court need not interfere in specific interpretations
 
Renukaji,

Do not take such decisions...What is that you fear now will happen that you have not faced before in India?

Dear Sir,

I feel each religion should be given freedom to practice their tenets as long its brings no harm to others,themselves and to the country.

Acts of terrorism from any religion should not be tolerated.

Just as much we Hindus would not like other religions interfering in our religious affairs..same goes for other religions.

It is not right that the SC should interfere in affairs of other religions which has its own tenets as a back up.

Polygamy is allowed for Muslims with consent of wife/wives provided the husband treats all wives equally in terms of finance and also love.

There are very few countries in the world who actually have unity in diversity but India seems to be losing it now.

What is use of praying if all we see is difference? That way I am glad that I have stop subscribing to the idea of prayers cos the only true prayer is seeing everyone as the same as us while still having our own identity.

All communities should learn to co-exists without the need to show unjustified intolerance.

The Hindutva mentality is ruining the country.

We Hindus can mend problems in our own religion without the need to interfere with other religions.

Leave everything as it is..and learn to increase the understanding of our own religion without the need to clamp down and see every other religion as our enemy.

Sab Ko San Mathi Dey Bhagawan..I guess that is the only solution.

Dont people have brains?
 
Last edited:
Dear Sir,

I feel each religion should be given freedom to practice their tenets as long its brings no harm to others,themselves and to the country.

Acts of terrorism from any religion should not be tolerated.

Just as much we Hindus would not like other religions interfering in our religious affairs..same goes for other religions.

It is not right that the SC should interfere in affairs of other religions which has its own tenets as a back up.

Polygamy is allowed for Muslims with consent of wife/wives provided the husband treats all wives equally in terms of finance and also love.

There are very few countries in the world who actually have unity in diversity but India seems to be losing it now.

What is use of praying if all we see is difference? That way I am glad that I have stop subscribing to the idea of prayers cos the only true prayer is seeing everyone as the same as us while still having our own identity.

All communities should learn to co-exists without the need to show unjustified intolerance.

The Hindutva mentality is ruining the country.

We Hindus can mend problems in our own religion without the need to interfere with other religions.

Leave everything as it is..and learn to increase the understanding of our own religion without the need to clamp down and see every other religion as our enemy.

Sab Ko San Mathi Dey Bhagawan..I guess that is the only solution.

Dont people have brains?

Dr Renuka Madam,

Are you fine if women in Islam are ill treated...Are you aware that destitute Muslim women are denied alimony after a divorce..Such a law that was passed by Congress Government after the Shah Bano verdict...
 
Dr Renuka Madam,

Are you fine if women in Islam are ill treated...Are you aware that destitute Muslim women are denied alimony after a divorce..Such a law that was passed by Congress Government after the Shah Bano verdict...

Dear sir,

Women are ill treated in any religion..even Hindu wives are subject to ill treatment.

The application of Shariah Law differs a little from country to country.

In most cases out here the ex husband has to pay "nafkah"(alimony) to his ex- wife.

If he does not pay up the ex- wife can lodge a report to the Shariah court.

If the ex- wife remarries then the alimony stops.


May be its different in India.
 
To the best of my knowledge none of my muslim friends and other muslim people I deal with ( in Banks , Insurance , Stock Trading ,Medical Profession , House Maintenance , Electronics selling etc etc ) never had more than one wife but I was surprised to find some of the auto drivers , electricians , watch men , house maintenance guys who are non muslims and who are also not very wealthy have more than 1 wife ( i.e not just keeps , they have 2 wives with kids at 2 different places ) and keep do shift duties at both the places LOL .I really do not know how they can manage with 2 wives LOL . What does supreme court have to say on these sort of people ?
 
Good , Good..

And sad sad the table is getting turned because its a Muslim on the other side..

And they say enemy's enemy is my best friend , and they even cite the 2000 year old Christian law or 300/year old Victorian law..

Its the Bristish who first admonished Indians to stick to one wife .. And they quickly bend backwards to agree in Toto to the new master , who gave them job and English education..


The temples statues and holy scriptures all had stories about the approval for polygamy, why stop there its all about monogamy, with concrete proof .. Yet they budged to white skin..

Moslems has no such historical proof and conviction .. They don't have arts n architects to prove their point...

Yet they stood by their conviction and faced bravely the Brits with their holy book, and got it sanctioned from Brits..


Would any body stand up here to say, that Brahmins opposed polygamy in past ? I would say, they adjusted their rule book in line with their Christian masters from England..


Google polygamy +/sambandam +/kerala ... Brahims enjoyed and ruled over all nair women, with a holy sanction.. And I would not call it wrong and blame brahmins for it, cos that was a culture and many nair girls loved it..

What worries me is the double standard of brahmins..

If it's for Brit , I would bend backwards and even ok to change my 10,000 yearAgamams religions rule but not for a Muslim ..

Because , Muslim has not given me any luxury money, unlike the brits
 
I feel the Supreme Court should not interfere in religious matters cos there is the Shariah law to deal with Polygamy.

I think for the next few years I should avoid going to India..the religious intolerance is becoming too high and might escalate into violence soon.


It just seems to me that the current government is more interested in making India a Hindu majority nation and one of the ways to "decrease" the Non Hindu population is by not allowing polygamy.


Instead of doing this..may be the SC should allow Polygamy for Hindus too since the new government is hell bent on increasing the Hindu -Non Hindu ratio.

I feel the current government is not interested in developing the nation..they seem to feel that if India is 100% Hindu it will be Ram Rajya and everything would fall in place.

Would it?

Some of your recent posts belie the thoughtful posts you used to make in the past.

The first question that crops up in the mind is, Is marriage a religious event or a social event? No doubt there is a religious fanfare at the wedding function, but there after for the rest of the life, is it still a religious event?

If Supreme Court should not interfere with polygamy because of Sharia Law, should the police and courts intervene in other criminal acts like theft, embezzlement, adultery, murder etc. of the muslim population? There are provisions in the Sharia for those crimes too, like cutting off the hands of the thief. What is a nation to do with the cirizens whose hands have been chopped off due to theft or allegation of theft?

The one vocation open to them is begging and NRIs, especially the vociferous in this forum always cringe about them during their visits to India. If you need, I can track a post or two by yourselves about the menace of beggars.

There have been thousands of post in the past on Manu Dharmashastra and its edicts in this forum. I havent seen a single post from you asking the courts to revert to those shastras for punishments for crimes of Hindus. So why shift focus now?

The most fundamental thing about laws is that the laws keep changing and evolving according to the times and religious texts and laws based on those can never change. It is surprising that you, who have, written so many posts on the evolution and changing dynamics want one aspect of life to be confined to the conditions of 6th century AD forever.

As regards the other things like not feeling like visiting to India for a few years, India turning to a Hindu Rashtra, development agenda of the government etc etc. all I can say is that you are reading too much of the stuffs in this forum rather than trying to get a balanced view.
 
Last edited:
Courts should interpret the laws of the land. The constitution is clear (on majority of cases) as to who has the authority. I believe the Court system in India supersedes any Sharia court at any given time. It might be different in Malissia.

Indian courts do change their interpretation of the same law.
Yes the Hindutva Brigade is dangerous to Mostly Non-Hindus which is a shame.
Militant Hindus are taking advantage of the docile Hindus suffering at the hands of Invaders, to inflict revenge on the indigenous Minority and foreign Visitors. I hope Modiji changes course and addressees these fringe issues.
 
To the best of my knowledge none of my muslim friends and other muslim people I deal with ( in Banks , Insurance , Stock Trading ,Medical Profession , House Maintenance , Electronics selling etc etc ) never had more than one wife but I was surprised to find some of the auto drivers , electricians , watch men , house maintenance guys who are non muslims and who are also not very wealthy have more than 1 wife ( i.e not just keeps , they have 2 wives with kids at 2 different places ) and keep do shift duties at both the places LOL .I really do not know how they can manage with 2 wives LOL . What does supreme court have to say on these sort of people ?

Just look at Dharmendra and Hemamalini The two Doyens of BJP living proof of Polygamy. It is all to suit their conveniences. I know the BJP brigade will be up in arms, which only proves my point that laws are bent for some and for others there is no justice.
 
Last edited:
People should set aside their own religious laws for their worship and pledge to their country's laws first.
If there are conflicts between religious laws and country's laws they should get country's laws amended by proper means. If they are unable to they have to live by the only law of their land which is their country's laws. Supreme court need not interfere in specific interpretations
Good post.
 
Why should Indian muslims be under Shariah law? Should Christians have to live by the laws of the Pope in Vatican city? Indian should have uniform laws as a secular country.

If Muslims want to marry multiple times, they should go to a country that allows them to do so.

Next thing we will hear, Muslims will want to stone people to death in India.
 
Secularism and Muslim personal law are incompatible

Press Council of India chief Markandey Katju described the Muslim personal law as barbaric and backward supporting the imposition of the uniform civil code. He contended that every modern country has a uniform civil code but no one speaks out in India due to the "Muslim vote bank", citing the reversal of apex court judgment in Shah Bano case.


India is a secular state. Its Code of Criminal Procedure (Penal Code) applies to all irrespective of one's religious affiliation. However, the country's Civil Code relating to matters like marriage and divorce does not apply uniformly to followers of different religious faiths and is meant largely for the majority community of the land, Hindus, and the minority non-Muslim communities.

Bigamy is an offence under the Civil Code. A man marrying again during the subsistence of an existing marriage can be jailed up to seven years and fined (that is, if a case is brought against him in a court of law) under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. This law applies to persons belonging to all religious faiths, except Muslims.

The Indian Muslims, the largest minority group in India, are allowed to have their own personal laws with regard to marriage and divorce. In other words, the law forbidding bigamy does not apply to Indian Muslims, and also Muslim men can divorce their wives by pronouncing 'triple talaq,' without having to file for divorce in a court of law unlike their fellow-countrymen. Even the alimony, if any, to be granted to a divorced Muslim woman is decided by the private Muslim bodies and not by the Indian courts. Now a Catholic Christian citizen has brought a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of India, arguing that if legal recognition could be given to decisions on divorce and alimony passed by private Muslim bodies, why can't the same be extended to decrees related to divorce issued by an ecclesiastical court - an institution for Catholic Christians in India - set up under the Canon Law. He has also demanded that the Roman Catholics should not be prosecuted under Section 494 for the offense of bigamy without considering the Canon Law.
You can't find fault with that logic. If the Muslim minorities can marry and divorce under their religious/personal laws, why can't the Christian minorities under their very own?
The Supreme Court, which is seized of the matter, has observed, "India till now is a secular country . . . we don't know for how long it will remain a secular country. We have to stamp out religion from civil laws. It is very necessary. There are already too many problems."

The uneasiness and frustration of the judiciary is understandable. Ideally, in a secular state, which seeks to separate religion from governance, it is the judiciary which should have the sole authority to interpret and apply law in the name of the state and provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. However, in India, we have extrajudicial setups (Muslim law boards, khap panchayats, etc.) making and implementing their own 'laws,' which have often proved arbitrary and detrimental to the interests of women.
The Supreme Court has time and again asked the Parliament, the lawmaking body of the land, to make the Civil Code uniformly applicable to all citizens, but then the 'secular' Indian politicians, immersed in 'vote bank' politics, have their own agendas to pursue.

http://www.merinews.com/article/secularism-and-muslim-personal-law-are-incompatible/15904191.shtml


The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is a non-government organisation constituted in 1973 to adopt suitable strategies for the protection and continued applicability of Muslim Personal Law in India, most importantly, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, providing for the application of the Islamic Law Code of Shariat to Muslims in India in personal affairs. The Board presents itself as the leading body of Muslim opinion in India. A role for which it has been criticised as well as supported[SUP].

[/SUP]
The AIMPLB focuses primarily to defend the Sharia laws from any law or legislation that they consider infringes on it. In this role initially it has objected to any change in the Divorce Laws for Muslim women. In this regard it has even published a book – Nikah-O-Talaq (Marriage and Divorce). However, from time to time it has been hinted by the board that it might reconsider its position. It has also objected to gay rights and supports uphelding the 1861 Indian law that bans sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

The Board has also objected to the Right of Children for Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 as they believe it will infringe on the Madrasa System of Education. It has also supported child marriage and opposes the Child Marriage Restraint Act. It has also objected to the High Court of India Judgement on Babri Mosque. For this, it is also willing to threaten political action.[SUP]

It is clearly only for personal affairs. The law enforcement has political overtone and applies this law selectively. Would you think that they will put Hemamalini behind bars? A BIG NO.


Now that BJP has super majority this law should be repealed.

[/SUP]
 
Last edited:
Katju in one stroke has put all islamic countries as anti modern. Again katju says case against bigamy can proceed only if a case is filed by someone, often the victim. In hemamalini case, if both convert to marry was perhaps considered because of threat from the first wife. Whether they converted or not or legal action was considered is all history and irrelevant as both are now Hindus. Not sure whether dharm or his first wife divorced.
Now the courts are of the view that conversion just before marriage for the sake of marriage may render the marriage invalid.
 
What an idiotic speculation? Who will put hemamalini behind bars? Only the courts have the authority to put anyone behind bars if charges against the prosecuted are proved by following legitimate process of law. But with Hindus, this is not applicable because there are many saints and sadhvis in prison for over two years without even charge sheet filed.
 
What an idiotic speculation? Who will put hemamalini behind bars? Only the courts have the authority to put anyone behind bars if charges against the prosecuted are proved by following legitimate process of law. But with Hindus, this is not applicable because there are many saints and sadhvis in prison for over two years without even charge sheet filed.

Sometimes people write mere rubbish at the spur of the moment. There is an established procedure for Civil and Criminal matters known as C P C and Cr PC which deals with who can take the **cognizance** of the alleged offence and when. The Court is not going to act just because someone on TB form used his usual rhetoric calling her imprisonment.

People at least should realise that when a person is an MP after a particular incidence like marriage etc. the pros and cons of the incidence are vetted before their nomination is accepted by the Election Commission. Courts are not TB forim after all where anyone can fly off the handle with or without provocation.
 
[Good , Good..

Good You are back.

And sad sad the table is getting turned because its a Muslim on the other side..

So...?

And they say enemy's enemy is my best friend , and they even cite the 2000 year old Christian law or 300/year old Victorian law..

What is the relevance here?

Its the Bristish who first admonished Indians to stick to one wife .. And they quickly bend backwards to agree in Toto to the new master , who gave them job and English education..

Were you actually there and saw them bending backwards?


The temples statues and holy scriptures all had stories about the approval for polygamy, why stop there its all about monogamy, with concrete proof ..

The holy scriptures also has a Ramayana which extolls Sri Rama as a maryada puruSa who had only one spouse. So what is your point?
Yet they budged to white skin.

And you didnt. Please tell me the secret of keeping your spine straight forward for over 300 years, that is the time you saw others bending backwards before the Brits but which you didnt do..

Moslems has no such historical proof and conviction .. They don't have arts n architects to prove their point...

Yet they stood by their conviction and faced bravely the Brits with their holy book, and got it sanctioned from Brits.

So you mean to say the British studied the scriptures before enacting Laws?


Would any body stand up here to say, that Brahmins opposed polygamy in past ?

If anyone other than Brahmins opposed polygamy is it invalid? Anyway you were there. Did you oppose or acquiesce?]

I would say, they adjusted their rule book in line with their Christian masters from England..

But at least they didnt convert to christianity like some of the Christian turned Brahmins who keep returning to TB forum, didnt they?


Google polygamy +/sambandam +/kerala ... Brahims enjoyed and ruled over all nair women, with a holy sanction.. And I would not call it wrong and blame brahmins for it, cos that was a culture and many nair girls loved it..

How about googling **paadrees** and finding out the unholy enjoyment of minors and under age children?

What worries me is the double standard of brahmins..

The ones who give them (the TBs) the run for their moneys are the christian converted ex-TBs who cant resist visiting this forum :)

If it's for Brit , I would bend backwards and even ok to change my 10,000 yearAgamams religions rule but not for a Muslim ..

Because , Muslim has not given me any luxury money, unlike the brits

By "I"... you mean Christian converted TBs?
 
Last edited:
Religious 'calling' and state laws do not mix but some people seem to find a way of getting around them .

I once met a Mormon living in the state of Utah during a long plane ride. His 'calling' was to have 3 wives - he called them sister-wives. From what I could tell it is not fun - he maintained three little houses and needed to spend time with each of them every week to satisfy his obligations of his calling.

He said he could not take the nagging. He showed a picture of them - mighty ugly I might add and they looked angry! I told him he should become a monk if that is allowed LOL
 
I applaud Zebra16's comments to ShivKc's remarks. They speak truth.

I applaud Supreme Court's decision against polygamy for Muslims in India. For one, polygamy is 'one-sided' -- only men are allowed to have multiple 'wives'. In these days of women empowerment, a woman is much more than a man -- in earning money, in caring and giving birth to children, putting up with in-laws, and much more! So it is definitely belittling to allow anyone to practice polygamy!

If it is a question of interfering with Muslims' way of living, I ask, why should India tolerate the polygamy nonsense in it soil when Muslim lands cannot tolerate even simple bhakti programs being broadcasted via TV channels such as Vijay, etc, to be viewed by Hindus living in Muslim lands? About 3 yrs ago, I used to watch a lot of bhakti programs via Vijay TV, and one fine day, the programs were abruptly shut down, and the reason being Vijay TV being told not to continue such programs by the Muslim nations... So I ask, why should India alone put up with every other religions' nonsense in its soil?
 
Some of your recent posts belie the thoughtful posts you used to make in the past.

.

I evolve..I am never the same each moment..I love to see what I would be tomorrow.

The human mind is never static..its changes..from moment to moment..some call it a Monkey Mind...I prefer to call it Synaptic Evolution.

So if you dig into the past posts of mine in Forum..you would notice that I am not the same as before...my recent posts might be a polar opposite of my past posts.I surely agree to that.

But which was more thoughtful is left to you to decide...for I do not judge myself.I like to be like water flowing freely from a beginingless source and entering an endless ocean.

For me I will just call all my posts of the past and present ... a collection of thoughts.

I do not want to identify with any post being more thoughtful than the other for all of them belong to me.

I simply love to evolve or may be even devolve for all I care.

Life is meant to be a circle of existence....its up to me to chose the direction.I simply flow.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top