[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious conversion of Hindus to other faiths
-
To: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
-
Subject: Re: Religious conversion of Hindus to other faiths
-
From: DCHATTERJEE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
-
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 17:09:50 -0600 (CST)
-
Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 03:51:08 -0500 (EST)
-
Resent-From: SRH Editor <srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu>
-
Resent-Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960402035107.12497I@rbhatnagar>
-
Resent-To: Ajay Shah <ajay>
>X-News: soc.religion.hindu:2234
>From: gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana)
>Subject:Re: Religious conversion of Hindus to other faiths
>Date: 27 Mar 1996 09:12:04 GMT
>Message-ID:<4jb0p4$74c@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
> <dchatterjee@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU> wrote:
>
>> I find Gopal Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana's comments very superficial.
>
> [highly educative parts of the post deleted].
>
>now, can you please write down verbatim, for our benefit, which
>specific provisions of the constitution are offensive, and which
>provisions limit supreme court's ability in matters specific to
>muslim personal law while not limiting its ability in other
>personal laws such as christians'.
There is NOTHING so holy as to *write down verbatim* for your
(or others) benefit.
Every aware Indian knows that there something called the Muslim
personal law (guided by the Shariah and Koran). These laws are
antiquated and essentially have become useless for maintaining
communal harmony in a country that is divisive in religion/ culture
etc.
What I have written earlier is that this Muslim personal law needs to
be abolished and annulled.
I further maintain that Christian/ Hindu personal laws have adapted
to the changes enforced by the Constitution. Muslim personal laws
(as found in the Sharia) are not.
Why this should appear to be complicated and difficult to follow ?
>........deleted......<
> we then have this *basic* philosophical question:
> does closing the eyes make the world non-existent?
Ask the Muslim religious leaders (for whom you apparently stand)
in India, like Shahbuddin, Bukhari etc. They seem to uphold laws
that are irrelevant, since the societies and times when these laws
were made are non-existent. They have closed their eyes and not
Hindus / Christians/ other non-Muslims in India.
>> It *IS* difficult to enforce Supreme court directives when
>> there is support for theocracy. (Refer to the Shah Bano case.) The
>> barbaric practices of sati etc. were abrogated because Hindus are NOT
>> theocratic like Muslims.
>
>
> oh. now you are *not* talking about constitution or directive
> principles of state policy any more. you are essentially saying
> "we the hindus are better than you the muslims". Due to my
> *superficial* knowledge, i do not venture this line of
> *reasoning*
Yes, I am saying that. Furthermore, I am also saying that as a very
direct consequence of its theocratic nature, Islam is always in a
collision course with secular laws of the Indian Constitution. Such a
nature results (and has in the past) in many unwanted spinoffs - like
the recent Gyanprakash Ghosh's case. Islam was " used " as a shelter
to hide illicit relationships. My point is that in other religions
such would NOT have been possible, because other religions are not
theocratic. Once Ghosh has converted to Islam, the secular laws
cannot touch him at all.
> i do not know what is *difficult* in the above para of yours:
> to borrow your phrase - - seems to be a "creative ambiguity" --
> In shah bano case, the supreme court, i thought, did not find any
> problem in upholding the provisions of the of civil law
> irrespective of the position of shariat. it is another matter
> that parliament chose to anull its verdict through legislation.
My point is this: the parliament could dare to anul the Supreme
court verdict because of the very existence of Sharia. The Sharia is
intrinsically rigid and all Muslims are " technically " obliged to
abide by it. The parliament could have been wrong in taking the
advantage of Sharia laws; I agree there. But it is also obvious
that because Sharia laws exist, the corrupt politicians can use
them. This is my point. Why have laws in the first place that
can lead to societal chaos and communalism ?
If you have any problems understanding, please let us know.
>gopal
>--
- cheers,
deb chatterjee
(a good samaritan)
