The public response to the Supreme Court's refusal to recognize Sharia Courts as legal entities in India is a blend of positivity and concern. Many appreciate the ruling for contributing to legal uniformity and call for a Uniform Civil Code that could unify legal systems across diverse communities. The decision is seen as a step towards equality, reducing religious biases in the legal framework. However, there are significant discussions about potential cultural loss and religious freedoms, with some voices highlighting issues of gender inequality and human rights under religious laws. Concerns also arise over the portrayal of Islamic practices and the need for judicial consistency.

Supreme Court of India

Muslim Community

General Indian Public

Religious dogma will be the death of this country.

fenrir245

Mirror-On-The-Wall

Why do muslims want their own courts when our judicial system has always upheld justice for them?? I don't understand

caveleader

Well BJP is shit and anti-indian but nobody is addressing the fact that indian muslim population have big anti-indian sentiment in them, And it is not just india. Muslims all over the world tend to have this behavior where they show absolutely no loyalty to whoever hosting them, they will support other muslims against them if the opportunity arise.

Water_Bell

Vismrit

&gt;To solve family issues divorce and inheritance.

Include criminal  issues and it will drop to 30%.

[deleted]

Very worrying. That pew research is very worrying for India in general. The fact that in the largest voting block, 83% Hindus say that Being Hindu is very important to truly be Indian doesn't bode well for the future of this country.

Shahrukh_Lee

Here's the source poll from Pew Research for those interested. Looks like the country is filled with musanghis and sanghis lol

https://www.pewforum.org/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/

TanielTakesShots

Source:

https://www.pewforum.org/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/

Badshah-e-Librondu

Ye sab Soros funded surveys have to undermine our sovereignity.

#PROD INDIAN AMERY🇳🇪🇳🇪🇳🇪🇳🇪🇳🇪🇳🇪

BubbleBhaji

While this is nothing progressive, please stop equating it to sharia law and all.   
Personal laws are very small part of Justice system

nkj94

Na ispe likes ayenge, na comments
Bas Anti- modi, ya boldo ki ye jyada hinduwadi ho rahe, fhir dekho tum !!
Yehi iss group ki pehchan hai

kunal_kalyani

Sharia courts kind of appease Muslims and keeps them away from more violent terrorist organisations since whatever sharia law BS al quaeda promises is more or less already available, but appeasement, is a slippery slope, and usually doesn't end up working out in the long run.

Edit: slippery slope not a slipper slope.

Smooth_Detective

I think this is fine. We should do this for all religions. However those aggrieved must be given full right to access Indian Judiciary with just one 'clause' though that they cannot go back to such religious courts once they come here. We already have khaps who use rudimentary and casteist hindu laws in villages. This will also reduce the burden on judiciary.

Kaahe ka research? Hamse toh nai puche be

samacknojia

I'm pretty sure that Suriname and Guyana are not "majority muslim." I can't imagine why they would be colored in at all.

Looks like Suriname is 19.6% Muslim and Guyana is 7.2% Muslim. And there are a few African countries for which that's not true either, like Togo, Benin, Mozambique, and others.

edit: oh it's because they're in the Organization for Islamic Cooperation. That's not the same as being Muslim-majority. This map should really clarify that.

In India, Sharia only applies to personal law for Muslims, who are 13.4% of the population. So it is more misleading than helpful to give it the same color as libya or algeria or jordan. 



This is really inaccurate, for example Yemen and Iraq are far more secular than this suggests, in Iraq especially so after the war with America. Most of the countries here said to apply sharia law have either mostly or completely secular governments.

sarmedalwan

Just an FYI, Shariah means roughly,  "the legislation". Sayin 'Shariah Law' is the like saying the 'Law Law', just Shariah is sufficient. It's like with the Sahara. In Arabic, الصحراء (Sahara) literally means "Great Desert". So the 'Sahara Desert' translates to "The Great Desert Desert". Not totally related to this data, but worth noting.

Cyrus47

I hope this can put to death the misconception of "Muslim country = Stonings and beheadings." They only occur in the handful of purple countries over there.

AlGamaty

It's interesting how in subsaharian Africa there seem to be a correlation between French/English former colonies and No Sharia/Sharia. 

Left over of the laïcité concept in the countries elites, maybe?

Areat

In the Kurdistan region of Iraq, Sharia Law doesn't apply. You rarely see women that are clothed ''Islamic''

Chocksnopp

Is Israel colored yellow there or am I seeing things?

guspolly

[Source.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_by_country)

nyshtick

It's a shame that we occupied both Iraq and Afghanistan and never abolished Sharia there. The *one* good result that could've happened from those wars. 

And WTF Thailand and Filipines?

TaylorsNotHere

Hi Lawyer here, Muslims can get talaq and khula through a government appointed qazi, and that is valid in the eyes of laws as Muslims are governed by their personal laws in this regard.

The court marriage you have stated requires that the divorce is granted by Court of Law. In your case you should get both the talaq and divorce before appropriate authorities.

trailaamir

Where are you based exactly? If you're from Lucknow then I can help you in getting a divorce easily both from a qazi and from the court. My senior is a top matrimonial dispute lawyer.

U should get both. Since u registered ur marriage u need to do it. Incase if one of the parties have problems in talaq then u can approach court. Getting approval from talaq will be helpful in court. But if ur wife disapprove in anyone then court is the only way.

vimalathithan1803

I'm not a lawyer but why would you not want to go through with it through courts? Theres a religious law but there is also rule of land. You are Indian. As per the courts you're still married to your wife. Why would you want to be associated with her through law? Even in the future it may be trouble for the both of you, in case either one of you gets in some sort of legal issues and as the spouse (by law), the other will also get involved without having the need to.

tenebrous5

mimzzy24

#DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE OP LINKED THREAD/SCREENSHOT.
 
Brigading is against Reddit TOS. So all users are advised not to participate in the above linked original thread or the screenshot. We advise against such behaviour nor we are responsible if your account is being actioned upon.

Do report this post if the OP has not censored/redacted the subreddit name or the reddit user name in this post, so that we can remove the post and issue the ban as per rules.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

They wanted to be "inclusive tolerant" guys , that's the result they get , cultural genocide, 
Serves britain tight

IncompleteNineTails

 That is the curse of billions of people across the world. They colonized many countries, turned many people into their slaves, caused famine in India. Now karma is striking them hard.

Neat_Virus8331

Elon Musk earlier tweeted about this stuff

Professional_Meat639

Wait for 3-4 years, virat kohli &amp; family will run away from London and stays back at india

ElkProfessional1884

+1 , Ruin UK , Let them have the taste of their own medicine , what  they did to us , same should be done to them .

Pessimist_SS_

Downfall has begun mueheheheheheheheehehehehijahidin.

Madrhino9396

Sharia is against human rights 
Must be banned

PrestigeFlight2022

An economy where the poor are not exploited, where the rich are taxed on their wealth, where monopolies are not allowed to exist, where predatory lending is a crime, where the poor are taken care of, where stipends are set aside for the families of the mentally ill so they can take care of them, and where interest is illegal would be more violent and less free? I'm sorry, I'm not following you. How would these changes create a military society?

This is a great question. I think you're approaching it with a particular perspective in mind, but let's deal with that later.


First, let's start with the obvious. Sharia and law are synonymous. 'Sharia Law' used together, is just a term invented by the conservative press to attach a scary sounding Arabic word to its meaning, to make sure people both understand what Sharia means, and get terrified of it. 

Second, there is no such thing as a unified Islamic law. The Qur'an, quite frankly, provides very little in terms of concrete statutes; it is more interested in establishing principles for people to live the good life. The Hadith are just stories (not all true) of how Muhammad lived his life, and about half of them are recognized as one-off actions for specific situations, and not relevant in how Muslims should lead their lives.

This leaves the lowest code, Islamic law (Sharia). Many many many scholars have written books about how the principles of Islam should work in technical cases. There are lots of disagreements. The most 'influential' scholars seem to have emerged in the Middle Ages. It's not so surprising that a law written in the 9th century would not always be compatible with the values of modernity. However, they are just men, and can be wrong. While the Qur'an is applicable for all time, Islamic law must adapt to the demands of the time. Therefore, if you see a citation from a particularly outrageous ruling from an academic who has been dead for a thousand years, you should be quite skeptical of it.

Another issue is whether or not many Muslims actually want that version of islamic law represented. Many of the polls taken on this issue in the West are ambiguous. In the UK and much of Europe (and democracies outside it, like India), people are allowed to defer to religious authorities for civil and family matters. This applies for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In New York City, Hasidic Jews run virtually a parallel government, with decency police patrolling the streets and a private ambulance service for Jews, and the municipal government has agreed to avoid law enforcement there. The reason for this is that people have religious freedom and self-determination, and should be able to live under a civil code of their choosing, as long as it does not interfere with the basic duties of the state. So, naturally, many Muslims who are polled agree when asked if Islamic law should sometimes be applied in the West, **because it already is**, and Jewish law, and Christian law, etc.


Outside of the West, we really have to be quite skeptical of poll results. Most Muslims live in non-democratic states (propped up by the West) and cannot truly answer freely when an anonymous interviewer asks them on the phone about their opinions on the nation's judicial system. Moreover, telephone sampling is much worse, because Muslim-majority states tend to be much more rural and much more poor than the average Western state. In some countries, there is no official registry of all people who live in that country, which would be unthinkable in the West.


One thing that everyone should know about Islamic law is that, in general, it seems to be focused more on a deterrent theory of justice than a retributive, or reformative, or any other notion of justice. At times, many Western systems have also focused on deterrent justice. (Wikipedia is a great first source for this)

**My theory (not necessarily true**) for why this is, is that Muslims believe that God will ultimately be the judge for actions in the afterlife. Therefore, our job is not to mete out punishment, but to prevent as much crime and sin from happening as possible in the first place, to ensure a strong community and allow everyone to live the good life.

One frequent example is the strong penalty for adulterers generally prescribed. In practice, four people have to actually witness the act. If four people can actually testify to an affair, the act must have been incredibly, brazenly public (some pornographic movies are made with less than four crew members on set), and it's clear that a society where adultery is openly accepted would be damaging to important institutions like the nuclear family. In practice, it's quite hard to find four witnesses, but knowing the severity of the punishment probably keeps some people on the up and up. 

nutelly

Not all Muslims want Sharia Law. Those living in western countries are fine with the laws their own countries have, assuming freedom of religion is one of them. Thus, we have no problem being a minority and see no need to implement Sharia Law. That is up to the government themselves. If they don't like the law, then all the more power to them. We're fine with their decisions as long as they don't stop us from being Muslims.

As for the implementation of Shariah in countries where people actually want them, it's not violent, or at least not anymore than western European society if you look at history. In the past during the Islamic empires, the society was very secular (shocking). Sure they had some strict laws like stealing can lead to cutting your hand, but there was no violent internal strife or civil wars for majority of the history, and any violent incidents that indeed happened was because of the personal reasons by the political figures themselves and not the Shariah Law.

If you study the history of the Islamic society in the past, you'll notice a lot of the laws implemented by Shariah was way ahead of its time. We gave women equal rights to men long before America allowed women to vote (gee I wonder how many responses I'll get from people who didn't study Islamic history). Religious tolerance and freedom of religion was also practiced, and some people might tell you that they were oppressed, which is actually not true at all. Not to mention that the court system was very similar to today's judicial system.

Furthermore, education was very rampant. Many of the essential human inventions, like algebra, compass, precepts to modern medicine and surgery, and advent of literature happened in Baghdad. People from other parts of the world used to come all the way to the Middle East to study and then go back to Europe, Asia, etc, to teach their own kin about what they learned.

Sure you had some laws here and there that may be considered barbaric by today's standards, but for the most part, the Shariah Law was implemented for a very long time and for the most part the citizens of the country were fine with it.

And before you get teh wrong idea, there is NO country today that follows Shariah Law, especially the Middle East, even though tehy like to claim they are.

shadowlightfox

Take a look at what the rates of mugging, drug crime, violent crime, etc, are in places like Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain compared to the USA or even Sweden. 

KASKAx

The Supreme Court of India ruled that Sharia Courts have no legal recognition, emphasizing regular courts' authority.

Legal Status of Sharia Courts in India

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want