Indian Supreme Court
Source: NDTV
The Supreme Court today ruled that Shariat courts have no legal sanction and no one is bound to accept a fatwa or diktat pronounced by them.
The court decided on a petition by a Delhi-based advocate who challenged parallel religious courts run by institutions like the Darul Qaza and Darul-Iftaa.
“No religion is allowed to curb anyone’s fundamental rights,” the court said today, adding that the Shariat court can issue a fatwa only if approached willingly, and that too, will not be legally binding.
The petitioner, Vishwa Lochan Madan, had argued that Shariat courts are illegal and decided on religious and social freedoms of Muslim citizens. He also said fundamental rights of Muslims should not be controlled or restricted by fatwas issued by qazis or religious arbiters appointed by Muslim organisations.
The court had reserved its verdict in February, saying, “These are political-religious issues. We can’t decide them. In this country some people believe Gangajal can cure all ailments. It is a matter of belief.”
Mr Madan told the court that the Darul Qaza and Darul-Iftaa operate in nearly 60 districts in India with a sizeable Muslim population. He argued that a Muslim girl was forced to leave her husband because a fatwa directed her to live with her father-in-law who had allegedly raped her.
“Don’t be over dramatic,” the court told the petitioner then, adding, “We will come to her rescue. You are assuming all fatwas are irrational. Some fatwas may be wise and may be for general good also. People in this country are wise enough. If two Muslims agree for mediation, who can stay it? It is a blend of arbitration and mediation.”
The Muslim Personal Law Board argued that if fatwas affect fundamental rights, one can approach the court. The then UPA government had told the court that it will not interfere with the Muslim personal law unless it affects the fundamental rights of individuals.
Additional Reading
Shariah and Constitution: A Personal Journey
Categories: Asia, India, Secularism, Separation of Church and State, Sharia, Sharia Law
For the Muslim Times’ collection of Separation of Mosque-Church and State, please click here.
Governance is the responsibility of the government. Sharia is for personal use only. It does not require a court, or police. One can tell the truth, do good, worship and help others without a mandate from the government.
Civil matters such as marriage and divorce issues can be decided by mutual arbitration. But governments should have oversight. 1) No one should be forced into such arbitrations. (very common in religious setups) 2) The basic human rights cannot be abused by these arbitrations. 3) Secular courts of the country should have the ability to overturn or discard the decision of arbitration if necessary.
No criminal matter should be settled with arbitration or religious law. (such as rape or murder)
The one most troubling thing about the Shariah Law as seen and attempted to be practice in certain Muslim countries, is that there is no single agreed upon code and evidentiary procedures. What is often purported as Shariah Law and not necessarily the Quranic Law as they may be more of some Imam’s stand on certain issues.
Well said by Lutf and Dr. Koya. Thank you, both of you and shah sahib.
But how the majority Muslims will be convinced of these truths? It may take ages.
Aah ko chahi yay ik umar athar honay takk!
Khaak ho jaa-aingay hum unko khabar honay takk!
Trans:
A sigh of sorrow needs a life time to have its effect.
We will be turned into dust by the time he/she comes to know our problem!