Clerics must make progressive rules for Muslim communities
The apex court has given this judgement in response to a 2005 petition, which raised question about the Constitutional validity of such parallel courts. The Supreme Court in 2011 even had termed Khap panchayats as kangaroo courts and declared them illegal.
Clerics must make communities progressive lot not regressive one
On the matter of Dar-ul-Qaza or practice of issuing Fatwa, the court said that it is the informal justice system which is adopted to amicably solve the conflict and it solely depends upon particular person whether to accept it or ignore it. One can't be forced to follow it. "Fatwa does not have a force of law and, therefore, cannot be enforced by any process using coercive method. Any person trying to enforce that by any method shall be illegal and has to be dealt with in accordance with law," the apex court said.
Irrational
Fatwas
If
we
flip
through
some
of
the
obnoxious
fatwas
and
rulings
by
these
so
called
Guardians
of
Muslim
society,
we
will
understand
why
court
has
given
this
ground
breaking
judgement.
Like
one
issued
by
Dar-ul-Uloom
of
Deoband
sometime
back,
which
ruled
that
a
Muslim
woman
had
to
marry
her
father-in-law
after
he
raped
her.
Then
another
illogical
one
is
Muslim
must
wear
veil
in
office
and
should
not
talk
to
their
male
colleagues
in
office.
Most
irrational
one
is
Muslim
talaq
which
can
be
declared
even
on
phone.
A
Muslim
man
can
declare
his
talaq
on
phone
by
uttering
the
word
thrice
irrespective
of
the
fact
that
a
girl
might
have
not
heard
it
because
of
some
reasons.
There
are
so
many
of
it
which
force
one
to
think
that
why
not
Muslim
society
rise
from
this
petty
issues
and
concentrate
larger
issue
like
their
education
socio-economic
status
and
overall
growth
and
development
of
the
communities.
Not
even
a
single
ruling
of
these
clerics
has
ever
said
that
education
is
mandatory
for
Muslim
girls.
Religion
versus
Law
Question
here
is
why
a
large
number
of
people
in
our
country
go
by
what
Dharmgurus
say
on
particular
conflicting
issues
and
this
is
the
case
in
every
religion.
In
Hindu
it
is
the
priests,
clerics
in
Muslims
and
popes
in
Christians.
Talking
about
Hindu
religion,
i
have
heard
so
many
people
saying,
so
and
so
is
the
statement
of
village
priest
and
that
is
sanctimonious,
we
can't
defy
it.
Rules
and
regulations
are
for
the
betterment
of
people
and
if
it's
not
qualify
on
that
parameter
it
mustn't
be
followed
and
agreed
upon.
The Supreme Court ruling also bring to fore a wrestling relation between religion and law. The 1985 Shah Bano case is the best example of it. The apex court in its ruling had ordered to give alimony to Muslim woman who was mother of five children. But because of shallow politics of Congress government it was not implemented. Rajiv Gandhi who was then Prime Minister, reversed this progressive judgment after caving in under the pressure of orthodox Muslim leaders.
Time has come the Muslim personal laws also be reformed like Hindu personal laws. Although resistance is bound to take place but if that will be for the larger benefit of the communities then that must be adopted. The Court has given them food for thought to ponder upon. Now, the onus is on them, whether they want a progressive society or regressive one.