raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (12/16/85)
> From K. Subbarao at Maryland: (summary) > Shouldn't there be laws forbidding 'unfair' practices even if they have > religious (or other widely accepted) sanction? Examples - polygamy and > male-biased divorce customs in Islam, faith-healing of children elsewhere. Is it good for the state to have power in matters that represent individual choice? The only justification is the protection of the choices of others. But no one is compelled to remain a muslim. The nub of the matter is that there are individuals who wish to remain muslims, but who feel victimised by some of the practices it sanctions. But if laws are passed to protect them against these practices (because the legislators agree that these practices are unfair) don't these laws place restrictions on what Islam is permitted to be? What about those who wish to practice Islam in its original form? Aren't their choices compromised? I think the change should come from within. If large sections of the muslim community feel strongly about these customs, sooner or later a new denomination of muslims will appear (if one does not already exist!) with customs in line with their thinking. If a traditional muslim feels victimised, (s)he then has a viable choice. Such laws are only justified when the victims are incapable of making choices. The faith-healing of children is a case in point. But even here, there is a presupposition that the state knows what is 'good' and that makes me uncomfortable (although I would probably be in favour of this particular law).
rao@cvl.UUCP (Kambhampati Subbarao) (12/17/85)
(in reply to Raghu of U-texas at austin. Parts of his posting quoted)
All I object to is having two laws to govern the citizens of a SECULAR
state. When you have a law against polygamy (and alimony less divorces)
with a special clause that exempts members of muslim religion from the law,
you are just inviting all those with polygamic propensities to turn instant
muslim! Quite frankly that is a loophole in the law. Even more importantly
what is the meaning of 'secularism' when the first question you ask before
trying some one for a crime is 'what is your religion?'?
> What about those who wish to practice Islam in its original form? aren't
> their choices compromised?
What about the members of non-muslim religious faith with a yen for
polygamy or a yearning to default on alimony payments? Aren't they
getting discriminated just because of their religion?
One way out of this dilemma is to do away with any laws governing
marital practices and assume that any victims of the unfair practices
of some religious order deserve what they get if they do not opt out of
that religion. One can even condone the (now outlawed) 'Suttee' practice
of Hindus saying a) may be the wife wanted to die or b) she has a right to
say i do not want to die, she did not say it so it is ok with us! But
clearly we thought otherwise and made it illegal (thus curtailing a 'suttee'
loving Hindu's religious independence!).
> Such laws are only justified when the victims are incapable
>of making choices. The faith-healing of children is a case in point.
At stake here is the confidence
that Indian society gives full independence to its women to exercise their
choices. Given the track record I would say that the women in India
(and more so the women of "orthodox" Islam, judging from
their marital practices and such things as 'purdah') have very little
independence (with conditions changing for the better gradually). This
being so, it is up to the state to protect the choices (rights) of
women just as it would protect those of children and minorities. Thus
if you were all for the abolishment of 'Suttee' and more recent laws against
"Dowry" practice of Hindus (The women can refuse to give dowry, can't they?
so why do you require laws against dowry?? huh), which I hope you are I
think you should see the need for removing the speicial status that exempts
muslims from law enforced marital reforms.. I would love to see the reforms
come from inside the religion but until they come atleast an elementary
protection should be given by law to the oppressed.
Lastly, if there are any muslims of India who think that such laws
would be 'RELIGIOUS INFRINGEMENT' because Islam says their marital practices
are a-okay, I think they are being unfair because Islam also says 'cut a
hand if a Person steals something' (and a myriad other very interesting
things as are being demonstrated by the law of neighboring Pakistan)
and they do not seem to be overly eager to have that inserted into
the Indian penal code! I am not saying that Islam is a particularly bad
religion ( bad practices abound in almost every religion, as we well know)
but that demands by a religious group to be made an exception
to a criminal law on the grounds of their religion should not be heeded
to in a SECULAR state.
-rao
PS: I apologize for the mistaken usage of the word 'polyandry' when I
meant 'polygamy' in my earlier posting. Unfortunately Islam
doen't seem to allow 'polyandry'.. Time to take GRE again!
----
arpa: rao@cvl rao@maryland rao@lemuria rao@tove ...
--
Arpa:
rao@cvl