Thank you so much for presenting a proper discussion, whether it makes sense is not relevant, the fact that you made an effort is commendable, well done, tallyian tallyian.
Although this time you seem a bit more coherent and now I am actually enjoying out interaction. The main thing that concerns me is that your views seem to contradict themselves within the same statement, I don’t get a clear image of what you support and what you oppose, I’ve given my opinions supremely clear, with proper reasons, but I have to say your ramblings just do not make sense, because you do not hold one single view, you just Mumble Jumble, I don’t mean to be disrespectful but honestly, you are not being clear in what views you hold. Please allow me to clarify.
"Is there any rule banning an secular country in framing religious laws?"
The most commonly accepted definition of secularism is "separation of religion and state" so yes there is a ban on a secular country framing religious laws, it is YOU, India and Indians, who have been shouting with Band Baja for 70 plus years about you are secularism, if you are secular then why do you have a Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act that allows state governments to take over temples and control their vast properties & assets. Bizarrely, the state government can use the money generated by a temple (donations, income from assets etc.), what a joke.
Why do your courts make rulings on religious matters?
That’s my point, what’s not to understand????????
What are you?????? What do you believe in??????? Can you people not decide or do you enjoy living in hypocrisy?
You argument is based on the premise that you as an individual support secularism, but in the above statement you support the state/country in legislating on religious matters, MAKE UP YOUR MIND. You cannot have it both ways.
If you accept you are a hybrid system (although no Indian has ever claimed it) then you cannot have an issue with the Indian Personal Laws system, there is a personal law for the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Jain but isn’t it strange your opposition is purely based on Muslim personal law, even when you are trying to hide it, still, your hatred for Muslims and Islam is so naked, it is shameful.
"Whenever an fundamental right of an citizen is affected by any other law
it gives an advice or orders the govt to make it unconstitutional. To give an ex, TT was banned by the court"
This does not make sense at all. If personal law system is approved according to the constitution, surely it must be or these laws would not exist, then how can they be in conflict with the constitution, do you not see the illogical reasoning in the argument, if a law is in violation of the constitution, that law cannot exist.
The fact that personal law system has existed for 70 plus years, means that it was not in violation of the constitution
In order to gradually attack the Muslim community, a certain aspect of the personal laws have been attacked as part of a well thought out design, “ we are not against you, just this small thing and that small thing” this argument lacks moral courage shamefully speaks of the Indian mindset.
For the record, a lot of the judges in the Supreme Court also were against hearing the TT case because it was a religious matter, it was driven through politically, so much for your Supreme Court, or Sham Court
Why is it only the Muslim personal law that always seems to be at the forefront of so-called civil rights issues, DO Hindus not have issues or Christians or Others? Why has everyone not properly questioned state control of Hindu Mandirs, and started a movement against it, or banning entry to women and low caste Hindus from many temples issue been resolved. Why are Muslim issues always politised?
Why is the Muslim always a red target? You cannot pick and choose and target your minorities, change the system fully, or let people live in peace.
Stop your silly reasoning’s because they are hollow, empty and hateful, people can see right through the Lots of you.
"Islamic law recognized in India's civil code is Polygamy, underage marriage, TT and Nika Halala. That's religious laws. Now that law is against the basic fundamental right of an human being to equality and gender rights not compatible with 21st century"
See again there you go with your ignorant attacks on Islam and Muslims, even when you are trying to hide it and I told you to keep religious attacks out of it you can’t help yourself, you hateful person. I will allow this to pass because clearly your brain needs some work, I can’t be bothered to repair you.
Who the heck are you to decide about another person’s religious beliefs, and what is suitable and what isn’t? I assume you are Hindu unless you are ashamed to admit it, I am proudly Muslim, openly a secular one.
Regarding your 21st century barometer, that you want to apply, would I be correct that according to your logic Hinduism and all its manifestation of believe systems also do not belong in the 21st century, that’s your reasoning, not mine. Hence the sole reason for the Nation-State of India does not exist, without Hinduism you have nothing, you are all different ethnicities.
Pack up India, and let the Marathi, Bengali, and Tamil live in their own countries. Actually that makes a lot of sense, you are a genius.
"The other option is going completely secular. Like the western way."
There is no western secular way sir gg, please what are you talking about. Most western countries practice secularism according to their own traditions, there is no set format. Secularism isn’t a magic formula that you Indians shout about, but practice with hypocrisy.
Do your own readings, up till recently some of the European countries use to directly collect taxes for the Church, some still do I think, the Church Bishops have memberships in the Parliament and some are not secular officially, but in practice they are very much secular.
Please understand the subject before so arrogantly making statements about it. You clearly don’t know anything, don’t Mumble Jumble.
"If you are saying secular country shouldn't have religious laws, then I am agreeing with you"
If you agree with me then what points were you trying to make above, why are to writing silly and childish replies, YOU ARE CONFUSED, you don’t know what’s what and you don’t know what you believe.
Just to remind you the topic was India’s judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, you’ve discussed everything except the topic in this thread. That only happens when a person is not clear in their head and just rambles on and on, hoping not to be caught out.
"Even this judgement is an discussion on religious laws I wholeheartedly agree."
I don’t fully understand what you said here, but if you agree that it is a religious judgment that should not have been done in principle, then what the heck are you crying about, you just agreed with everything I said. For God sake yaar, why are you wasting my time. I'm done with you.
"But India had to take care of religious sensitivity arising out due to partition and thus accommodated religious laws and it helped survive as an nation. Its time to go."
For one there was no partition because there was no Nation-State called India before 1947, India was a region that consisted of British colony and princely states, before that it was a region with many kingdoms, never a country.
SO WHAT PARTITION?????????????????????????????????????
It was Azadi, and Mubrak ho, tujay be oor mujay be.
Why personal law systems were kept is none of my business, you Indians do what you want, as long as people don’t suffer. But, whatever you do, if it affects me or my interests, I will have my say, and that’s exactly what I have been doing in this thread.
It is so shameful you lot are so full of hate for Islam and your own Muslim citizens, you people need to get rid of this hate or it will consume you completely, it probably already has, but I am still hopeful.
@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan
