Muslim population share decides their mentality: RSS women wing wisdom

[Joe Shearer]

The point of discussion is against the very precise template laid out by Joe.

Which is, he has no issues with what people do per their faith, as long as they do it within the laws of the land.

My point is equally simple.

We have laws of the land that are built around a faith. Not vice versa. Because the faith believes it is the law. Everything else either does not exist, or comes a distant second.

We have an issue there. And it is not going to be solved by being diplomatic by saying all faiths do the same.

They do not.

Precisely the point that I am trying to make, with precision. We should stop worrying about any faith believing that it is the law. Not in this constitutionally-sovereign non-theistic state, they cannot.

I have not seen that choice ever offered to them.

Nor do I feel you would be very happy with the results were the issue ever to be enforced.

Again, I'm not looking to be happy or unhappy. It's about the law, and adhering to the rule of law. To the Constitution. To stopping being arseholes on both sides of this totally phony discussion between two sets of bigots. If the law is observed, and tempered with mercy from time to time, to allow obviously harsh decisions to be ameliorated by human intervention, as a matter of the greatest rarity, I'm NOT UNHAPPY, and I have a reasonable crack at being happy with my books, with my booze and with Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Mozart and Paganini, if I can spare time from listening to opera.

Seeing the laws applied or not being applied should not make anyone of balanced mind and disposition either happy or unhappy. That they are is a pointer to the fundamental flaws in our thinking about our state and why it exists.

I cannot carry on until Joe (or anyone else) rebuts the point I have made.

Sometime it makes life more interesting when you try and defend a shaky premise. Than one that is a no-brainer and requires no special grey-effort.

LOL.

Brave mannikin.

 

[laphroaig]

Precisely the point that I am trying to make, with precision. We should stop worrying about any faith believing that it is the law. Not in this constitutionally-sovereign non-theistic state, they cannot.

Again, I'm not looking to be happy or unhappy. It's about the law, and adhering to the rule of law. To the Constitution. To stopping being arseholes on both sides of this totally phony discussion between two sets of bigots. If the law is observed, and tempered with mercy from time to time, to allow obviously harsh decisions to be ameliorated by human intervention, as a matter of the greatest rarity, I'm NOT UNHAPPY, and I have a reasonable crack at being happy with my books, with my booze and with Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Mozart and Paganini, if I can spare time from listening to opera.

Seeing the laws applied or not being applied should not make anyone of balanced mind and disposition either happy or unhappy. That they are is a pointer to the fundamental flaws in our thinking about our state and why it exists.

I want to enjoy that Beethoven (I am partial tho to Mika Singh myself ....) and booze with you too. But seeing as we are trapped in front of our respective screens, let me again try and point out the big elephant you are taking circles around sir.

The faith is question comfortably does NOT need to worry about following or not following the law of the land, because in this constitutionally-sovereign non-theistic state the law of the land is moulded around the law of their faith.

Only for them.

Everything else is secondary.

So there is no resistance from them. But as you well know sir, the absence of resistance sometimes means there is no one pushing back, and at other times could also mean that there was never anyone pushing in the first place.

 

[Nilgiri]

But seeing as we are trapped in front of our respective screens,

Haha i spilt my gin and tonic.

 

[laphroaig]

Haha i spilt my gin and tonic.

At least one of us is the spiritual sort.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I want to enjoy that Beethoven (I am partial tho to Mika Singh myself ....) and booze with you too. But seeing as we are trapped in front of our respective screens, let me again try and point out the big elephant you are taking circles around sir.

The faith is question comfortably does NOT need to worry about following or not following the law of the land, because in this constitutionally-sovereign non-theistic state the law of the land is moulded around the law of their faith.

Only for them.

Everything else is secondary.

So there is no resistance from them. But as you well know sir, the absence of resistance sometimes means there is no one pushing back, and at other times could also mean that there was never anyone pushing in the first place.

Show me ONE instance where the law of the land has been moulded around the law of any particular faith. With the exception of the Special Marriage Act and the Brahmo Samaj.

 

[laphroaig]

Show me ONE instance where the law of the land has been moulded around the law of any particular faith. With the exception of the Special Marriage Act and the Brahmo Samaj.

Sir, everything to how many you can marry, how you can divorce, to what and how you can inherit and what you need to pay and whether you need to pay it is all as per the laws of the faith and not common law for all citizens of the land.

Were it to have been common, were every law to have been comon - we would never have needed to wory about the 4 wives bit.

Because I do not think there is a Muslim man alive who would take more than one under those pre-conditions.

Not counting the mother in laws that come gratis.

It is a simple word. Except.

That simple word makes 90 million Indians second class citizens without rights sir. As sanctioned by a nation that looks on. Think.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, everything to how many you can marry, how you can divorce, to what and how you can inherit and what you need to pay and whether you need to pay it is all as per the laws of the faith and not common law for all citizens of the land.

Wrong.

These are all governed by the personal law of each faith; not one of these qualifies as being the common law of the land, moulded to the needings of one particular faith.

Were it to have been common, were every law to have been comon - we would never have needed to wory about the 4 wives bit.

1. Why are YOU worried?
2. Why should ANYONE be worried? It is a non-cognisable offence.
3. How many wives do T. R. Baalu, Nedunchezhian and the old goat himself, Karunanidhi, have?
4. How many wives does that prick, Dharmendra, have?

Because I do not think there is a Muslim man alive who would take more than one under those pre-conditions.
Not counting the mother in laws that come gratis.

Mothers in law, actually, but do continue.

It is a simple word. Except. That simple word makes 90 million Indians second class citizens without rights sir. As sanctioned by a nation that looks on. Think.

That's the trouble with a society where everybody thinks that he or she knows history, because everyone knows history. That's what happens when everyone knows medicine; for heavens' sake, it's about things that happen to us daily. And that's what happens when we think we know the law, and how to interpret it.

This is NOT a case of a common law being warped by the specific needs of one religion. This is a case of the common law taking a view on limited subjects, and leavin

 

[laphroaig]

This is NOT a case of a common law being warped by the specific needs of one religion. This is a case of the common law taking a view on limited subjects, and leavin

You did not complete the most important part of your post.

Why are YOU worried?

Because I find it quite medieval and abhorrent to be honest.

Just as I as a married man would not be delirious with joy about 3 more guys giving it to my wife by turns different nights of the week, I am pretty certain no woman in the world is pretty excited about the obverse as well.

Hope that was crudely put but honest enough.

No reason for Indian girls to be put through that by legal sanction.

Where do we draw the line Joe. Mutaa and Misyar (one day marriages)?

 

[Nilgiri]

Just as I as a married man would not be delirious with joy about 3 more guys giving it to my wife by turns different nights of the week, I am pretty certain no woman in the world is pretty excited about the obverse as well.

Doesn't a muslim man have to seek permission of first (or existing) wives before he can marry another?

I haven't read about it in depth so am curious.

 

[-xXx-]

Because I find it quite medieval and abhorrent to be honest.

Just as I as a married man would not be delirious with joy about 3 more guys giving it to my wife by turns different nights of the week, I am pretty certain no woman in the world is pretty excited about the obverse as well.

Hope that was crudely put but honest enough.

No reason for Indian girls to be put through that by legal sanction.

The argument is look they are abiding with majority laws and just given relaxation in some aspects. Since relaxation has been given, it can not be termed as violation of law. But then as the topic suggest, their % is for now good enough to force such relaxations (inhuman though), going forward demand for relaxation may be proportional to % population and they can still be law abiding.

Where do we draw the line Joe. Mutaa and Misyar (one day marriages)?

Or right hand possession.

 

[laphroaig]

Doesn't a muslim man have to seek permission of first (or existing) wives before he can marry another?

I haven't read about it in depth so am curious.

I think so.

What is the wife going to say?

Its like the hackneyed argument that Muslim women love to wear the burqa by choice. Voluntarily.

 

[-xXx-]

Doesn't a muslim man have to seek permission of first (or existing) wives before he can marry another?

I haven't read about it in depth so am curious.

I think so.

What is the wife going to say?

Its like the hackneyed argument that Muslim women love to wear the burqa by choice. Voluntarily.

No it is not required.

A poor woman can not stop a man from doing something Allah himself has allowed.

 

[Nilgiri]

Its like the hackneyed argument that Muslim women love to wear the burqa by choice. Voluntarily.

I do like the form fitting ones. But covering the face is just so barbaric (though I guess not in all cases )

 

[laphroaig]

There is simply no way for someone to judge whether a woman is voluntarily accepting and agreeing to her husband keeping more wives.

Just as there is simply no way for someone to judge whether a woman is voluntarily wearing a burqa and not out of social and familial compulsions.

The law will come and go. The family and the society the woman has to live with will still be there later. And that is something she will have to face alone.

But if there is a law, then the "voluntary" onus is not on the poor woman. She can simply shrug her shoulders and say too bad. I would have loved to wear the burqa and be one of four wives, but the law simply does not allow me that right.

But our nation (a constitutionally-sovereign non-theistic state) chooses to tip toe and be "sensitive" about the whole issue.

 

[Nilgiri]

I would have loved to wear the burqa and be one of four wives, but the law simply does not allow me that right.

You have some interesting fantansies. Do go on.