August 22, 2017

By a vote of 3-to-2 vote, the Supreme Court of India invalidated the law that let Muslim men divorce their wife by saying "talaq" (divorce) 3 times.

The NYT reports:
Of those who voted against, two said the practice was unconstitutional and one said it went against Islamic law. One of the dissenters was a Muslim judge; the other was the court’s chief justice, who urged Parliament to come up with a new provision.
That is, only a minority said it was a violation of the constitutional right to equality. Moreover, the tone was, according to one law professor, demeaning to women:
“The patronizing tone towards Muslim women in all the opinions is quite breathtaking,” Ratna Kapur, a law professor and author of a forthcoming book on gender and human rights, wrote on Facebook. “Women are talked about as if they are in need of protection, not in terms of their rights.”

She added, “Nearly every reference to the Muslim woman in the majority and dissenting opinions reduces Muslim women to ‘suffering victims.’ ”

64 comments:

brylun said...

All cultures are not equal; Judeo-Christian is the best.

tim maguire said...

So one of the judges who voted to overturn the law so voted, not because it was unconstitutional or somehow incompatible with Indian law, but because it was against the Koran.

traditionalguy said...

That crazy Saul of Tarsus said that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female...somebody shut him up quick.

Nonapod said...

Nearly every reference to the Muslim woman in the majority and dissenting opinions reduces Muslim women to ‘suffering victims.’

"Suffering" may be a bit heavy handed, but victims? I'm not certain there's a better way to frame the situation. One side benefits at the expense of the other.

Gahrie said...

Nearly every reference to the Muslim woman in the majority and dissenting opinions reduces Muslim women to ‘suffering victims.’ ”

I think it is safe to say that the majority of women living in Muslim societies are suffering victims. Of course most of the men are too.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Islamic men are whack jobs. No wonder Obama catered to them.

Char Char Binks said...

They now have to also say "Mekka lekka hi mekka hiney ho".

gspencer said...

Get out of a marriage, spousal support, and child support through an email, or an Instagram, by reciting three magic words? Hey, what's not to like?

AA, okay to criticize Islam?

I promise, following past practice, to reference only established Islamic practices which follow the Shariah. E.g., marriage to 9-year olds.

David Begley said...

How can this be surprising? Only surprised that the NYT printed the story.

Polygamy is coming. Muslims in America already practice FGM. Diversity!

clint said...

So... is that description of Muslim wives in India -- as suffering victims in need of protection -- factually accurate or not?

Mountain Maven said...

Keep them out our the US so we don't have to deal with their crazy evil sh*t. And supermax the fgm doctors.

Etienne said...

All moslems in India should be forced to move to Pakistan, and their property confiscated and sold to the highest non-moslem bidder.

End of problem.

Ambrose said...

So the court ruling was the "right" one but the tone was insufficient?

mockturtle said...

Here's what I don't get: Was Pakistan not established to accommodate Indian Muslims so they would leave the Hindus alone? Why must they try to take over India, as well?

mockturtle said...

I guess Etienne beat me to it. Kind of.

David said...

“Women are talked about as if they are in need of protection, not in terms of their rights.” A pretty good argument can be made that, in that society, protection ought to come first. The exception to that is women of the upper classes and top castes, who have little difficulty exercising power. This is because of class not gender.

The United States is a paradise of equality and freedom compared to most of the rest of the world. That does not excuse the actual injustices in our society, but the endless wailing about every little slight, imagined or real, does get tiresome in that perspective.

Achilles said...

She added, “Nearly every reference to the Muslim woman in the majority and dissenting opinions reduces Muslim women to ‘suffering victims.’ ”

That is because Muslim women are suffering victims.

David said...

"Was Pakistan not established to accommodate Indian Muslims so they would leave the Hindus alone?"

And vice versa. They were slaughtering each other in massive numbers.

The solution was to create separate nations so that each could develop and deploy nuclear weapons.

David said...

The Supreme Court of India, which never saw a foreigner's patent that it did not want to evaluate.

Sebastian said...

“Women are talked about as if they are in need of protection," Hey, just like the US! Where women are talked about as if they are in need of the protection of safe spaces, diversity policies, and the removal of mean men from any organization.

Paddy O said...

"Mekka lekka hi mekka hiney ho"

The magic divorce genie grants wishes on Pee-Wee's Althouse!

Breezy said...

There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home.

mockturtle said...

David replies to: "Was Pakistan not established to accommodate Indian Muslims so they would leave the Hindus alone?"

with: And vice versa. They were slaughtering each other in massive numbers.

The Hindus were there long before the Muslims spread into India. And the Muslims were not peaceful immigrants.

TWW said...

"Pictured below, three masked Muslims hold up a Hindu street vender in Mumbai".

Jimmy said...

Beetljuice!, Beetlejuice! . . .

Jimmy said...

A court in the UK cleared a rich Saudi of rape charges, accepting his claim that he accidentally penetrated the woman when he fell on her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3361640/Saudi-millionaire-cleared-raping-teenager-telling-court-accidentally-penetrated-18-year-old-tripped-fell-her.html

Curious George said...

"She added, “Nearly every reference to the Muslim woman in the majority and dissenting opinions reduces Muslim women to ‘suffering victims."

If Kanye West and P. Diddy were on that court it would have been "bitch" or "ho."

Bay Area Guy said...

This is what passes for progress in the 3rd world, I reckon.

I guess India is a reasonably modern country -- except for the caste system.




Fernandinande said...

Supreme Court of India

Phew! For a sec I thought is was Indiana.

“Women are talked about as if they are in need of protection, not in terms of their rights.”

They also have a VAWA and Title IX ?

Laslo Spatula said...

Submarine, submarine, submarine.

I am Laslo.

tcrosse said...

Meeska, Mooska, Mouseketeer. Mousecartoon time now is here.

Laslo Spatula said...

Fix me a sandwich, fix me a sandwich. fix me a sandwich.

Does that work?

I am Laslo.

steve uhr said...

And women get to jump on a fire when there husband dies. Pretty f@@ked up place. But they are friendly on the phone when I have a software problem.

AllenS said...

Would you eat a shit sandwich, Laslo? I think that if forced to, you would.

Gahrie said...

Why must they try to take over India, as well?

Because their God demands it.

Ken B said...

Laslo. I was sure you'd say "ream, ream, ream". You're slipping.

William said...

Aren't there any escape clauses in the Koran? You know, some verse that allows you to adapt your religion to a changing world......I've read that the Muslims were extremely reluctant to give up slavery. Their reasoning was that since there are many haddiths in the Koran that mandated the humane treatment of slaves, that, therefore, Allah wished some to serve as slaves. I don't know how devout Muslims got their minds around the abolition of slavery but most of them did. Couldn't the same process--whatever it was--be used to update the status of women?.....There must be some ambiguous verses somewhere in the Koran that cold be used for such a purpose. God forbids alcohol and, by extension, smoking and clitoral amputations.

Jupiter said...

"That is, only a minority said it was a violation of the constitutional right to equality ..."

There is a right to equality in the Indian Constitution? Maybe so;

"It is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world."


Jupiter said...

"It declares India a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty, and endeavours to promote fraternity among them."

So,there. All fixed!

David Begley said...

Churchill was right about Islam.

buwaya said...

Off topic -

I predicted this re San Francisco.

Now they are threatening just the monuments I predicted they would be after - well, one of them, but the same applies to the rest -

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/SF-is-facing-its-own-battle-over-controversial-11948403.php

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Sharia also provides for term limited marriages ... Few hours to few days ... This way Muslim can avoid charge of adultery.

bagoh20 said...

The three word divorce IS a bit burdensome considering it only takes two words to get married.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I see lots of Hollywood romcom possibilities. Woman marries her true love, but the man gets tricked by his rival into saying Talaq, Talaq, Talaq and they are divorced. The couple find they that under strict Sharia interpretation they can't remarry unless she first consummates another marriage to someone else. The rival makes a marriage deal with her family and she has to marry him. But, taking advantage of a typo in the marriage contract, she instead marries the rival's father on his deathbed, making her eligible to remarry her true live, and cheating the rival out of his inheritance.

Plural marriage also offers even more romcom possibilities. Imagine The Graduate where Benjamin ends up marrying both Mrs. Robinson and Elaine, and the three of them ride off sitting together in the back of the bus.

Or, Donald, the President of the United States has three wives and is one wife short of Sharia. His Vice President Mike is a Christian angling to get him removed. At a G8 conference in Monaco, Mike spikes his drink and Donald finds himself married to Angela, the Queen of Muslim Germany. Under German law, he would automatically become a German citizen as the consort of the Queen. Under U.S. law, he would lose his U.S. citizenship and eligibility to remain President of the U.S. Just when Mike seems to have won, Talaq, Talaq, Talaq! and Mike is undone.

buwaya said...

"Woman marries her true love, but the man gets tricked by his rival into saying Talaq, Talaq, Talaq and they are divorced. The couple find they that under strict Sharia interpretation they can't remarry unless she first consummates another marriage to someone else. The rival makes a marriage deal with her family and she has to marry him. But, taking advantage of a typo in the marriage contract, she instead marries the rival's father on his deathbed, making her eligible to remarry her true live, and cheating the rival out of his inheritance. "

There may be an Egyptian TV series with exactly this plot. I wouldn't be surprised.

Rigelsen said...

She added, “Nearly every reference to the Muslim woman in the majority and dissenting opinions reduces Muslim women to ‘suffering victims.’ ”

Isn't that half of 3rd wave feminism? Campus rape culture, anybody? I keed, I keed.

The Hindus were there long before the Muslims spread into India. And the Muslims were not peaceful immigrants.

Except for a very small number of Mongols (Moghuls on the subcontinent) and Arabs, Muslims in India are not immigrants, but converts from either Buddhism, lower caste Hindus, or upper caste Hindus who wanted to ingratiate themselves with their Moghul rulers. Pakistan, on the other hand, has more Persians and other tribes that tend to be much more conservative in culture.

While the divorce law is based on Islamic law, it is likely the only way that Muslim women are treated worse in India than non-Muslim women. For example, the whole "kill the widow" thing is strictly Hindu and is not practiced among Muslims. FGM is also not practiced in India outside of a historical Yemeni immigrant community. In general, the poor status of women in India is not due to Islam but the traditional subcontinental culture.

As far as the partition, while there was sectarian violence before, the partition itself directly caused about two million dead as many communities were forcibly relocated. And there were many who refused to relocate period, especially since many families were mixed. No, the partition was mostly result of an intra-party political feud between the equally ambitious Jinnah and Nehru over who should be the first prime minister of India. When Nehru wouldn't budge, Jinnah went to work on the British and convinced them that the Muslims would not be safe under Hindu rule. And that's how we ended up with the nuclear armed failed state of Pakistan.

Still, Muslim terrorism in India is of very recent vintage, generally imported, predated by organic sectarian conflicts on the one hand and non-religious groups like Tamil Tigers on the other.

Fernandinande said...

PAGE, Ariz. - Page Unified School District will be making changes to its class schedule Monday out of respect for Native American culture.

The Eclipse is scheduled to begin at 9:13 a.m., and last through 12:01 p.m. All schools will be following an inclement weather schedule with any recess scheduled indoors. All lunches have been moved to 12:15 p.m., so that students will not be required to eat lunch until the Eclipse has passed. Likewise, arrangements will be made at both Page Middle School and Page High School for the passing of any classes during this time so that the students are not outside during the Eclipse.

++

According to traditional Native beliefs, viewing the eclipse could cause health and spiritual problems. Navajos warn against eating, sleeping or being out in the sun while a solar eclipse is happening.

“You’re not supposed to be out in the sun because nature does change, the atmosphere, the lighting, everything changes,” Carlos Begay, a Navajo culture and language teacher at Page High School, told KPNX news in Phoenix. “If you were to eat during an eclipse, it does cause eating disorders and even other things along the lines of disease. If you were to sleep during an eclipse, that’s where sleeping deprivation comes from, eye problems come from, that’s where blindness comes from, the list goes on.”

Fernandinande said...

INarayanan Subramanian said...
Sharia also provides for term limited marriages ... Few hours to few days ...


The Short-Duration-Marriage, or SHOR-DUR-MAR

rhhardin said...

Polygamy is caring.

rhhardin said...

Stay in your casino until the eclipse ends lest nature be out of balance.

mockturtle said...

Rigelson, I dispute much of your post but frankly am too tired today to rebut. When I used the term 'immigrants' I was using it sarcastically. The fact is that shortly after the founding of Islam, Muslims sought to spread it into south Asia. But it wasn't until the 12 or 13th centuries that the intense conflicts began.

And the sati was banned in 1829 and only rarely occurs today and usually involves the widow throwing herself on the funeral pyre.

Gahrie said...

Aren't there any escape clauses in the Koran? You know, some verse that allows you to adapt your religion to a changing world...

Nope. In fact here are many examples of exactly the opposite. You are supposed to attempt to live your life as closely as possible the way that Mohammed did. Questioning the Koran, Hadith or Sura is considered apostasy and usually punished with death. The Islamic Martin Luther wouldn't last very long.

mockturtle said...

Gahrie, are you suggesting that the RCC didn't execute 'heretics'?

rcocean said...

Yep, Islam and Hindus have different values than USA Christians and others.

So why are you favor of importing them into the USA?

rcocean said...

Maybe we can turn the thread into some boring Christian bashing or Atheists vs. Religious - thread no. 5,679.

C'mon you know you want to.

Lets rehash the same ol' arguements for the 100,000 time.

Its fascinating.

rcocean said...

What about:

Climate Change
Evolution
The Valarie Phlame Affair

Or the all time favorite;

Who's a Racist?

Gahrie said...

Gahrie, are you suggesting that the RCC didn't execute 'heretics'?

Nope..in fact plenty of Christians of all stripes killed other Christians over religious disagreements.

Doesn't invalidate my point.

Big Mike said...

I'd like to think that Althouse is a feminist who actually cares about the difficulties faced by her sisters in other societies. Certainly my wife is. This is in contrast to Amanda Marcotte and so many other 21st century feminists who take the position that she's got hers so screw the women in other societies. They're asking for it; they like being put down.

Clyde said...

Jeez, Ratna, don't piss on our legs and tell us it's raining. Women in Muslim societies are chattel, the possession of first their father, then their husband. They cannot do anything without male permission. The notion of Muslim women's rights is risible.

mockturtle said...

So, what do you suggest, Clyde? Winning the hearts and minds of Muslim men who will then renounce the Qur'an and give women equal rights?

Gahrie said...

I suggest we do our best to ensure that Islam and Islamic civilization suffer the same fates as the Aztecs and Mayas.

William said...

I think Muslims have adapted to modern society at least insofar as adaptations make life easier for Muslim men. You can't draw pictures of human beings, but action movies are allowed and there's plenty of porn. Muslim men are more likely to wear sneakers than sandals. Mohammed never wore sneakers. I don't know if there are any strictures against wearing sneakers in the Koran, but the ideal is to live your life as close as possible to the way Mohammed lived his. Mohammed wore sandals. Sandals are the way to go. I think if Muslim men followed in the way of the Prophet, they would be more grounded in their religion. Maybe if they cut off the feet of a few of those sneaker wearing degenerates, Muslim men would return to the path of the Prophet and walk in his footsteps. Why do Muslims insist on traditional garb for women and decadent, heel supporting Nikes for men.

CStanley said...

3 to 2.

The 2 remind me of that one dentist out of 10 who doesn't recommend sugar free gum for their patients who chew gum.

MathMom said...

At least they realize Muslim women are suffering! This is a step forward.