> > Why should it uniform? Let the muslim have his/her personal law. > > Why should anyone get worked up about it. > This is rubbish in my opinion, Lukhman.
Oh no, the question: Why should it be uniform? was not referring to the europe vs hijab. I was limiting the scope to the indian laws. >The simple question that people like > Sarkozy ask in response is this: Is the *enforcement* >of the Burkha upon the > Muslim female anything other than fascist? Since you have asked this, let me put it this way. I do have a problem with people who want to enforce the hijab on women against their wishes. If I have a daughter and she insists on wearing a bikini or alternately a burkha on CMH Road, I would find it both inappropriate. But I have a bigger problem with people who insist on banning both these items of clothing under the guise of liberating these women, especially if the women insist on wearing it. They can have better use of their time to actually govern the country in a better manner. In Paris you cant walk a kilometer at night without being mugged. >>So the HIndu male is secure. Why should he be the moral >>force behind a correction of the law? >>This what the BJP tries to establish. >>The subtext is that only Muslim laws leave women worse off. >>True, that they leave them worse off than Hindu law. >>But there is no humanity to either of these laws. Check Indian muslims are poorer compared to (for example) Saudia To marry in Saudi, the guy must first provide all facitlites (separate home, car, income, etc, etc) to the wife whom he is marrying. I have never been to that place but I have relatives living in Mecca and all over the gulf. And before / during marriage a large sum of money/property is given to the bride as meher. That takes care of her sustain-ance. If at all he divorces her, she is not at a total loss - you see? This is the primary reason why the arab males marry at a very old age. (by the time they earn that wealth they are quite old). Its the wealthy among them that get to marry at younger age. Indian muslims have imported islam but dont have that sort of wealth. So, in the bargain we have a situation where the meher is waived off or reduced to some silly peanut sized portions. Myself being atheist, I still have to concede that the laws governing marriage and divorce and inheritance as in the Quran are sufficient to take care of the women folk. Here the stress is on inheritance after death. The concept of will is not encouraged. The women get more from the husband than the father and so, to even it out, the sons get more from the father than their sisters. Its all designed to make wives more loyal to husbands and sons more loyal to fathers in that primitive sort of culture. I am moving this back to silk where these things can get hammered better on the anvil. If at all the BJP wants to sort out the plight of muslim women, they can go ahead and fix a minimum "meher" to be paid to the bride at the time of marriage. That will surely get them my vote (once at least). Lukhman. PS: http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.97/WOME.HTM Not the best of documents to read but still something...
