India: Muslim Teenager in UP Arrested Under 'Love Jihad' Law for Walking With a Hindu Friend

[stvdv]

why can't the young man convert to the woman's faith? That would clearly show it's love.

In Islam they have these rules I think:
* Muslim man can marry non-Muslim woman, BUT the man CAN NOT convert AND the woman is free to convert or not
* Muslim woman can marry non-Muslim, BUT the woman CAN NOT convert AND the man MUST convert

So, the Dharmic solution would be "All are free to convert" + "All are free to marry who they want"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Indian law isn't targeting any one religion. It targets the principle. In Kerala, where there is a large Christian minority, Christian churches have also complained about Love Jihad by Muslims. So it isn't just a Hindu-Muslim thing. Muslim parents would also have the right to complain (perhaps obviously) if their daughter was targeted by a Sikh, a Hindu, a Christian, etc.

The spread of religion has been aided in this way throughout history. In North America, the original Europeans often married indigenous women. In Canada the result is called Metis, and the result is a mix of Christianity and indigenous beliefs. It's not really some new idea to kill the men and marry the women.

If I recall correctly from the Bible, the Jews did the same with Canaanite girls. With God's blessing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The most interesting sentence in the OP's link is this: "Those wishing to change their religion after their wedding would need to apply to the district magistrate a month in advance."

You need to apply for changing your beliefs? How astonishing. How Big Brother!

 

[Audie]

Its incredible on how India, a country that I once regarded as being a world spiritual superpower with no equal, has utterly and completely destroyed that once held dearly view.

Its no place to be a woman

 

[Audie]

If I recall correctly from the Bible, the Jews did the same with Canaanite girls. With God's blessing.

Interesting

 

[stvdv]

The most interesting sentence in the OP's link is this: "Those wishing to change their religion after their wedding would need to apply to the district magistrate a month in advance."

You need to apply for changing your beliefs? How astonishing. How Big Brother!

It is 1 step forward though, because in Islam a Muslim(a) is not allowed to change religion.
When Islam changes it's Big Brother Law, India does not need it's Law anymore.

I believe there is one solution to this problem, and that is that all evangelizing religions must give up evangelizing
IF they choose to evangelize (including these marriage rules) THEN we continue to have religions creating NON Peace

Note: And of course in all (non) faiths there are plenty of improvements still needed (which might take centuries to cleanse)

 

[Vinayaka]

It does seem to target Muslims though, because of the name they use "Love Jihad". Saying that it protects Muslimas also, does not take that away IMO. Muslimas are already protected by their religion, but it's good they are protected by Law too. BUT they better use another name.

But it's good information you give, that it's not targeting one religion; it targets the principle, being "enforce religion on women".

My initial thought was "it is not about racism at all". The problem here is the "evangelism principle". And that is exactly what Hinduism is all about "do not evangelize". So India acts Dharmic with their new Law. And when the evangelizing Religions stop Adharma then the Law won't be needed anymore.


And this example also clearly shows that evangelism principle is the root cause of all this.

Yes it SEEMS to target Islam, because Islam is most likely the faith that does it the most. Nobody mentions how Hinduism is targeted by the government taking control of Hindu temple funds. Can you imagine the legitimate uproar if the government decided to take the funds of mosques and churches?

Muslim parents could well make a complaint to the authorities if they felt their daughter was being co-erced.

 

[Vinayaka]

The most interesting sentence in the OP's link is this: "Those wishing to change their religion after their wedding would need to apply to the district magistrate a month in advance."

You need to apply for changing your beliefs? How astonishing. How Big Brother!

How do you read that? A month in advance of the wedding, or a month in advance of the religious conversion? I'm not sure.

 

[sayak83]

'A Muslim teenager from Uttar Pradesh’s Bijnor has been arrested under the state’s new ‘anti-conversion’ law after he walked home from a birthday party with his former classmate, a Dalit girl.

The 16-year-old girl has repeatedly said that all allegations of ‘love jihad‘ are completely false, and that the boy was a friend of hers. “I have told this to the magistrate, and I will say this again. Those men had a problem with me walking with my friend. They made videos of me and are now calling it love jihad. I did nothing wrong. I went of my own free will,” she told the Indian Express.


On the night of December 14, at around 10 pm, the two were walking home from a friend’s birthday party when they were allegedly chased by a group of right-wing Hindu men, beaten with sticks and questioned. On learning that the two belonging to two different religions, the group forced them to go to a police station, the newspaper reported.'

Read more here: Muslim Teenager in UP Arrested Under 'Love Jihad' Law for Walking With a Hindu Friend

Not sure if it's the same couple. But the court has dismissed a similar case today.
"Right To Live On Her Terms": High Court Reunites UP Interfaith Couple

The Allahabad High Court has ruled in favour of an interfaith couple, underlining that the woman is an adult who "wants to live with her husband", had the "right to live life on her terms (and) is free to move as per her choice without any restriction or hindrance being created by (a) third party".

While that is good. Religious bigotry is increasingly be coming a part of the social and political culture of India.

 

[stvdv]

Yes it SEEMS to target Islam, because Islam is most likely the faith that does it the most. Nobody mentions how Hinduism is targeted by the government taking control of Hindu temple funds. Can you imagine the legitimate uproar if the government decided to take the funds of mosques and churches?

Muslim parents could well make a complaint to the authorities if they felt their daughter was being co-erced.

I mentioned "SEEMED" just because of the name used "Love Jihad"
But if it is mainly Islam that uses this coerce trick then "Love Jihad" might be good to use. Better call the beast by the proper name

And I agree, Hinduism is quite good for minorities, unless they misbehave. I have been there 10 years, and the authorities were so good to foreigners. Even when they misbehaved they were incredible tolerant. But when they kept misbehaving I have seen that they made the rules stricter

So, I am convinced that this New Law is a good Law, and that it is implemented because it was needed, because Muslims did wrong.

"Tell me your company I tell you who you are". Also here, there are a bunch messing things up, and the whole group has to follow the new rule

I don't blame India. I am quite sure, India does the right thing here. India does not evangelize, and must be strict with evangelizing religions, otherwise they are known to "take your hand, if you offer 1 finger". Just common sense.

 

[Windwalker]

Here's an in depth article on love jihad. Personally, I think we'll see a few more instances of over-reaction by authorities. In this article the high courts analyzed 94 cases, and found 23 to be guilty.

In Islam there has always been an 'it's okay' attitude for men to marry outside Islam, but a ban on women marrying outside. I believe this is a result of patriarchy all around. It's the woman that has to convert, sadly demonstrative of chauvinism.

One question that arises is if the marriage (or pre-marriage) is truly love, why can't the young man convert to the woman's faith? That would clearly show it's love.

In any case, the anti-Hindu press will have a field day finding and focusing on examples that confirm their bias. In other words, we're sure to hear about the 23 guilty, but not about the 71 not guilty cases.

Love Jihad: Loving for religion

Interesting article. I think the point comes towards the end that Liberalism, which saw a decline in religion via Max Weber, is outdated and unrealistic. I myself, being a person of modernity and postmodernity, recognize science and reason will not replace the religious impulse. The point is that secular governments, which are Liberal tend to be ill-equipped to respond to religious expansionist efforts in a postmodernist age. In fact it is a non-issue for them largely because of the belief that secularism and pluralism will rule the day, love of others wins in the end, which I myself prefer to believe.

So from the perspective of traditional religions, they see pluralism as a threat to their own survival. If you have two traditionalist religions, colliding with each other, and the one is driven by conversion efforts and the other is not, then you have a defensive posture being taken in response. The article goes into how historically statistics have shown how Islam switched it's spread with sword, to spread by marriage; but marriage in a largely one-way direction.

That bit, if considered valid statistically, reminds me a bit of the line from the movie Brave Heart, where King Edward 1 says when invoking the right of "first night", where an English Lord has sexual rights to the bride on her wedding night, "The problem with Scotland is the Scots! If we can't drive them out, we'll breed them out". That tactic is a form of one nation conquering another. So if those who have studied "Love Jihad", as a form of this "soft Jihad" through love rather than the sword has merit, it certainly would be cause for concern. Patterns of behavior historically do lend itself to an overall reason for concern.

From the secularist position, which I'd largely fall into as opposed to a traditionalist perspective, I am under no illusions that expansionist religions are ripe for the plucking of those seeking power over others. Just here in America, the right-wing Christian Evangelicals have placed political and social power over the principles of their own religion to the point there is little if anything resembling the Jesus of the Bible in their actions. They are now fallen to the point of attempting to topple the secular Democracy of the United States of America in order to bring their vision of social order under religion theocratic ideals to the top.

They themselves view it as a war, or a "jihad" using Islamic terms for the same thing. It's a war against Islam, a war against secularism, and a war against others in general. So while you certainly have those who are anti-Muslims, or anti-Christians using that to spread their own form of hatred of others, or "otherism", there is also a reasonable concern that I can see where not only the traditionalist of one religion who is otherwise peaceable and non-expansionist, but also the modernist, and the secularist needs to be concerned.

As a liberal and largely a pluralist, one only has to look at the White Evangelicals who are trying to thrown out the Election and put a dictator who is the exact opposite of all Christian beliefs and values in power, to recognize the threat that religion can pose if allowed to run unchecked by a system of checks and balances.

It's a complex issue with many sides, from the personal and individual, to the collective. There is no one simple black and white solution, and any efforts to contain expansionists religions and the thirst to assume power over others at all costs and all prices paid, whether through open warfare or subversion, are going to be fraught with difficulties and injustices, because it is a diversity of humans administering them. No easy answers, which is what these right-wing religions peddle to sell to others to make converts to themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is sad to read this story. It show how wrong people can understand the spiritual life of people and their religion. Those who did wrong here was the adults, who thought two young people was who did nothing against any religion was criminals...

Islamic law have become so twisted in part of this world. Sound like those men do not know what jihad means.

This is not an Islamic law this time. It is a Hindu one.

 

[stvdv]

Interesting article.

Thank you for your post. I was curious what the article said, but can't view it in Holland. But from your story I get the idea now

The point is that secular governments, which are Liberal tend to be ill-equipped to respond to religious expansionist efforts.

Exactly. But in the past 12 month, I think they found ways to take care of it (thanks to computers), but it will take time.

If we can't drive them out, we'll breed them out"

Good story. I read this about Islam too. They have larger families (2 or 3 kids more per family, which will result in immense growth in 40 years)

So while you certainly have those who are anti-Muslims, or anti-Christians using that to spread their own form of hatred of others, or "otherism", there is also a reasonable concern that I can see where not only the traditionalist of one religion who is otherwise peaceable and non-expansionist, but also the modernist, and the secularist needs to be concerned.

Evangelism is a huge problem in the world (if peace is our goal). No coincidence that Islam is called religion of Peace (their goal, not yet reached)

As a liberal and largely a pluralist, one only has to look at the White Evangelicals who are trying to thrown out the Election and put a dictator who is the exact opposite of all Christian beliefs and values in power

No coincidence I think. Evangelism is belittling other (non) faiths and as such (passive aggressive) it is violence. Violence invokes violence. So the evangelizing Religions are a major cause of the violence in the world. They shout "we are religion of Love" and "we are religion of Peace", but evangelizing kills all the good.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How do you read that? A month in advance of the wedding, or a month in advance of the religious conversion? I'm not sure.

Nor am I, but it doesn't really matter, because in either case, it means you need permission from an official to change your beliefs. I rather think that beliefs are a private matter.

 

[Vinayaka]

Nor am I, but it doesn't really matter, because in either case, it means you need permission from an official to change your beliefs. I rather think that beliefs are a private matter.

Oh I agree, although we also have to have a wedding certificate for anything other than common-law, and there's still that point in some weddings where the minister calls for anyone to proclaim a reason for not getting married. I would think a forced marriage would be a good reason to object.

 

[Vinayaka]

The article is blocked in my country (Holland)

That is weird.

 

[danieldemol]

No easy answers, which is what these right-wing religions peddle to sell to others to make converts to themselves.

As far as I can tell in India Hinduism is a right-wing religion.

 

[Windwalker]

As far as I can tell in India Hinduism is a right-wing religion.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with that. You have the same spectrum of human beings within that religion as you do all of them. You always get conservatives and progressives, warriors and pacifists, fanatics and moderates, etc, regardless of the religion, or belief system. Same for Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Baha'ism, Atheism, etc.

It's not one thing for the entire group. Typically, it's the most vocal or outrageous, that are in the minority, but get the most attention and tarnish the whole religion for outsiders.

 

[danieldemol]

For what it's worth i acknowledge that love jihad is a legitimate threat to society, but my preliminary thoughts on the matter are that the best way to tackle it would be with a new law to be implemented going forward that the marriage celebrant of any or no faith in order for there marriages to be recognised by the government must sign a public declaration saying they support the right of women to marry outside their faith/ideology.

 

[Vinayaka]

For what it's worth i acknowledge that love jihad is a legitimate threat to society, but my preliminary thoughts on the matter are that the best way to tackle it would be with a new law to be implemented going forward that the marriage celebrant of any or no faith in order for there marriages to be recognised by the government must sign a public declaration saying they support the right of women to marry outside their faith/ideology.

The laws, in this case, are state by state in India, as religion isn't under federal jurisdiction. So they're all anti-conversion laws that are being interpreted. Here is Nepal's, as an example.

‘no person shall act or make others act in a manner which is contrary to public health, decency, and morality, or behave or act or make others act to disturb public law and order situation, or convert a person of one religion to another religion, or disturb the religion of other people. Such an act shall be punishable by law.’

The laws are intended to fight coercive conversions. How it's interpreted varies greatly, by state, by local jurisdictions, etc. There are huge foreign funded campaigns by many Islamic and Christian missionary groups because they feel it's targeting their very activity of proselytising. And they're right, it is. So to get really basic, it's fundamentally a debate about proselytising ... whether that goes agains human decency or not. Of course the dharmic faiths say it does, and the Abrahamic faiths say it's their human right. We have that same debate on these very forums.

Let's just say I wouldn't want to be an Indian judge. To date there's been around 600 cases come to court, which is relatively few, considering there are a billion people in India.

It's complicated, as there is a growing non-religious group, as well as large demographic variations from state to state. The states that have large non-Hindu populations have far more resistance to passing such laws.