Muslims react with caution to UP Govt's Ordinance against conversion for marriage

Published on: 

With the Uttar Pradesh government clearing a draft ordinance to deal with religious conversions solely for marriage, Muslim leaders on Wednesday reacted with caution, saying it should be ensured that it does not infringe upon the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

 The Uttar Pradesh government on Tuesday approved a draft ordinance to curb forcible or “dishonest” religious conversions including those for the sake of marriage, which could land violators in jail for up to 10 years.

 The good thing is that the draft ordinance does not use the term “love jehad” and the forced conversion which has been termed as illegal and punishable is something that is already held as crime in the Muslim law, senior member of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) Khalid Rashid Farangimahli told PTI.

 In the Quran also, Allah has said force in religion is not justified, so we have no objection to punishment over it, he added.

 “Love jehad” is a term coined by a section of Hindu groups for Muslim men allegedly forcing women to convert in the guise of love and marriage.

 “We are of the opinion that for peace and communal harmony, it is needed that Muslims and Hindus marry in their own communities. We have no objection to whatever we have seen in the ordinance,” Farangimahli said.

 The AIMPLB member stressed that whenever any law is enacted, it is based on the intention that there would not be any discrimination with anyone.

 “We also expect that this law will not be used wrongly. The legal experts will have to see that the law does not raise a question mark on the constitutional right to freedom of religion for all Indians. Otherwise, we have no objection to this law,” he said.

 Shaista Amber, president, All-India Muslim Women Personal Law Board, however, said there was no need for such a law. “If anyone is getting married on the basis of deceit and forcibly getting the other person converted, there should be a stringent law for it and we already have laws for it. There was no need to bring a new law,” she said.                

Daily Pioneer
dailypioneer.com