<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Mar 1 2008, 12:15 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Mar 1 2008, 12:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We were married twice,â says Farha, âOne time we married according to the South Indian rituals because Shirish is a South Indian and the other time, we had a nikah because I am a Muslim.
http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edit10312005/vimlapatil.asp
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
She is a "muslim" but her husband is a "South Indian" and not "Hindu". Why is she embarrassed?
On one hand you have Saroj "Khan", Gauri "Khan", and so on... but if a Farah Khan marries a Shirish Kunder - she will remain a Muslim and continue to have a "Khan" tag. The 3 new born triplets will be 3 more "Khans" too, you bet.
[right][snapback]79138[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->What "S Indian rituals" is she talking about? <i>All</i> South Indian rituals are specifically Hindu or otherwise Dharmic - even where these are regional, they are very much tied to the local expression of Hindu or other Dharma. There are no non-Dharmic S Indian rituals. (Unless the DMK have suddenly invented new rituals for themselves like baptism or something else that's a stepping stone to christoislamism and are now advertising these as 'S Indian rituals', which they can never be anyway. I doubt this Shirish is a DMK dude though, as he's open minded enough to wear traditional N Indian clothes and his parents have given him an India-wide name.)
Farha can brave the vengeful ummah and state her husband is Hindu/Jain or Buddhist, as the case may be. She has dared them enough already in stating her husband is S Indian yet <i>not</i> muslim and that he has 'rituals' that were not islamic as opposed to the nikah she had performed. If a Faithful is going to hang her for marrying out of her 'True faith', she has already given them enough rope by admitting this much.
This Shirish Kunder/Kumar (the article has spelled his surname both ways several times, so which is it?) is playing the dhimmi in his marriage as well. He doesn't strike me as the kind not exposed to the workings of the non-Hindu Indian world - that kind of Hindu would never <i>knowingly</i> marry outside the religion anyway. So it's valid now to ask: what kind of person would let their own identity be taken from them and be belittled and negated by their spouse? What kind of marriage is that anyway? Is he so much younger than her that he has not yet learnt self-respect and the right to his own identity?
I don't know why he cared so much for his own identity to bother getting married according to his own Dharmic rituals and yet couldn't bother to explain to his wife that his religion has a name too and it's <i>not</i> the irrelevant geographical term "South Indian". I hope he reads this interview of hers and does one of two things: he either tells his wife that his identity is <Hindu/Jain/Buddhist> and that she should say it right and stop deceiving people (is she ashamed of who he is?); or he gives his wife the contact details of a divorce lawyer. The mistake against him is such a colossal one on her part that the second option is quite valid in this case, IMO.
Unless he doesn't care about his traditions/who he is after all, in which he can ignore her offence altogether.
http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edit10312005/vimlapatil.asp
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
She is a "muslim" but her husband is a "South Indian" and not "Hindu". Why is she embarrassed?
On one hand you have Saroj "Khan", Gauri "Khan", and so on... but if a Farah Khan marries a Shirish Kunder - she will remain a Muslim and continue to have a "Khan" tag. The 3 new born triplets will be 3 more "Khans" too, you bet.
[right][snapback]79138[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->What "S Indian rituals" is she talking about? <i>All</i> South Indian rituals are specifically Hindu or otherwise Dharmic - even where these are regional, they are very much tied to the local expression of Hindu or other Dharma. There are no non-Dharmic S Indian rituals. (Unless the DMK have suddenly invented new rituals for themselves like baptism or something else that's a stepping stone to christoislamism and are now advertising these as 'S Indian rituals', which they can never be anyway. I doubt this Shirish is a DMK dude though, as he's open minded enough to wear traditional N Indian clothes and his parents have given him an India-wide name.)
Farha can brave the vengeful ummah and state her husband is Hindu/Jain or Buddhist, as the case may be. She has dared them enough already in stating her husband is S Indian yet <i>not</i> muslim and that he has 'rituals' that were not islamic as opposed to the nikah she had performed. If a Faithful is going to hang her for marrying out of her 'True faith', she has already given them enough rope by admitting this much.
This Shirish Kunder/Kumar (the article has spelled his surname both ways several times, so which is it?) is playing the dhimmi in his marriage as well. He doesn't strike me as the kind not exposed to the workings of the non-Hindu Indian world - that kind of Hindu would never <i>knowingly</i> marry outside the religion anyway. So it's valid now to ask: what kind of person would let their own identity be taken from them and be belittled and negated by their spouse? What kind of marriage is that anyway? Is he so much younger than her that he has not yet learnt self-respect and the right to his own identity?
I don't know why he cared so much for his own identity to bother getting married according to his own Dharmic rituals and yet couldn't bother to explain to his wife that his religion has a name too and it's <i>not</i> the irrelevant geographical term "South Indian". I hope he reads this interview of hers and does one of two things: he either tells his wife that his identity is <Hindu/Jain/Buddhist> and that she should say it right and stop deceiving people (is she ashamed of who he is?); or he gives his wife the contact details of a divorce lawyer. The mistake against him is such a colossal one on her part that the second option is quite valid in this case, IMO.
Unless he doesn't care about his traditions/who he is after all, in which he can ignore her offence altogether.
Death to traitors.