Mohd Asim - Ban Triple Talaq, Declare Muslim Personal Law Board Illegal
Saira Banu is in her mid-30s. A sociology
postgraduate and mother of two, she is just one of the many victims of the
tyranny of triple talaq. Her story, as reported in the media, is
gut-wrenching. Saira Banu endured a bad marriage, an abusive husband, forced
abortions and physical and mental agony for over 10 years. Then, last
year, her husband sent a letter to her parents' home where she was staying for
almost a year. Inscribed on that piece of paper were three words: "Talaq,
Talaq, Talaq".
Saira Banu has decided to fight. But
instead of approaching a court and asked that it order her husband to pay
maintenance, she has opened up a much larger front. Saira Banu has boldly
challenged the validity of her husband's action of whimsically kicking her out,
using the triple talaq formula. She has petitioned the Supreme
Court to declare triple talaq, polygamy and halala (the custom
that mandates that if a woman wants to go back to her husband following
divorce, she must first consummate her marriage with another man) illegal.
Muslim women have on a number of occasions asked the top court to grant
them maintenance in wake of an instant divorce, including Shah Banu in the late
1980s, whose case became historic, but this is for the first time a Muslim has
raised the wider issue of rights of Muslim women being trampled on in the name
of Islamic practices.
The All India Muslim Personal Board, that I often describe as Jurassic Park for
its insistence on clinging to some of the most outdated and medieval customs,
has acted predictably, urging the central government not to share its opinion,
as requested by the Supreme Court.
But the government must intervene. It should make it clear that either the
Muslim Personal Law Board fall in line with modern secular law when it comes to
the rights of women, or it should just perish. The board can't be let to carry
on with its patriarchal and whimsical ways in the name of securing the sharia or
Islamic law.
In any case, the interpretation and
implementation of the practices such as triple talaq go
against the sharia itself. The Islamic way of divorce is an
elaborate procedure, which includes a mandatory period of arbitration. The
utterance of talaq, talaq, talaq thrice at a go is plain
un-Islamic. Period. So the Muslim Personal board defends an un-Islamic practice
in the name of sharia. Their bluff must be called.
Some Sunni clerics who recognise the
practice of triple talaq point to the practice being
sanctioned during the reign of the second Caliph Omar. True that Caliph Omar
sanctioned triple talaq, but what these self-serving mullahs do
is adopt the letter of the law, and junk its spirit. Caliph Omar pronounced
triple talaq as final in a few cases where women wanted to
walk out of bad marriages desperately and their husbands were delaying the
divorce by misusing the long-drawn procedure prescribed in the law. So it was
for the sake of women that Caliph Omar gave legal sanctity to instant talaq in
the 7th century. But what the latermullahs have done is to twist it
to suit their own anti-women and patriarchal ends.
Another illustration to further explain how mullahs have
twisted and turned Islamic laws and robbed them of their just spirit is the
rape law. This is not followed in India, thankfully, as it's only the laws
related to family issues and inheritance that are allowed as Muslim Personal
Laws, but it is a good example of how a fine law is hijacked to give it a
completely anti-women meaning.
The rape law that is applied in some parts of
the world, including in parts of Pakistan in the name of sharia,
puts the onus on the woman to produce four witnesses who substantiate her rape
allegation against the accused. In the event the woman fails to do so, the man
walks free, and the woman is punished for adultery. It's a common practice. No
woman can ever produce four eyewitnesses to the rape, and no rapist will ever get
punished.
Now, where did this come from? There is a
famous episode in Islamic history involving one of the Prophet's wives, Aisha.
It is known as "The Affair Of The Necklace". As the story goes, while
returning from a trade trip, Aisha lost her precious necklace of pearls. As she
searched for it in the desert bushes, her caravan moved ahead and she was left
behind. She was escorted back to the city by a stranger who helped her in her
hour of need. But rumour mills and misogyny were as strong in the seventh
century as they are today.
People started whispering about the Prophet's
wife travelling with a stranger all alone in the desert. To shut down these
rumours and character assassination attempts, the Prophet ruled that whoever
raises an allegation on Aisha must produce four eyewitnesses to the misconduct
or face punishment.
But trust mullahs to twist a pro-women
ruling into a whip to be cracked on the women themselves. So, today, we have a
perverted version of the above-mentioned law in the name of sharia.
This example is just to illustrate how dangerous it is to just stick to the
letter and not the spirit and context of any act of the Prophet or the early
Caliphs.
The laws in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait,
Morocco, the Philippines, Sudan, Syria, the UAE and Yemen have totally
derecognised the concepts of triple talaq and halala.
Why should the All India Personal Law Board be allowed to parade these inhuman
and illegal practices in the 21st century?
A 2015 survey of about 5,000 women across
10 states by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) found that over 90%
wanted an end to polygamy and triple talaq. Of the 525 divorced
women surveyed, 78% had been given triple talaq; 76 of these women
had to consummate a second marriage so that they could go back to their former
husbands.
Saira Banu's case is a great opportunity to usher in a much-needed reform. The
government and the Supreme Court must weigh in on the side of the Muslim women.
The Muslims Personal Law Board must be shown it place. Saira Banu must not meet
the fate of Shah Banu.
http://www.ndtv.com/blog/ban-triple-talaq-declare-muslim-personal-law-board-illegal-1396658?pfrom=home-opinionsee also
