Unmasking the Myths Around Triple Talaq As Advocated by AIMPLB, Owaisi and Media

Spread the word

Dear Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMPLB and Media,

Allow me the privilege of unmasking you over the Triple Talaq issue, which you people are insincerely trying to cash upon for your mischievous gains.

By Satish Acharya via Facebook

1) MASK ONE: AIMPLB purports that it is the sole authority on Muslim Personal Law, and that courts have no jurisdiction over it, since it is inextricably interwoven with the religion of Islam. They cry foul over “Triple Talaq” that abolishing it is an attempt by RSS to introduce Uniform Civil Code in India.

UNMASK: Dear ‘Topi wale Maulanas’ of AIMPLB: Just because Rajiv Gandhi overturned the Supreme Court ruling (which granted alimony to Shah Bano) for his political opportunism to please you people and promulgated the Muslim Women Act (1986) at your behest, it doesn’t mean that you people can claim yourselves to be the sole authority on Muslim Personal Law.

In fact in the Shah Bano’s case, it was the Supreme Court that correctly interpreted the Quranic injunctions with respect to talaq, and gave its ruling in favour of #ShahBano. But given the misogynist nature of your organization you people falsified those very injunctions in order to bolster your patriarchal castle.

You cried ‘Islam in danger’ at that time, when in fact it was Supreme Court that upheld the Quranic injunctions while giving its ruling. So the actual danger to Islam is from unscrupulous and decrepit organizations like yours. Stop projecting yourselves as protector of faith. You don’t have an iota of knowledge about Quranic injunctions on Talaq.

2) MASK TWO: Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi has said that the AIMPLB must hire best lawyers to put up a strong case before the Supreme Court. “Islam in Danger” call again 😮

UNMASK: काई कू ड्रामा करते मियां? You’ve studied Law from London. As a knower of Law, you must be well acquainted with the legal precedents over the issue, whereby Triple Talaq has been put down by the courts a number of times.

So, the Shayara Bano case is not the first case on Triple Talaq that you are raising the “Islam in danger” brouhaha over it. और आप तो इस्लाम के जानकारा हो मियां, हर समय अफगानी टोपी और शेरवानी पहन के रहते हो l एक बारा में तलाक़ देना तलाक-उल-बिदत (याने गैर इस्लामिक) हैइच की नई?

Also Read: Reasons Why India’s Muslim Women Want a Complete Ban on Sharia Courts

3) MASK THREE: The media, every time a case of triple talaq comes to the fore, tries to project it as a case of Islamic law vs. the secular law, the archaic vs. the modern, the oppressive vs. the civilised.

UNMASK: Dear Media wallahs, will you please enlighten us about which religion was the first that allowed divorce and which was later adopted by other faiths 13 centuries later? It was not before 1857 that divorce became legal in UK. Divorce was incorporated into Hinduism only after 1956 through Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. So which one is archaic and which one is modern?

Is it not a fact that the legal provisions with respect to divorce (as well as property rights) of today draw heavily from Quranic injunctions? Questions? Sure. Welcome.

By portraying the #ShayaraBano case as the “FIRST Muslim woman to challenge a personal law practice, citing her fundamental rights”, you’ve mischievously omitted the legal precedents over triple talaq.

Also Read: Why Do Muslims Get Angry? मुसलमान को गुस्सा क्यों आता है?

Triple Talaq has been put down by the courts a number of times (By Supreme Court in Shamim Ara v State of UP (2002), by Bombay High Court in Dagdu Pathan v Rahimbi Pathan case (2002), by Bombay High Court again in Najmunbee v Sk Sikander Sk Rahman (2004), by Bombay High Court again in Dilshad Begaum Ahmadkhan Pathan v Ahmadkhan Hanifkhan Pathan (2007), by Delhi High Court in Riaz Fatima v Mohd Sharif (2007) etc.

If you media wallahs missed all these case, how did you miss the recent ruling of Bombay High Court in Shakil Ahmad Sheikh v Vahida Shakil Sheikh (2016) case whereby the court reaffirmed that triple talaq is invalid, unless it is duly proved and was given by following the conditions precedent, namely, arbitration/reconciliation and valid reasons.

And mind it, all the above court rulings were given following the Quranic injunctions with respect to talaq.

So why are you projecting triple talaq as a case of medieval obscurantism followed by the Muslim community, whereas the reality is that the validity of triple talaq does not exist.- either in quran or in legal precedents.

But well, it is the myth around triple talaq, which runs the shops of demagogue politicians like Owaisi, of unscrupulous media houses which sell populism, and of non representative and decrepit organizations like AIMPLB.

The article was first published by Farhan Rahman on his facebook timeline.

Have an opinion? Interested in getting it published? Simply mail us at editor@nationalviews.com and we shall publish the same with credits.

About Farhan Rahman 21 Articles
MA (Sociology), Farhan Rahman has an interesting perspective on everything in general.