Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD) strongly opposes the unconstitutional demand of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and some other organisations for an anti-blasphemy law in India. The IMSD statement has been endorsed by nearly 400 secular Indians. A large majority of the signatories are Muslims.

We condemn the constant attempts by certain hate factories of Hindutva which are working overtime to demonise Islam and Muslims. However, IMSD fully supports the principle that in a secular state there can be no place for a law criminalising blasphemy.

Muslims demanding such a law should instead take recourse of the already existing law against hate speech in our country. Section 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code states: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of (citizens of India), (by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise) insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to (three years) or fine or with both”.

As equal citizens of India Muslims have the right to invoke Section 295(A) against every attempt to target the community with hate speech and demand strict enforcement of the existing law. But the demand for a special law to punish blasphemy must be opposed for more than one reason. Among other things, the experience of neighbouring countries shows that such a law promotes fanaticism and seeks to silence even rational critical commentaries on religion.

The Board cannot be unaware of the notorious blasphemy law in neighbouring Pakistan which is frequently misused to hound individuals from religious minorities and even fellow Muslims with sectarian and personal motives.

According to the Minorities Association of Pakistan, “between 1987 and 2021, 1,865 people have been charged under the blasphemy laws, with a significant spike in 2020, when 200 cases were registered. Punjab, the province where most Christians of Pakistan live, is leading with 76% cases and 337 people are in prison for blasphemy… Also, at least 128 people have been killed by mobs, outside any judiciary process, after being signalled as having committed blasphemy or apostasy, without any chance to have access to an investigation, and nobody has been arrested for their murder”.

Neighbouring Bangladesh started off as a secular state at its birth in 1971 but adopted Islam as a state religion in 1988. It does not have a law against blasphemy but often misuses the same secular penal code of the British period – section 295(A) – to silence all critical comments on Islam in the name of blasphemy.

Signatories:

The post Secular Muslims oppose the demand for an anti-blasphemy law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Press Release

While welcoming the submission of the All India Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB) in the Supreme Court that Islam permits Muslim women to pray inside a mosque, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD) questions the “howevers” with which its counter-affidavit is laced.

Though it is true that participation in congregational prayers at mosques is not obligatory for women, it is an undisputed fact that during the lifetime of Prophet Mohammed, women were part of mixed gender prayers in Islam’s two holiest mosques: in Mecca and Madina. The practice has since continued through most of the Arab world. Millions of Muslim men and women from across the globe pray together during the annual Haj pilgrimage,

Contrary to this, the doors of over 95% mosques in India (Pakistan and Bangladesh) remain shut for Muslim women. This is the context in which a Muslim couple has petitioned the Supreme Court for women’s right to pray in mosques and in which the AIMPLB seems to be speaking up for women but only apparently so.

To begin with, the AIMPLB contends that issues of faith should be left “to be resolved through the processes of social transformation within the religious faith itself instead of the court seeking resolution through judicial process”. IMSD strongly disagrees. It believes that as custodian-in-chief of the Constitution, the apex court is obliged to uphold women’s right to gender equality and non-discrimination guaranteed under it in all spheres of life.  

Next, the Board states: “A Muslim woman is free to enter a masjid for prayers. It is her choice to exercise her right to avail of such facilities as available”. But what if a woman enters a mosque only to be told by the mutawalli (manager) that in his mosque there is no facility available for woman? To this the AIMPLB says that mosques are managed by mutawallis (administrators) and neither it nor the court “can enter into the arena of detailed arrangements of a religious place”.

What if the mutawalli claims that in his understanding of Islam only men are meant to pray in mosques? To this the counter-affidavit states: “AIMPLB does not want to comment on any contrary religious opinion on this issue”. To women who thus will be kept away from mosques across India on one pretext the Board has this consolation to offer: A woman praying at home earns the same sawaab (religious reward) as her praying in a mosque.

In short, the AIMPLB has nothing except a mere opinion to offer to Muslim women demanding equal access to mosques. And it wants the Supreme Court to stay far away from this matter of faith.  

For further details, please contact:

Javed Anand              Feroze Mithiborwala

Convener                    Co-convener

9870402556              7678074545

The post Muslim Board has little to offer Muslim women demanding right to pray in mosques appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has submitted before the Supreme Court that women are free to enter mosques, but feels that the Supreme Court should not rule on such matters. The SC is hearing petitions related to entry of women into Sabrimala, mosques and Parsee agiyaris (for women who marry outside the community).

In a counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, the AIMPLB says, “It is submitted that, essentially the questions as raised in the petition are relating to the doctrine of Islamic religious principles. The questions are directly in relation to tenets of Islam as professed and practiced by followers of Islam in different Islamic religious denominations in India. The questions in the present petition are in relation to purely religious principles/ beliefs 2 and it shall not be appropriate for this Hon’ble Court to enter into the religious practices based upon beliefs of the religion by invoking Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 29 of Constitution of India. It is further clarified that the issues raised in this petition are not the issues pertaining to statute(s).”

It adds, “Hence, the Respondent is of its firm view that the averments/ pleadings in relation to Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution of India cannot be considered and looked into for the prayers as claimed in the present petition.”

On the subject of entry of women into mosques, something that was being compared to the Sabrimala temple entry case, the AIMPLB has set the record straight saying, “Considering the said religious texts, doctrine and religious belief of the followers of Islam, it is submitted that entry of women in the Mosque for offering prayer/Namaz, inside the Mosque, is permitted. Thus, a Muslim woman is free to enter Masjid for prayers. It is her option to exercise her right to avail such facilities as available for prayers in Masjid. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board does want to comment on any contrary religious opinion to this effect. Islam has not made it obligatory on Muslim women to join congregational prayer nor is it obligatory for woman to offer Friday Namaz in congregation though it is so on Muslim men. The Muslim woman is differently placed because as per doctrines of Islam she is entitled to the same religious reward (Sawab) for praying as per her option either in Masjid or at home.”

The entire counter-affidavit may be read here: 

The post AIMPLB objects to SC interference in religious matters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is high time to ask an inconvenient question: Who has led to this isolation? Who has been shamed most?

The post Triple Talaq Bill: Shame on the personal law board appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dr Zafar proposed points are:

1 De-reserve the constituencies of Lok Sabha and state assemblies where  the Scheduled Caste percentage is not the highest in the state. Instead, reserve those constituencies where SC percentage is the highest, as recommended by Justice Sachar Committee. Thus end the widespread violation of section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act.

2 The Alternative Admission Criteria (apportioning 60% for merit + 40% for backwardness) for undergraduate level admission into all universities and colleges of India should be accepted, approved and implemented as recommended by Justice Sachar Committee.

3 To fill the posts of CEO of state waqf boards the central government should accept, approve and implement the launching of Indian Waqf Service as recommended by the Justice Sachar Committee.

4 The earlier RBI proposal of allowing the banks to have a window for interest less banking should be accepted, approved and implemented by the central government.

5 The minority character of Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia and all other educational institutions established by the minorities should be accepted, approved and implemented by the central government.

6 Any person who is charged of terror activity and is, after several years of multi-dimensional sufferance, is exonerated by the court as innocent should be given Rs fifty lakh as compensation by the government. Later on, this money should be at least partly deducted from the salary/pension/provident fund/retirement benefits of the officer(s) who wrongly implicated him.

7 Through a simple majority vote of parliament, amend the definition of ‘Scheduled Caste’ as given in para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and make this definition religion-neutral. That is to say, delete the conditionality of religion, as recommended by Justice Ramanathan Mishra Commission.

8 Give proportionate share to Muslims in central and state council of ministers and in all nominated posts and appointments under the state & central governments.

9 Appoint Equal Opportunity Commission at the centre and in the states as recommended by Justice Sachar Committee.

Courtesy:Two Circle
 

The post Nine Point Proposal for Babri Masjid-dispute appeared first on SabrangIndia.

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had issued a letter accusing the channel of falsely accusing the Jamaat-e-Islami India chief Maulana Jalaluddin Umri of being a terrorist.

New Delhi: Arnab Goswami’s Republic TV issues a corrigendum and apology on Sunday for hurting the sentiments of Muslims with a provocative and biased report.
 
All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had issued a letter accusing the channel of falsely accusing the Jamaat-e-Islami India chief Maulana Jalaluddin Umri of being a terrorist.
 
Taking exception to the channel’s ‘mischief,’ several Muslim groups including All India Muslim Personal Law Board wrote a letter to the channel condemning its act and demanding an immediate apology.
 
 

 
Realizing the consequences of reporting fake news, Republic TV apologized and released a statement on Sunday.
 
“CORRIGENDUM & APOLOGY for taking a wrong image of Maulana Syed Jalaluddin Umri carried on Republic TV at 4:03 PM. It was an inadvertent error, the video editor concerned carried the wrong image which was wrongly broadcast once & immediately corrected,” their tweet read.

 
A primetime apology is yet to be issued by Republic TV.
 
While posting its letter, the AIMPLB wrote, “We strongly condemn @republic channel for falsely accusing Ml Jalaluddin Umri, the vice president of @AIMPLB_Official, of being a terrorist. We also condemn @CNNnews18. It has committed blasphemy against Madjids in Mecca, Madina and Quds. Both channels must apologize.”
 
The letter by the AIMPLB also condemned CNN-News18 for committing ‘blasphemy’ by linking three of the holiest sites for Muslims to Jaish chief Masood Azhar’s ‘terror factory.’
 
The channel used the images of the three holy mosques with a super titled ‘JeM terror factories,’ outraging Muslims across the world. Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Group owns CNN-News18.
 
In its broadcast on Saturday, the channel claimed to unearth the property details of Jaish chief Masood Azhar, the man behind the Pulwama terror attack. While flashing the headlines ‘JeM terror factory in Bahawalpur,’ the channel showed the photos of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, a mosque in Madina and Al-Aqsa implying that they were part of Azhar’s terror factory. These mosques are considered to be the three of the holiest sites for Muslims around the world, Janta Ka Reporter said in its report.
 
Responding with their clarification, CNN-News18 said in a tweet that the images were used by JeM in their propaganda video and they had the JeM watermark on them so the ire should be directed at JeM.

The statement by CNN-News18 defended its decision to broadcast the three most revered mosques (Makkah, Madina and Al-Aqsa) for Muslims under the ‘JeM terror factory’ headline.
 
The statement said that any criticism should be directed at the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) since the channel had sourced the images of the Holy mosques from the outfits’ propaganda video.
 
The statement said, “The footage used in our broadcast is clearly watermarked with a JeM logo and was clearly referred to as a propaganda video. The use of the video has drawn ire from certain quarters. But given the context it was used, any religious offence and outrage should be directed at the JeM.”

Many on social media felt that a clarification instead of an apology was not enough as they should have not broadcast sensitive material irresponsibly.
 

The post Republic TV’s Twitter apology for hurting Muslim sentiments is not enough appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A sizable section of Muslims have been accusing the Board for providing fuel to the Sangh Parivar on such occasions. After the court’s verdict in the matter of triple Talaq, the Board organized agitations by women in various cities and towns, culminating in a big rally at Patna under the leadership of its General Secretary. There were allegations that it was being done to show their strength to the government which has made the Muslim vote ineffective and does not listen to the voices of such outfits. Within days of the rally at Patna, one of the main organizers was made MLC by the JDU, which is running a coalition government with BJP in Bihar. This immensely damaged the credibility of the leaders attached to the Board. 

In this background, while discussing the issue of Darul Qaza, or any matter related to Muslim Personal Law, certain basic facts need to be kept in view:

(1)     Except for Waqf, other areas of the personal law have not been codified. The main purpose of the establishment of All India Muslim Personal Law Board in the eighties was codification of Muslim Personal Law. The Board has failed to do that because of the dominance of a particular school of thought which did not agree to accommodate other schools in the codification. The recent example is that of non-Quranic practice of instant triple Talaq which is not acceptable among Wahhabis, Shias etc. Now what would be the basis of adjudication or reconciliation in the absence of codified law? The court has declared it invalid but the dominant group of the Board still considers it a valid form of divorce. One of the purposes of the present move is also to make the court verdict ineffective in the Community. By this, in their wisdom, they want to save the Shariat.

(2)     Similar is the question of polygamy. On the complaint of a woman, the general attitude of the Darul Qaza is to ask the woman to “adjust”, to keep the family intact. Neither they are trained to adjudicate nor do they understand the meaning of ‘right to life and dignity’, enshrined in the Constitution. They do not appreciate the modern concept of “equality”. Resultantly, in one of the “model Nikah-Namas” circulated by one of their co-thinker outfits, the very first clause had stipulated that after Nikah, if the man desires sex, woman cannot refuse, as if a woman is a Rasogullah or Chamcham which a man can enjoy after Nikah and the woman’s desire has no value. I wrote back to them followed by discussions on the WhatsApp forum of All India Muslim Majlis e Mushawarat (AIMMM). Those supporting this provision failed to explain the basics. What kind of reconciliation can be expected from such people? Those engaged in this exercise are the same set of people who never spoke even on the violation of women’s Quranic rights in property and domestic matters.

(3)     They have also maintained a studied silence on circumcision of women allegedly performed in a sect against which women of that sect have been protesting. After all Nikah of those who indulge in the  un-Islamic practice of dowry are also performed by these Maulvis, without any hesitation or showing any disgust against such practices. They never object to the extravagance in marriages, the brunt of which is always borne by the bride. They perform Nikah, take their Nazrana money, have a good dinner and return happily. Reconciliation requires an innate sense of justice.

(4)     Like slavery, polygamy and triple Talaq are also just permissible, and not obligatory. At the time of the Prophet, the entire economic structure was based on slavery. Therefore, it was not possible to ban slavery. However, before his death the Prophet desired the Muslims for two things: continue to set the slaves free and respect the rights of women. This emphasizes the direction in which he desired Muslims to move further. With time, when slavery was banned, the practice was stopped in the Muslim world too. Can anyone now dare to keep slaves on the ground that in Islam it is permissible? Similar reforms have been made in family laws in Muslim dominated countries. In India, after losing the legal battle in the case of instant triple Talaq, the Board is insisting on polygamy. What kind of justice, in the name of reconciliation, women can expect from them?

(5)     There are other factors also. Since 1970’s, opening of madrasas has become a profit making enterprise and have mushroomed which posed the problem of employment. Some 50-60 years ago, large number of mosques did not employ any Imam. Those gathered, would request the eldest person to lead the prayer. Slowly, it became necessary to have an Imam in every mosque. The common practice of saying Azan in the ears of a new-born by any of the family member also became the domain of the Imam of the nearby mosque. Despite all this how many products of the madrasas could be employed in Masjids as imams? Therefore, they started opening new madrasas. However, there is a limit to opening new madrasas too. Now to enrol children, they travel long distances to backward states. The police and child rights groups have started objecting to this practice. There have been numerous reports in the press about police detaining them at the railway stations. The vigilantism cannot be ruled out, but taking a child of 6-7 years from Jharkhand or Bihar to Karnataka or Kerala cannot be defended. There is a common observation in the Community about the mistreatment of children in such cases. In this situation, new opening is possible in establishing Darul Qaza in every district, which may be followed by similar bodies in sub-divisions. This will also tighten their grip in the Community, which they are losing very fast due to various factors.

(6)     37 Darul Qazas are already working in the country, many of them under the administration of State Waqf Boards. They do not want them to function under Waqf boards which are statutory bodies. Despite the existence of Darul Qaza in certain places how many cases are finally settled to women’s satisfaction? If Muslims had faith in this institution, large number of Muslim women would not have approached the courts of law.

(7)     Much before the governments’ move, when cases of child marriage with aged Arabs had appeared, I had personally pleaded for making arrangements for registration of marriage in the (then) 29 Waqf Boards of the states. Except for the state where it is in existence, it was vehemently opposed. They want to keep Darul Qaza also under their control where the Muftis, whose level of knowledge is known to those who know them, can be appointed, opening new employment opportunities. Most of them do not know elementary arithmetic and are therefore unable to properly calculate annual Zakat or the share in the property under Sharia law.

All those having faith in the Constitutional provision of gender justice need to consider the above points without getting misled by the fallacy being created by the Board that Darul Qaza will be meant only for reconciliation, saving time and money which otherwise will be spent if the matter goes to court. Large number of cases decided by them is already in the courts. This has made it more cumbersome to first approach them, and then dissatisfied with their unprofessional dealing finally go to the court.

Dr Qaiser Shamim is a former secretary of the Central Waqf Council, New Delhi and former Administrator of the Punjab Waqf Board, then a common Board of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh

First Published on New Age Islam
 

The post The Politics of Darul Qaza appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) reiterated its stand in ‘Hyderabad Declaration’ passed on the third and final day of its 26th plenary here.

“Babri Masjid is an essential part of faith in Islam and Muslims can never abdicate the Masjid nor they can exchange land for Masjid or gift the Masjid land. Babri Masjid is a Masjid and it shall remain a Masjid till eternity,” said a statement released by the board.

This assumed significance as an executive member of the board, Maulana Salman Hussaini Nadvi had mooted a formula after meeting Hindu leader Sri Sri Ravishankar on Friday that the land on which Babri Masjid stood till December 6, 1992, be given for building Ram temple. He suggested that an alternate land be allocated for construction of a mosque and an Islamic university.

Facing flak from board members for his controversial formula against the board’s stand, Nadvi did not attend the plenary on the second day Saturday and announced his “disassociation” from the board. The board on Sunday accepted his “disassociation” and announced that he is no longer a member.

“By demolishing Babri Masjid, it never loses its identity as a masjid. And according to Shariah, it always remains a Masjid,” said the statement read out by the board’s executive member Kalam Faruqui at a news conference.

“Without any doubt, we make it clear that the struggle for the reconstruction of Babri Masjid continues and the appeal in Supreme Court is being fought rigorously with all the resources available at the disposal of the Board. The country’s topmost lawyers are appearing on behalf of the Muslims and we believe that the Almighty Allah will make us successful in the Supreme Court,” it added.

Courtesy: Two Circles
 

The post Muslims will not give up Babri Masjid, says AIMPLB appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Union government’s plan to bring in a new law to end triple talaq is nothing but interference in Shariah law, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has stated in a press release. The statement adds that the proposed law is in violation of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed to minorities under the Indian constitution.

Issued by the secretary and spokesman of the Board, Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, the statement said, “Talaq is a religious issue. Once divorced a woman becomes haraam (prohibited) for her husband. Making triple talaq (instant divorce) illegal will mean that the divorced couple will be forced to stay in the relationship. This will put them in a situation which according to Islam is a grave sin, amounting to illicit sex”.

Muslim and other secular women’s organizations contest the Board’s claim that divorce is a religious issue. They are all in favour of a law declaring the practice of instant triple talaq as illegal. However, many suspect the BJP-led NDA government’s motive behind the ‘hasty’ move and are in principle opposed to criminalization of any aspect of family law.  

The Board’s statement said triple talaq is a highly undesirable practice, a misuse of the provision in Shariah law on divorce. However, misuse of a law cannot be a pretext for doing away with the law itself. Citing the provision for declaration of an Emergency under certain circumstances, the statement said the provision was misused in 1975. Despite this, even the opposition which was fiercely opposed to the imposition of Emergency did not scrap the Constitutional after coming to power.

The Board itself is opposed to the misuse of the triple talaq provision and is running a countrywide campaign against the practice, the statement added.  
“In principle we fully support the enactment of a law that makes triple talaq or instant divorce illegal. However, we strongly suspect the intention and the haste with which the government wants to bring in the new legislation,” said Hasina Khan of the Bebaak Collective, an umbrella body of several women’s groups.

The Collective challenges the government’s claim that its decision to move a Bill now is based on feedback that triple talaq is continuing across the country even after being set aside by the Supreme Court in August. “What monitoring have they done? Which Muslim women’s groups have they consulted? In which state? No space has been given for consultation with Muslim women’s organizations,” Khan told Sabrang India.

In view of the above, the Bebaak Collective is deeply suspicious of the government’s proposed move, doubly so in view of the talk of criminalizing the triple talaq practice. “We are in principle opposed to criminalizing any aspect of family law for any community. Marital relations are after all a civil matter.”

The Bebaak Collective is equally opposed to the stand of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board that talaq is a religious issue. “The Board is nothing but an empty balloon without credibility. They are using the legitimate fear the community has of the BJP/RSS to raise the religion bogey”, said Khan.

While the CPM-affiliated All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) too is generally suspicious of the BJP-led central government’s intent, it has decided to wait for the government’s draft before responding.

“Let the government come out with its draft. Let’s see what it has and we will respond accordingly,” AIDWA general secretary, Mariam Dhawale told Sabrang India.
As for the Board’s views on triple talaq, Dhawale said her organization has consistently opposed the practice and has actively helped individual Muslim women victim’s fight for justice. “In fact, the Board’s position is self-contradictory. It legitimizes triple talaq even while it considers it to be a repugnant practice”, said Dhawale.

The Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) has reportedly been meeting Parliamentarians from different parties to canvass support for a law aimed at comprehensive codification of Muslim Personal Law just as personal laws of other communities is codified. Meanwhile, it reportedly supports the enactment of a law making triple talaq illegal as a step in the right direction.  
 

The post Women’s groups support law declaring triple talaq illegal, but suspect BJP’s motive, contest Personal Law Board’s view appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The national conference of the AIMPLB in Bhopal was an occasion to do some soul searching for this so called custodian of Islamic Sharia in India. It could have provided them the opportunity to call for some kind of introspection about the state of Muslim personal law in India and why it lags behind other communities in terms of being gender just. There could have been deliberations on why recently Muslims in India have come to have a bad name and why their religion is being termed as backward. Alas, all this was not on the radar of the AIMPLB. Rather what we got was the same old story of how the state was trying to interfere with the sacred nature of Muslim personal law and how it was threatening the constitutional freedoms guaranteed to the Muslim community.

There are two fundamental problems with the argument of the AIMPLB. Firstly, the sharia is not sacred in the sense that it is not the word of Allah. The sharia (literally meaning the path) has evolved over the centuries and there have been many interpretations to a particular religious problem. The very existence of four law schools within Islamic world is proof that different interpretations of scriptures were held valid not only in different points of time but also in different places at the same time.

This elasticity within Islamic law was the reason why it could evolve with the changing times and incorporate various contemporary social and political changes. After all, the law of marriage has been reformed in many countries, including some of the orthodox Muslim ones. No one has criticised them of tampering with the scared nature of Islamic sharia. Rather, people have welcomed the move and argued that it shows that Islam, like any other religion, can change with the times. The problem with the AIMPLB is that it thinks that Islam as a religion cannot and should not change.

Not just the Quran, but even the juridical pronouncements of some Mullah is considered sacred by them. This is clearly erroneous and a product of a faulty reasoning which equates sacredness with the community. Actually, truth and rights are not the concern of AIMPLB; rather it is the community which in turn is very narrowly defined as consisting of scholars having a similar opinion. Clearly then, nothing positive can come out of such a body as was witnessed during the recent Bhopal conference.

The second problem in the argument of the AIMPLB is related to the first. After claiming that Islam in unchanging, they project the same argument on the constitution arguing that it is the constitutions which has granted them religious freedom. Partly this is true. But what the AIMPLB forgets is that the constitution also is continuously interpreted and it cannot be read to justify practices which are clearly at variance with the cherished goals of the constitution. Clearly the Supreme Court did find that the practice of triple talaq was inherently discriminatory towards Muslim women and therefore it was struck down. The way forward for the AIMPLB should have been to debate which other laws can be read as discriminatory towards women and initiate reforms within the community. Rather the concern for the AIMPLB is just the opposite: it wants to study the SC judgment to see whether it contradicts the sharia in any way!

Despite the SC verdict, the AIMPLB still clings to its view that though triple talaq is sinful but yet it is valid in the eyes of Islamic law. None other than Mahmood Madani endorsed such a view soon after the verdict. Thus it is clear that the AIMPLB does not take even the Supreme Court and its decision seriously and opens itself to the charge that actually it does not believe in India’s constitutional democracy. Had there been a different political climate, the AIMPLB would surely have filed for a review petition. They have themselves argued that since the judge has changed, filing a review petition might throw up other practices like polygamy, nikah halala, etc. into the limelight and they fear that there might be another adverse ruling for them.

Thus it is entirely clear that in their hearts they have not accepted the judgment of the Supreme Court and that they still think that there is nothing wrong with the Muslim personal law. In short they have not derived any lessons from their defeat. The problem is that one does not require the AIMPLB to open the agenda of reforms on issues like polygamy and nikah halala. Anyone can approach the courts for this purpose. Muslim women organizations are already planning to do so. The Board will again try to meddle into this only to be soundly defeated by constitutional logic. Wont it be better that the Board itself gives a clarion call for reforming and outlawing these practices. But given the history of the Board, this is too much to expect from them.  

In the calculation of AIMPLB, the call of reforming Muslim personal law is largely driven by urban educated Muslim women. The large majority of Indian men and women are with the Board and this assessment may be right. Since they do not want to upset the existing balance of power between men and women, the AIMPLB will never take a stance on upsetting that balance. Even a reasonable demand like the abolition of triple talaq was met with stiff resistance from the Board. The AIMPLB therefore does not exist for the cause of Islam, rather they exist solely to maintain the balance of patriarchy which obtains in the Muslim society. Until they sense that this balance is changing, they are not going to change their stance.

However, things have changed a little now. There are organizations now working on the ground who are ready to approach courts for this purpose. This is something new as in the past these organizations were not there and many so called progressive left organizations refused to take the line of reforms through judicial intervention. Today Muslim women have come out of the shadows of the organized left and are challenging the system themselves. Thus even if the AIMPLB has popular support, it amounts to nothing as the courts hopefully do not work on the logic of popular support. 

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

Republished with permission from NewAgeIslam.
 

The post Muslims are changing but the Muslim Personal Law Board remains frozen in time appeared first on SabrangIndia.