The current dispensation led by the BJP, before the upcoming parliamentary elections, has proposed to go ahead with legislating and implementing the UCC. The 22^nd Law Commission of India (LCI) has been constituted, and it has solicited proposals from the citizens, to be emailed to the Member Secretary of the LCI. Certain political-ideological forces have always been insisting upon the UCC.

Many segments of Muslims have been reacting to it in a manner as if the UCC is simply and exclusively an attack on their personal laws. As a result, responding to the 22^nd LCI, many Muslim leaders and theologians looked upon it as referendum or plebiscite on the UCC. These theologians and leaders appealed to the community to reject the UCC.

Thus, both sides (the political proponents of the UCC, as well as the opponents belonging to various ideological persuasions) have pushed ahead the politics of communal polarisation.

The Muslim side is claiming that they have submitted several lakhs of emails to the LCI rejecting UCC. Announcements from masjids in the Friday prayers were made to facilitate this, besides using social media. Though, many of such speeches from Masjids also said that in the absence of any draft proposal from the government there is really no need to panic. Also, noteworthy fact is, in 2018, against the reform in the Instant Triple Talaq (ITT), they (ie the Muslim Personal Law Board-MLPB and allied organisations) did gather around 2 crores of signatures against the proposed reform. This time it confined only to several lakhs (the figures are unverified). This may indicate a declining support for the theologians among the Muslim populace.

Collective hypocrisy of both sides of the communal divide is apparent.

It is a relatively lesser known fact (despite Reba Som’s research, MAS, 1994) that in the 1950s, the UCC was brought to the fore by the Hindu Right across political parties, just to forestall the Nehruvian reforms in Hindu Personal Law. They didn’t have the conviction to support a UCC.

Just like the Muslim regressive forces, who oppose UCC not because they hate homogeneity and love heterogeneity within the religious communities, rather, they oppose UCC just to forestall any reform in Muslim Personal Law.  These brand of Muslims think only Muslim rulers can interfere into Islam. Non-Muslim rulers cannot.

Nehru had excluded Muslims while legislating reforms in Hindu Laws using an argument that the reforms among the religious minorities would come from within themselves. That moment is yet to come, even after over seven decades. This is what has come to become one of the foremost components of allegations of Muslim appeasement by the Indian state.

In 1973, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) was established. The immediate reason was to oppose the law of child adoption amended in 1972. This amended law didn’t directly affect Muslims. Yet, they went ahead with a fierce street-level opposition. This was to demonstrate Muslim strength through identity politics and to warn the government of the day.

Let it be made clear that there is a sharp distinction between adoption and custody. In Indian secular law (Guardians and Wards Act 1890), the custody of the baby disputed between the biological and foster parents is determined keeping in mind the welfare of the baby and also the wish of the baby.

This is quite consistent with what Prophet Muhammad had done in the case of his adopted son, Zayd. The custody of Zayd continued with the Prophet as per the wishes of Zayd, despite his biological father, Harisa having come to claim him back. So far as adoption is concerned, the Quran instructs believers not to conceal the biological parentage of the adopted baby. This is often popularised as summary prohibition against adoption.

The AIMPLB refuses to issue any clarification. As a result, even the higher judiciary almost invariably adjudicates against Muslim foster parents, invoking this misinterpretation. There is no law to punish the biological parents, as to, if they, as afterthought, invoke Islamic prohibition against adoption, why did they give away their baby in adoption, to begin with?

Thus, in the case of Hindus, any signed document is accepted by the judiciary as proof of adoption, whereas, in the case of Muslims and Christians, adoption is invalidated despite such documents. Needless to say, upsetting the custody of the babies in this manner leads to psychological and overall ruination of the child’s life and career.

Fortunately, since January 2016, the Juvenile Justice Act has come into force which is of some assistance to Muslims as well. All adoptions prior to 2016 continue to be treated by the higher judiciary as per the misinterpreted Muslim law.  Recently, the Supreme Court of Pakistan even went on to validate the concealing of biological paternity. Is the Indian judiciary then, more shariat-abiding than the Islamic countries, not just Pakistan?

Likewise, on the question of Un-Quranic Instant Triple Talaq (ITT; divorce), the AIMPLB refuses to institute or initiate necessary reforms. Most of the Islamic countries have reformed this practice. Even during the infamous the Shah Bano issue, in early 1986, the AIMPLB leader Ali Miyan Nadvi (1914-1999) misleadingly persuaded the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to ignore the reforms carried out in the Islamic countries. This is admitted by Nadvi in his memoir (1988).

This fact is known to very few people that Mohammad Ahmad Khan (a rich and influential advocate of Indore), had married a cousin of his wife Shah Bano (1916-1992). After that he threw Shah Bano out of their residence when she was 62 years old. Shah Bano went to the lower court in April 1978 for maintenance. The lower court issued an interim order for maintenance. Just to avoid paying maintenance, on November 6, 1978, inside the trial court, Mr Khan pronounced ITT. Subsequently, the issue reached High Court and eventually to the Supreme Court. It was the maintenance awarded by the Supreme Court, in 1985, which was upturned by the Parliament in 1986. In its exchange, the AIMPLB delegation to the PM had agreed to go ahead with unlocking the Ayodhya Masjid.

Now coming to the law related to inheritance of parent’s assets.

In the 1930s, when the Shariat law was being codified, a daughter of the landed, powerful family of Sikandar Hayat Khan Tiwana, the Premier of the undivided Punjab asked for her right in landed properties as per the Sharia law. Tiwana, in order to find ways of denying this demand to the woman, approached Jinnah to shelve the Shariat codification. Jinnah came out with outrageously manipulative and dishonest arguments: Firstly, the local customs are laws, hence, the custom of not letting daughters inherit the landed property would continue, despite the Shariat law; Secondly, agriculture and land are provincial subjects whereas the Shariat Act would be a subject of central legislature.

In 1937, M A Jinnah piloted the Shariat Act, seeing in this an opportunity to forge an all India Muslim political constituency to pursue his separatist politics. We are yet to know, if Maulana Azad, Maulana Husain Madani of the Muttahidah Qaumiyat fame, and even Maulana Maududi really said anything on the Shariat Act 1937.

In 1962, Jinnah’s Pakistan introduced some reforms in the family laws, such as: ITT was prohibited; justifiable and proportionate to the economic status of the husband, amount of alimony had to be paid to the divorced woman; polygamy was restricted to the extent of almost prohibition. Without a written consent of the existing wife, another wife cannot be brought into marriage; minimum marriageable age was also raised, etc. Yet, in 1986, in India, the Ulema and other leaders went on to ruin the likes of Shah Bano. They still continue to do so quite shamelessly.

The latest criminalisation of the ITT by the current dispensation, in 2019, is acting as very good deterrence against ITT. But, the issue of maintenance to the separated woman, and adequate or proportionate alimony to the divorced women still remain unresolved.

The Union government should therefore make it explicit and categorical that the Cr PC Section 125 shall remain enforceable for the divorced Muslim women while seeking maintenance and alimony. Let it be known that, in early 1986, while negotiating with the Prime Minister, the delegation led by Ali Miyan Nadvi had promised that they will make some institutional arrangement to extend financial help to the divorced women having been denied maintenance ad alimony. This promise is recorded very clearly in the Urdu memoir (1988), Karwan-e-Zindagi, vol. three, chapter four. This promise has been chosen to be forgotten by the Ulema, intelligentsia and the community. Already, Muslim men have found a way around the restriction on ITT —torture wife to give khula.

In 2018, the spokesperson of the AIMPLB issued a statement that they will issue a model nikahnama inserting a column for pledge from the bridegroom not to go for ITT (Times of India, Lucknow, February 3, 2018). Within a week’s time, in the 26^th Plenary Session of the AIMPLB (in Hyderabad, 9-11 February, 2018), the AIMPLB conveniently chose to shelve the idea. Both the governments and intelligentsia need to expose the abovementioned duplicities of the segments of Muslim leadership.

It is distressing that even the modern institutions funded by the secular state of India, such as the AMU, Jamia Millia Islamia (New Delhi), MANU University (Hyderabad), and their departments of studies such gender and women studies, Islamic studies, theology, law, social sciences, etc., have not been able to pursue a reformist agenda. Quite a lot of them have either maintained a dishonest silence or have endorsed the regressive positions. Both ways, they are on the regressive side. This is extremely disgusting, to say the least.

There has to be a compulsory registration of marriages, divorces, besides the registration of birth and death.

While the grandfather is alive, if someone loses his/her father, then s/he forfeits his/her right to inherit the grandfather’s assets. This law also needs to be done away with by the Indian legislature.

Muslim parents who have only daughters — if don’t transfer their assets while they are alive—stand to pass down only a portion of the father’s assets to the daughter/s. Even a will registered in a court of law to the contrary will not enable this inheritance, as per existing Indian Muslim personal law. Owing to this discriminatory law, some Muslims have begun to re-register their marriages under the Special Marriages Act.

Also, some Muslim daughters have begun to challenge this discrimination in the Supreme Court.

Muslim parents having no kids, cannot even register a will in the court of law bequeathing all their assets. As per the Muslim law, they can bequeath only a third of their own assets to anyone.

The Supreme Court, despite Hindu Law having contrarian provisions, has given verdicts ensuring equal rights to inherit parental assets by daughters and sons. This right to gender justice must be made to prevail in the case of Muslims as well.

By way of conclusion, historically speaking, without the state’s backing, hardly has any reform taken place or allowed to prevail. During colonial period as well, reforms on abolition of Sati (1829), Widow Remarriage (1856), law against child marriage, etc., happened only with state-backing.

People need to tell the current dispensation that it needs to go beyond electoral gimmicks, and implement the abovementioned seven aspects of family law reforms (including gender-just laws). Meanwhile, a draft UCC should be prepared for wider debate. (Sadly, at the moment, they too, are shelving family law reforms, in the name of opposing the UCC). The personal law reforms cannot wait. The UCC can and should await proper and participative deliberations. This is something even the Liberal-Left should also try to understand. That is the way ahead and the only way to avoid competitive communal polarization.

Related:

IMSD supports a religion-neutral, gender-just UCC

The call for Uniform Civil Code is politically motivated: Flavia Agnes

The Implementation of a Uniform Civil Code

Uniform Civil Code Or Codified Personal Law?

In Case of a Uniform Civil Code, How Should Muslims Respond?

The post On UCC, personal law reform & the politics of competitive communalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What is at stake is not just Muslim Personal Law but all laws governing marriage and divorce, including Hindu Law.

The importance of Shayara’s case for women of all communities

While there has been a state of near hysteria over the issue of triple talaq in the media, no one is clear on the real importance of the case. While the media is flooded with stories of husbands giving unilateral talaq to their wives on the phone and by SMS, no one talks about the fact that women of all religious communities face domestic violence and that women are abandoned without notice. The fact is that inequality in what has come to be known as personal laws exists across all religious communities. Not a single law of any community or tribe is immune from the charge that it violates fundamental rights of women to equality. Agricultural land in many states notoriously is often not held by the daughters of the community.

We have only recently seen an agitation in Nagaland for the inclusion of women in municipal councils that failed. The demand was resisted on the ground that legislation could not interfere with tribal customs.

The Supreme Court in Madhu Kishwar & Ors v. State Of Bihar & Ors (1996 SCC 5 125) when confronted with the issue of whether tribal customs could be challenged on the ground that they violated fundamental rights dodged the issue by stating that: “For in whatever measure be the concern of the court, it compulsively needs to apply, somewhere and at sometime, brakes to its self-motion, described in judicial parlance as self-restraint…under the circumstances it is not desirable to declare the customs of tribal
inhabitants as offending Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution…”

Similarly in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (AIR 1999 SC 1149), the Supreme Court was asked to strike down Section 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The court refused to do so and preferred instead to “read down” a blatantly discriminatory law that said that the father is the natural guardian of the children and it is after the death of the father that a mother becomes the natural guardian. The Supreme Court interpreted the provision to mean that in the absence of the father or when the father was not in charge of the affairs of the minor either due to an agreement between the two parents or if the father for any reason was not able to take care of the child, the mother would be the natural guardian even during the lifetime of the father. Personal laws have become an island within the Indian Constitution immune from any challenge on the ground that they violate the right to equality of women.

In the triple talaq case the Supreme Court is confronted with this question yet again and it remains to be seen if they will decide the question or dodge it by saying that Islam itself does not recognize triple talaq and hence, there is no need to decide the larger issue of whether personal laws are amenable to constitutional checks and challenges. What is at stake is not just Muslim Personal Law but all laws governing marriage and divorce, including Hindu Law. Will the ruling party that is moving towards a Hindutva State, allow such a challenge is the question. For now the Union of India has committed itself to the challenge but may remain content with the striking down on the ground that it is un-Islamic as some groups have argued. There is a lot riding on this case, not just talaq. The issues are fundamental to constitutional gender justice for all women.
 
Impact of Triple Talaq
The undisputable impact of triple talaq is that it alters the civil status of a married woman in a unilateral manner, as it is the husband who pronounces a woman financially unstable if she is solely dependent on her husband’s income and is primarily responsible for the household chores. Such a woman may be driven to claim maintenance if the mehr (amount of monetary security usually determined at the time of marriage which is given to a Muslim woman at the time of divorce) she receives is nominal which most often it is. She may have to engage in legal battles for the custody of her children. It is ironic that the supporters of triple talaq claim that triple talaq cannot be a subject for adjudication before courts of law and shall continue to remain extra-judicial, but fail to notice that the consequences following triple talaq are adjudicated before courts of law.
 
Stand of the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind
Legitimate claims, of violation of fundamental rights to equality, life and dignity of Shayara Bano and of several other women like Inayat and Tamana who have been thrown out of their matrimonial homes, left financially unstable, and cut off from seeing their children by means of triple talaq who are being represented through a collective voice of Bebaak Collective, are receiving backlash from conservative groups such as the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind for taking the matter to court who are of the opinion that – “Part III of the Constitution does not touch upon the personal laws of the parties and therefore their constitutional validity cannot be questioned.”
 
Stand of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board represented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Raju Ramchandran and several others reacted on similar lines taking the stand that– “(Muslim) personal laws cannot be challenged by the reason of fundamental rights” cautioning the Supreme Court not to interfere in the personal affairs of the Muslim community. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board in its written submissions to court states that: “it is clear that though pronouncement of talaq thrice at one go is undesirable but in view of the aforesaid verse of the Holy Quran, it is clear that three pronouncements, howsoever they may be made result in valid dissolution of marriage.”
 
Law Commission of India on a UCC & UP State Elections
Apart from responses and counter responses of parties to the court case, during the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court of India, we also saw orchestrated debates on electronic media “liberate Muslim women” and no less than the Law Commission of India issued a questionnaire asking for Yes/No answers to the question “Are you aware that Article 44 of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India? Do you agree that the existing personal laws and customary practices need codification and would benefit the people?” In a well written letter some of us from the women’s movement asked the Law Commission of India to give us a draft of the so called code before we could answer the question, elementary to say the least.
Then came several election promises made by the BJP in Uttar Pradesh that they would end the practice of triple talaq and after the results we were told that Muslim women voted for the BJP as they wanted an end to triple talaq. It remains a mystery how the secret ballot cast by women became part of political propaganda.

Is the insistence on saptapadi (seven steps around the holy fire) among Hindus for a valid marriage being abolished by a Uniform Civil Code? Does polygamy exist only among Muslims or is there de facto polygamy among Hindus as well? Will marriage among all communities be secularized and be truly considered as “a civil union” and “a partnership of equals, and no longer one in which the wife must be the subservient” as suggested by the Verma Committee or are we focused only on the abolition of triple talaq among Muslims? If the latter is the case, the political agenda behind the government championing the cause of Muslim women falls under doubt.

This is not to suggest that formal inequality can continue to exist under the Indian Constitution but rather that all forms of inequality formal or de facto in all communities must be abolished. The fact is that Hindu Law contains the remnants of Manu’s Laws (an ancient sacred legal text followed by Hindus) and that too must change.
 
Bebaak Collective’s stand in distinction to the Union’s stand
Bebaak Collective issued a statement putting the issue squarely in a secular context against the stand of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board responding as follows:
“First, whether the practice of unilateral triple talaq is validated by religion or not is not our contention, rather it is gender discriminatory and epitomises patriarchal values and therefore must be abolished should be emphasized. Second, the belief that women lack decision making qualities dilutes the citizenship rights of Muslim women in India who have been exercising their electoral rights for more than sixty years now…It is no surprise that All India Muslim Personal Board has not progressed over the decades and reiterates the same position which reverberates the patriarchal conservative ideas of the community. However, we envision a gender just law for the community where women’s question of social security and rights promised by the Indian Constitution will be practised.”

Organizations like Bebaak Collective distinguish themselves from the ruling party in that they articulate the voice of secular Muslim women. They demand not just an end to triple talaq but also social welfare schemes for destitute women. We all know of the notorious problems with Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the difficulty of recovering any money form a disappearing husband even when an order is passed for maintenance. Bebaak Collective demands better living conditions, the right to secular education and other benefits from the State for all women. Relief form triple talaq alone will not solve the problem, they want to negotiate for a more equal space for all women within the marriage, they demand and end to domestic violence.

Hasina Khan, founder of Bebaak Collective is of the view that:
“None of the personal laws are gender just. Even Muslim personal law is discriminatory and does not provide equal status to women. Muslim women are doubly oppressed; they witness violence of different forms. State must provide social security to Muslim women who are survivors of any form of violence and discriminations. The State must protect their right to livelihood and also provide community centers, compensations, stipend, library centers, legal aid or counseling sessions to help them with sustenance of their life. The State must provide job opportunities and all kinds of support including working women’s hostel, shelter homes and specialized skills which have market demand to the young women across all communities who can carry forward their life with dignity and independence…We have felt the need to focus on four key issues a) Right to Citizenship and equality, b) Social security, c) Emerging Right wing forces and d) Implementation of Sachar Committee Report… It is seen that a woman has lesser social security irrespective of her community or religious status, we must demand for all of them having emphasis on Muslim women….”

They argue that all personal laws are capable of being challenged on the ground that they violate fundamental rights regardless of whether they are based on religion or custom, are codified or un-codified.

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution states that “all laws in force” in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void and the State shall not make any “law” which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. Article 13 (3) defines the expression “law” to “include(s) any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law” and the expression “laws in force” to “include(s) laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.”

Bebaak Collective and CSS argue that all personal laws are “laws in force” and must meet the challenge of Article 13. The system of personal laws originated in British India prior to the enactment of the Indian Constitution. Right from Warren Hastings Plan of 1772, Maulvis and Pandits (religious priests) were assisting and advising the courts on disputes governed by Muslim and Hindu Laws. While today priests no longer advise the courts, the system of governing people of different religions by different laws continues till today.

The basic defining feature of any law is that it is binding on citizens and is recognized by the State as law and enforceable by the State. Personal laws are binding on citizens and even today are recognized and enforced by the State. The State has explicitly recognized personal laws in form of legislations for example, Muslim personal laws have been provided recognition through the Muslim Personal Laws (Shariat) Application Act 1937 and Hindu personal laws through various legislations such as Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956.

There is therefore no basis for the demand that the Supreme Court exercise judicial restraint in Shayara Bano’s petition.

The Bombay High Court vide a two-judge bench in the case of State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (AIR 1952 Bom 84) way back in 1952 while upholding the constitutional validity of Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946 made an observation that the expression “personal law” has not been used in Article 13 and therefore the framers wanted to leave them outside the purview of Part III Fundamental Rights of the Constitution. Later, the Supreme Court in Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir (1981 3 SCC 689) while dealing with a case of succession rights of a mahant (ascetic) said: “Part III of the Constitution does not touch upon the personal laws of the parties”. This erroneous decision of 1952 is what the All India Muslim Personal Law Board relies on. Several learned authors have pointed out that no reasons have been provided for this observation made by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. Moreover, in a subsequent judgment of C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami (1996 8 SCC 525) the Supreme Court has held: “Personal laws are derived not from the Constitution but from the religious scriptures. The laws thus derived must be consistent with the Constitution lest they become void under Art. 13 if they violate fundamental rights”.
 
Stand of Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA)
BMMA has taken the view that after the Delhi High Court case of Masroor Ahmed v. State (2008 103 DRJ 137), talaq-e-bidat/instantaneous triple talaq “has lost its instantaneous nature, as also its irrevocable nature. Thus, even when instantaneous talaq is pronounced it will not immediately effect divorce…courts in India have by a purely interpretative exercise held that talaq-e-bidat or instantaneous talaq is illegal and ineffective. If the same declaration is given by this Hon’ble Court by a process of interpretation of personal law, then the question of going into the constitutionality of personal law does not arise. In the matters pending before this Hon’ble Court in none of the cases the facts comprise of anything other than women being aggrieved by instantaneous talaq and therefore those issues are also academic.”
They argue for a minimalistic approach and request that the constitutional issue of whether personal laws are amenable to challenge and checks in courts not be decided.
 
Stand of the Union
The Union in its affidavit to the court seems to be supporting Shayara Bano’s petition when it states that “It is extremely significant to note that a large number of Muslim countries or countries with an overwhelmingly large Muslim population where Islam is the State religion, have undertaken reforms in this area and have regulated divorce law and polygamy”. But women’s groups are skeptical of a hidden Uniform Civil Code agenda that may be forming the basis of such support. In February before the U.P State elections, the Law Minister made a statement that “The government may take a major step to ban triple talaq.” No such step has been taken, instead the ball has been thrown into the Supreme Court and the Suprme Court itsef has chosen to give this case a priority hearing on the ground that “the rights of many persons will be affected”.
 
The real significance of the case: Are personal laws, regardless of which community, immune from constitutional challenge ?
The broader constitutional issue of importance is whether unlike any other laws that are amenable to constitutional challenge for being violative of rights to equality and dignity, are personal laws – be it of Hindus, Muslims, Parsis or Christians – immune from constitutional checks and can they continue to be practiced despite being discriminatory, patriarchal and against fundamental rights of women or any other person for that sake?
 
What Stand will the Supreme Court of India take ?
Shayara Bano’s petition has now been listed to be heard by a constitutional bench of five judges during the Supreme Court vacations in May. The reason being that the Chief Justice believes that “the matter is of substantial importance” and deserves undivided attention of the court. Only time will tell if the Supreme Court chooses to overrule the Narsu Appa Mali and Krishna Singh cases or chooses to exercise judicial restraint declaring instead that triple talaq in the form in which it is practiced is un Islamic leaving undecided whether personal laws can be challenged. If they do decide that personal laws can be challenged, it will have far reaching consequences for all women regardless of the religion they belong to and advance the goal of gender justice for all.
 
Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum
 

The post Personal Laws of All Faiths Violate Principles of Gender Equality, Why then the Sole Focus Only on Triple Talaq? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

About: Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) is an international solidarity network that provides information, support and a collective space for women whose lives are shaped, conditioned or governed by laws and customs said to derive from Islam.

For more than two decades WLUML has linked individual women and organisations. It now extends to more than 70 countries ranging from South Africa to Uzbekistan, Senegal to Indonesia and Brazil to France. It links:

• women living in countries or states where Islam is the state religion, secular states with Muslim majorities as well as those from Muslim communities governed by minority religious laws;
• women in secular states where political groups are demanding religious laws;
• women in migrant Muslim communities in Europe, the Americas, and around the world;
• non-Muslim women who may have Muslim laws applied to them directly or through their children;
• women born into Muslim communities/families who are automatically categorized as Muslim but may not define themselves as such, either because they are not believers or because they choose not to identify themselves in religious terms, preferring to prioritise other aspects of their identity such as political ideology, profession, sexual orientation or others.

Our name challenges the myth of one, homogenous ‘Muslim world’. This deliberately created myth fails to reflect that: a) laws said to be Muslim vary from one context to another and, b) the laws that determine our lives are from diverse sources: religious, customary, colonial and secular. We are governed simultaneously by many different laws: laws recognised by the state (codified and un-codified) and informal laws such as customary practices which vary according to the cultural, social and political context.

Aims and focus: The network aims to strengthen women’s individual and collective struggles for equality and their rights, especially in Muslim contexts. It achieves this by:

• Breaking the isolation in which women wage their struggles by creating and reinforcing linkages between women within Muslim countries and communities, and with global feminist and progressive groups;
•  Sharing information and analysis that helps demystify the diverse sources of control over women’s lives, and the strategies and experiences of challenging all means of control.

WLUML’s current focus is on the critical issues identified as our priorities for collective analysis and action:

• Peace-Building and Resisting the Impact of Militarisation
• Preserving Multiple Identities and Exposing Fundamentalisms
• Widening Debate about Women’s Bodily Autonomy
• Promoting and Protecting Women’s Equality Under Laws

As a theme, violence against women cuts across all of WLUML’s projects and activities.

Contact: wluml@wluml.org

Website: www.wluml.org/
 
 
 
 

The post Women Living Under Muslim Laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.