Delivering judgment in Muhammad Shareef C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., decided on October 30, 2025, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan declared that while Islamic personal law may permit a man to marry more than once, the law of the land and the Constitution must prevail when such a marriage is to be formally registered.

“A Muslim first wife cannot be a silent spectator to the registration of the second marriage of her husband, even though the Muslim Personal Law allow a second marriage to a man in certain situations. The 1st petitioner can marry again if his Personal Law permits him to do so. However, if the first petitioner wishes to register his second marriage with the second petitioner, the law of the land will prevail, and in such a situation, an opportunity of hearing for the first wife is necessary. In such situations, religion is secondary and constitutional rights are supreme. In other words, this is essentially the fundamental principle of natural justice. This Court cannot ignore the feelings, if any, of the first wife when her husband registers his second marriage in accordance with the law of the land. I am sure that 99.99% of Muslim women will be against their husband’s second marriage when their relationship with him is in existence. They may not disclose the same to society. However, their feelings cannot be ignored by a court, at least when their husbands attempt to register the second marriage in accordance with the Rules 2008.” the Court held. (Para 10)

Background of the case

The first petitioner, Muhammad Shareef, a 44-year-old man from Kannur, was already in a subsisting marriage with two children when he claimed to have solemnised a second marriage in 2017 with Abida T.C., the second petitioner, as per Muslim custom. The couple, who have two children together, approached the Registrar to register their marriage under the 2008 Rules, asserting that it was essential to secure property and inheritance rights for the second wife and their children.

When the Registrar declined to register the marriage, the petitioners approached the High Court contending that Muslim personal law allows up to four wives and that, therefore, the registration authority had no right to refuse.

The legal questions before the court

Justice Kunhikrishnan framed two fundamental questions:

1. Whether notice to the first wife is necessary for registering a Muslim man’s second marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008; and
2. What remedy exists if the first wife objects to such registration on grounds of invalidity.

“Polygamy is an exception, not the rule” — The Qur’anic context

The judgment is remarkable not only for its constitutional vision but also for its interpretive depth in reading Islamic law through the lens of justice and equality. Referring to Jubairiya v. Saidalavi N. [2025 (6) KHC 224], Justice Kunhikrishnan extracted passages from the Qur’an to dispel the misconception that a Muslim man may marry multiple times at will.

Citing the verses, the Court underscored that justice, fairness, and transparency lie at the heart of Muslim marriage law — principles that align with constitutional values. Providing the same, the Court highlighted the facts of the case and held “

“In this case, admittedly, the 1st petitioner married another woman and in that relationship, he has two children. When the relationship with that woman was in existence, the first petitioner submitted to this Court that he fell in love with the second petitioner and married her. I don’t think that the Holy Qur’an or the Muslim Law permits an extramarital relationship with another lady when his first wife is alive and his first marriage with her is in existence, and that also, without the knowledge of his first wife. The principles derived from the Holy Qur’an and Hadith collectively enjoin principles of justice, fairness, and transparency in all marital dealings. However, the petitioner is relying on Muslim Personal Law to justify his marriage to the second petitioner.” (Para 6)

The Law of the Land: Rule 11 of the 2008 Rules

The Court examined Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, which obligates the Local Registrar to verify the details furnished in the memorandum of marriage, including previous marital status (Columns 3(f) and (g) of Form I). Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that this requirement gives the registrar clear knowledge of whether a spouse is already married — and therefore, whether due notice must be given to the first wife before proceeding with registration.

While citing Hussain v. State of Kerala [2025 (4) KHC 314], the Court clarified that the Registrar has no power to adjudicate on the validity of the marriage, but cannot ignore procedural fairness:

“…the Registrar is not vested with the power to decide the validity of the marriage. The question is, when a muslim man marries again, when his first wife is alive and the marital relationship with her is in existence, the second marriage can be registered as per the Rules 2008 behind the back of the first wife. The Holy Qur’an is silent about the consent of the first wife for the second marriage to a muslim man when the earlier marriage is in existence. However, it does not prohibit the option of obtaining consent from the first wife, or at least informing her before he marries again. Equality in gender is a constitutional right of every citizen. Men are not superior to women. Gender equality is not a women’s issue, but it is a human issue. As I mentioned earlier, the principles derived from the Holy Qur’an and Hadith collectively enjoin principles of justice, fairness, and transparency in all marital dealings. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, if a Muslim man wants to register his second marriage in accordance with the Rules 2008, when his first marriage is in existence and the first wife is alive, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the first wife for the registration.” (Para 10)

Justice Kunhikrishnan: “A Muslim first wife cannot be a silent spectator”

In one of the most stirring portions of the judgment, Justice Kunhikrishnan emphasized that registration of a second marriage behind the back of the first wife would violate principles of natural justice and human dignity:

“A Muslim first wife cannot be a silent spectator to the registration of the second marriage of her husband, even though the Muslim Personal Law allow a second marriage to a man in certain situations.” (Para 10)

The Court observed that even though personal law permits polygamy, it is conditioned upon fairness and capacity — both moral and financial — to treat each wife equally. Ignoring the first wife’s perspective would amount to legalising injustice.

Gender equality as a constitutional mandate

Justice Kunhikrishnan firmly anchored his reasoning in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, holding that the procedural fairness demanded by the 2008 Rules flows directly from the constitutional right to equality:

“Equality in gender is a constitutional right of every citizen. Men are not superior to women. Gender equality is not a women’s issue, but it is a human issue.” (Para 10)

The judgment went beyond mere procedural compliance and addressed the emotional dimension of injustice suffered by first wives:

“I am sure that 99.99% of Muslim women will be against their husband’s second marriage when their relationship with him is in existence. They may not disclose the same to society. However, their feelings cannot be ignored by a court, at least when their husbands attempt to register the second marriage in accordance with the Rules 2008. Article 14 of the Constitution says that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” (Para 10)

This humane acknowledgment of emotional agency — rare in judicial discourse — underlines the Court’s empathetic understanding of women’s lived realities within personal law frameworks.

What Happens if the First Wife Objects?

The Court provided clear procedural guidance for registrars and litigants. If the first wife objects to the registration of a second marriage, the Registrar must not proceed with registration and must refer the matter to a competent civil court:

“If the first wife objects to the registration of the second marriage of her husband, alleging that the second marriage is invalid, the registrar shall not register the second marriage, and the parties should be referred to the competent court to establish the validity of the second marriage as per their religious customary law. As I mentioned earlier, there is nothing in the holy Qur’an which mandates a man to get permission from his first wife for his second marriage. However, Customary Law is not applicable when the question of registering a second marriage arises. I am not saying that the second marriage cannot be registered, but an opportunity of hearing should be given to the first wife by the statutory authorities, while a second marriage of a Muslim man is to be registered.” (Para 10)

Balancing Faith and Law: The Constitutional Synthesis

Perhaps the most profound aspect of Justice Kunhikrishnan’s judgment is the synthesis it achieves between faith and fundamental rights. While reaffirming that Islam does not mandate consent from the first wife for a second marriage, the Court held that when registration under a secular statute is sought, constitutional guarantees must take precedence:

“Customary Law is not applicable when the question of registering a second marriage arises. I am not saying that the second marriage cannot be registered, but an opportunity of hearing should be given to the first wife by the statutory authorities, while a second marriage of a Muslim man is to be registered. Muslim Personal Law states that a man can have more than one wife, provided that he has the capacity to maintain more than one wife and can give justice to his first wife. If the husband is neglecting the first wife or not maintaining the first wife, or inflicting cruelty on the first wife and thereafter contracting a second marriage, making use of his Personal Law, an opportunity of hearing to the first wife will be beneficial to her at least when the second marriage is registered in accordance with the Rules 2008. marriage registration officer can hear the first wife, and if she objects to her husband’s second marriage, stating that it is invalid, the parties can be referred to a competent civil court to establish the validity of the second marriage.” (Para 10)

Outcome and broader implications

The writ petition was dismissed as the first wife had not been made a party. Nonetheless, the Court issued a transformative directive:

“Let the Muslim women also get an opportunity of hearing when their husbands remarry, at least at the stage of registering the second marriage.” (Para 10)

The ruling thus extends procedural protection to Muslim women within a statutory framework that transcends personal law — ensuring that no woman is blindsided by a state-sanctioned act of erasure.

Why this judgment matters

1. Reasserts constitutional supremacy: Personal law cannot override statutory procedure or fundamental rights when interfacing with state authorities.
2. Advances gender justice: By recognizing the first wife’s right to be heard, the Court has extended procedural dignity to Muslim women.
3. Bridges faith and constitution: It integrates Islamic principles of justice and fairness with the Constitution’s egalitarian ethos.
4. Sets a model for inclusive procedure: The decision creates a precedent for harmonizing personal law practices with secular regulatory frameworks.

Conclusion

Justice Kunhikrishnan’s ruling is a landmark in both family law and constitutional jurisprudence. It acknowledges the validity of personal law while firmly situating all state-recognised acts within the boundaries of constitutional morality, equality, and natural justice.

In essence, the judgment transforms a narrow question of registration into a broader affirmation of women’s rights and human dignity. It is a model of judicial craftsmanship that blends empathy with principle — reaffirming that in India’s constitutional democracy, faith may guide conduct, but fairness must govern the law.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

Shah Bano Begum (1916-1992): A Socio-Political Historical Timeline

Misogyny & Faith: Extreme narratives curtailing the autonomy of women

Shubha case: Reformative Justice meets Gendered Realities

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules Trans woman is a ‘woman’

A Question of Rights: Supreme Court backs teacher in maternity leave dispute

The post Kerala High Court: First wife must be heard before registering Muslim man’s second marriage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported by Hindustan Times, speaking at a women’s empowerment event in Lakhipur, Cachar district, on October 25, the Chief Minister said, “The parents of the male accused in love-jihad cases will also be liable for arrest under the new law. We want to save our women from traps where they become victims of love-jihad and polygamy. We are bringing stringent laws.”

Under the proposed legislation, if a minor girl is lured into an interfaith marriage, both the man and his parents could face multi-year imprisonment. This provision — introducing familial culpability — is unprecedented in any existing anti-conversion law enacted by other states.

According to Times of India, addressing another gathering in Silchar on October 24, Sarma also announced a ban on polygamy, warning that those who “marry more than one woman” would face up to seven years’ imprisonment. “Many men cause immense harm to women by marrying multiple times,” Sarma said, adding that the move sought to “protect the dignity of women and ensure uniformity of law.”

Earlier, on October 22, speaking to reporters in Nagaon, the Chief Minister described the upcoming Assembly session as “historic”, confirming that the government will table several “important and transformative bills” — including those on “love jihad”, polygamy, preservation of Satras (Vaishnavite monasteries), and land rights for tea tribes, as reported by Indian Express. He said that the detailed provisions would be disclosed after Cabinet approval.

Cultural preservation and legislative agenda

Alongside the anti-conversion and polygamy bills, the government will also introduce the Assam Satra Preservation and Development Board Bill, 2025, which was approved by the Cabinet on October 16. The bill aims to protect Vaishnavite monasteries (Satras) — the spiritual and cultural institutions established by the 15th-century saint Srimanta Sankardeva — from alleged encroachment and ensure state-supported preservation, as per LawBeat.

Sarma’s proposed package comes ahead of the 2026 state elections and is seen as part of his government’s broader agenda to “institutionalise” an Assam-centric, almost “majoritarian” cultural and moral order. The Chief Minister has previously said that banning polygamy and “deceitful religious conversions” is part of Assam’s move towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)-like framework, echoing the recommendations of the Justice (Retd.) Rumi Kumari Phukan Committee, which examined the legal viability of such a measure.

In recent speeches, Sarma has also linked population control to welfare eligibility, stating, “Some people say that Allah gives them children, so they cannot stop giving birth. I say, give birth as many as you wish, but do not expect government help to raise them or to send them to government schools,” as per Hindustan Times.

The Chief Minister also reacted sharply to comments by activist Medha Patkar, who had criticised the state’s eviction drives and questioned the investigation into singer Zubeen Garg’s death, saying: “Outsiders do not understand the suffering of the indigenous people of Assam. One community is trying to grab our land and take away our sisters through tricks like love-jihad. If Medha Patkar comes here to protest against evictions, we will take strict action.”
(Hindustan Times)

The ‘Love Jihad’ narrative and legal concerns

The term “love jihad” first appeared in 2009 in publications of the Sanatan Prabhat and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, before being amplified by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). It gained political traction after 2014, when several BJP-ruled states — including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Haryana — enacted laws criminalizing religious conversions through marriage or deception.

However, Assam’s proposal represents a radical expansion of this framework. By extending culpability to the accused’s parents, it effectively criminalizes familial relationships and transforms allegations of interfaith marriage into matters of collective criminal liability.

Citizens for Justice and Peace, who is also a lead petitioner in challenging the said state anti-conversion laws in the Supreme Court, have warned that such laws are susceptible to misuse, enabling police overreach, community vigilantism, and communal profiling. As The Wire reported, there is no official data to substantiate claims of organized “love jihad” conspiracies, and in several states, arrests under such laws have disproportionately targeted Muslim men in consensual relationships.

The November 25 Assembly session, which Sarma has called “historic,” will be the last major sitting before the 2026 elections. Observers view it as a defining moment that could reshape Assam’s social and legal order — intertwining morality, religion, and state power under the banner of “protecting women” and “preserving indigenous identity.”

If passed, Assam’s “love jihad” and polygamy bills could become among the most far-reaching personal law interventions in independent India, setting a precedent for family liability in interfaith and marital cases, and testing the boundaries between individual freedom, faith, and the expanding reach of the state.

Related:

Gujarat High Court Widened Anti-Conversion Law: ‘Victims’ can be prosecuted as offenders

Supreme Court seeks states’ replies on pleas for stay of anti-conversion laws, to decide on interim stay after six weeks

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post Assam Government to table ‘Love Jihad’ and polygamy bills, CM Sarma says parents of male accused will also face arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This bill has been formulated after months of consultations with various individuals and organisations.

Talking to reporters recently, Sarma said, “The bill to ban polygamy will be placed on the floor of the Assam assembly which will commence from February 4.”

The chief minister had earlier said that some points would be incorporated in the bill with the objective to stop ‘love jihad’ in the state. This is clearly an indirect way to target free choice among couples across faiths snd castes choosing to co-habit.

Officials said that the state government had received as many as 149 suggestions in response to a public notice seeking feedback on the proposed law to ban the practice of marrying multiple times.

Out of these, 146 suggestions were in favour of the bill, indicating strong public support, they said. Three organisations have expressed their opposition to the bill.

The state government had issued a notice on August 21 inviting public opinion on banning polygamy.

The notice requested people to submit their views by August 30 through email or by post.

Besides, an expert committee was also formed by the state government to examine the legislative competence of the state legislature to enact such a law in Assam.

The committee submitted its report to Sarma after consultations with a number of people and organisations, affirming that the state legislature is competent to enact such a law.

Related:

Family of Purola minor denies religious motive, says it never was a ‘love jihad case’, Uttarakhand

RW mobilises masses; people get on streets to demand “love jihad” law

The post Targeting free choice in marriage, ‘Love Jihad’ clause likely in bill to ban polygamy: Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the Indian Express, polygamy was widely practised by communities in India. But it has been on a gradual decline according to existing data. However, somehow prejudices and right-wing campaigns give way for polygamy to be the forte of Muslims in India. However, the recent findings from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) shed light on the prevalence of polygamy in different communities across India. The data clearly busts all myths about polygamy in India.

Short Dive into History: What does the law say?
Different communities in India are subject to different laws on polygamy.
After gaining independence, provincial legislatures like Bombay and Madras introduced laws against bigamy, including the Special Marriage Act of 1954, which mandated monogamy. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 made it illegal to have multiple spouses, extending to Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936 banned bigamy among Parsis. However, under the Shariat Act of 1937, which governs marriage in Islam, Muslim men are allowed to have up to four wives. 

According to the 2019-20 NFHS data, polygamy exists among several religious groups, albeit with varying rates. The analysis, conducted by the International Institute of Population Studies in Mumbai, highlights the overall decline of polygynous marriages and the influence of socio-economic factors on this practice.

Among Hindus, the data reveals that 1.3% engage in polygamy, while the rate stands at 1.9% for Muslims and 1.6% for other religious communities.

Notably, the study emphasises that polygamy is more prevalent among economically disadvantaged, less educated, rural, and older women, suggesting that socio-economic conditions contribute to the occurrence of the practice alongside religion and region.

Noted feminist lawyer and writer, Flavia Agnes has written, in a column for the Indian Express, of how the Law Commission’s Report on Uniform Civil Code notes that although polygamy is permitted within Islam, ‘it is a rare practice Indian Muslims, on the other hand it is frequently misused by person of other religions who convert as Muslims to solely solemnise another marriage.

Over the period from 2005-06 to 2019-20, polygynous marriages decreased from 1.9% to 1.4%. The north-eastern states of Meghalaya and Tripura exhibit higher rates of 6.1% and 2%, respectively. Polygamy is more prominent in states like Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, and Odisha compared to their northern counterparts.

Scheduled Tribes demonstrate the highest prevalence of polygamy, although the trend is declining. In 2005-06, STs reported a rate of 3.1%, which reduced to 1.5% in 2019-20.

Examining religious groups, the study indicates that the “others” category exhibits the highest rate of polygamy at 2.5%, followed by Christians (2.1%), Muslims (1.9%), and Hindus (1.3%). This can be attributed to the prevalence of polygamy in north-eastern states, where Christianity has a significant presence.

The general trend indicates that economic conditions and education levels are key factors influencing the prevalence of polygamy.

In summary, the NFHS data presents a nuanced picture of polygamy in India, showcasing its presence in diverse religious communities while highlighting a declining overall trend. Socioeconomic factors, regional variations, and religious affiliation all contribute to the prevalence of polygynous marriages.

Related:

No! Hindus have not been ‘reduced’ to a minority in 200 districts!

CJP sends complains to TimesNow Navbharat against their problematic debate segment, participants indulged in communal diatribe

Hate through music, lyrics and visuals: Hindutva pop

Everyday Harmony: Banners asserting fraternity & sisterhood plaster Navi Mumbai streets

To Lord Ram, a letter of remorse and resolve

The post Muslims and the Myths Surrounding Polygamy in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

BMMA Demonstration in Mumbai. Photo credit: DNA

Instant triple talaq, which is a Muslim man’s right to divorce his wife unilaterally in one sitting is now history. The highest court of the country has ruled it as unconstitutional and as violative of the right to equality. Understandably, there is a sense of jubilation among all those Muslim men and women who campaigned against the practice of instant triple Talaq.

Organizations like Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) and scores of other Muslim women must be congratulated for having a sustained campaign on the issue for such a long time and having faced numerous difficulties not just from different governments but also from the leaders of the Muslim community. From being called as agents of the Hindutva brigade to being dubbed as not Muslim enough, these women have bravely fought prejudices and acerbic taunts from members of their own community and stood steadfast in their belief that it is high time the Muslim personal law be reformed.

It is interesting to note that voices to reform the Muslim law on divorce has a much older genealogy than what is normally conceded. Way back in 1920s, the All India Muslim Ladies Conference, in one of its annual conferences had raised the issue of instant triple talaq. Their argument then was similar to the argument that Muslim women’s organizations are making today.

What has been declared illegal is just instant triple talaq, not the system of unilateral divorce as practiced by Muslims.

The All India Muslim Ladies Conference was the first women’s organization to campaign against oral triple talaq and laid down rules according to what they believed was the correct Quranic practice of divorce. They drew up a model nikahnama (marital contract) which laid down the rules of divorce. Men had to give a valid reason for divorcing their wives. There would be provisions for maintenance made in case the divorce became effective. Moreover, they argued that the nikahnama gave limitless power to women to dictate terms and conditions to the prospective groom. And only when the groom accepts in writing that he would be fulfilling those demands that the nikah would take place.

One clause in the nikahnama was that in case the husband takes another wife without the permission of the wife, then the earlier marriage will automatically get dissolved. Thus there were conditions to make polygamy difficult and exceptional within Muslim households.

The appeal of the Muslims Ladies Conference was extremely limited as it remained confined to the feudal and elite circles of the ‘enlightened’ Muslim gentry of Bhopal and Hyderabad. It never became a mass phenomenon. Partition gave a death blow to this initiative as most of the campaigners became Pakistanis in an instant and there was hardly any leadership left for Indian Muslim women.

It must be said to the credit of BMMA that for the first time it made the issue of reforming personal laws into a Muslim mass phenomenon.

Organizations like the BMMA draw upon such an older tradition of Muslim reform. But it must be said to the credit of BMMA that for the first time it made the issue of reforming personal laws into a Muslim mass phenomenon. Thus when the Supreme Court declared that instant triple talaq was invalid, it was responding to the demands raised by millions of Muslim women in India.

For the first time perhaps, we have a genuine mass movement among Muslim women which is desirous of change and making demands by virtue of being citizens of this country. The question is whether they will stop at instant triple talaq or will it just be one of the many campaigns that women’s group will take up. Already organizations like the BMMA are arguing that they next step is a campaign for comprehensive gender just law for Muslims in this country. They are perhaps right in calling this as a victory but a very small one at that.

They are right. It took seventy years for this country to outlaw a system of divorce which was manifestly anti-women and drove them to destitution. And what has been declared illegal is just instant triple talaq, not the system of unilateral divorce as practiced by Muslims. In divorce proceedings, Muslim men continue to have the right of unilateral divorce and there is a need to make it more gender just.

Similarly, there should be a campaign to make polygamy illegal as it is an abhorrence in today’s times. Will the BMMA and other such organizations be willing to take up the challenge? Only time will tell. But going by their commitment and enthusiasm it is reasonable to suggest that they will not stop at this victory.

It is rather unfortunate that despite the Supreme Court ruling there are sections within the Muslims who think it is a conspiracy to defame their religion and they confuse Muslim personal law with divine law. The statement of the Jamiat Ulema e Hind suggesting that they would not follow Supreme Court verdict only goes to show how much faith they have in the Indian judiciary.

For them, as for a majority of religious fundamentalists, the matter is very simple: if the courts rule in their favour then they would hail the verdict, but if the law goes against then, the judiciary becomes a pawn in the hands of ‘vested interests’. People like Mahmood Madani bring shame to the Muslim community and people like him are responsible for making the community a sitting target for the Hindu Right wing forces who quickly announce to the world that Muslims do not believe in the Indian nation, far less the judiciary.

Unfortunately people like Madani have disproportionate clout within the Muslim community. Reports coming in after the verdict suggest that the petitioners and those campaigning against instant triple talaq are facing social boycott from within their families and the larger community. This tells us about the pitiable state of the community which it seems wants to be in a perpetual state of backwardness and are alright to be members of a community which is accused of being warped on issues of gender justice.

It is astonishing to see the silence of the left and liberals on the issue of social reform amongst Muslims.

The fight must go on. Till the time organizations like All India Muslim Personal Law Board become redundant within the Muslim society. This fight has to be taken forward by all right thinking Muslim men and women. But it is also important to underline that Muslim women’s organizations like the BMMA must be at the forefront of such a struggle. It is heartening to note that a number of progressive Muslim men have supported the BMMA, but their efforts should be limited to supporting these movements and not becoming the leaders of the movement.

Last but not the least, it is astonishing to see the silence of the left and liberals on the issue of social reform amongst Muslims. At least they should have come out in open support of organizations like the BMMA. Their muted response goes a long way to suggest that their ideas about Islam and Muslims are completely hazy and warped. Silently, Muslim women have marched together to claim their just space as Indian citizens. Triple talaq is just one stop in their long march to demolish the many citadels of male privilege legitimated through a misogynistic reading of Islam.

Republished with permission from New Age Islam.
 

The post “People Like Mahmood Madani Bring Shame to the Muslim Community” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tunisian women gather to celebrate Women’s Day on Aug. 13 in Tunis. On the same day, the country’s president announced the review of a law requiring that a man receive twice the share of an inheritance as a woman.
Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

The contrast between the ulema in India and in Tunisia could not be greater. While in India they are finding it difficult to digest even the declaration of instant triple talaq as invalid, their counterpart in Tunisia are miles ahead on the road to reform.

On August 22, the Supreme Court by a 3:2 majority decision “set aside” the practice of instant triple talaq among Indian Muslims on the ground that it was “un-Quranic”/“un-Constitutional”.  In response, Maulana Mehmood Madni, general secretary of the Jamiatul ulema-e-Hind, has invited contempt of court and has virtually incited Muslims to continue with the now prohibited practice.

No matter what the Supreme Court might rule, instant triple talaq remains valid in Islam, Madni has argued. In Tunisia, on the other hand, talaq (divorce) has been prohibited except through the courts since the passage of the Code of Personal Status, 1956. The same Code also banned polygamy unconditionally.

Now, barely a week before the SC verdict in India, on the occasion of Tunisia’s National Women’s Day (August 13), the country’s 90-year-old President, Beji Caid Essebsi has announced the creation of a committee to look into proposals including women marrying non-Muslim men, as well as equal inheritance rights for women.

The declaration is astounding for more than one reason. Given that the 2014 Constitution of Tunisia declares Islam as the religion of the country imagine its head of state proposing a reform that a vast majority of Muslims across the globe would consider to be contrary to the explicit injunctions of the Quran. From the perspective of the Indian ulema this is nothing short of heresy.

Even more astonishing is the fact that Tunisia’s Islamic scholars at Diwan al-Ifta have backed the move. According to them, Essebsi’s proposals “support the status of women and guarantee and implement the principle of equality between men and women in the rights and duties called for by Islam, as well as the international conventions ratified by the Tunisian state”.

Prima facie, the Quranic verses are unambiguous on both the issue of equal inheritance rights and the right of Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men.
On inheritance:

“Allah charges you in regard with your children: a son’s share is equal to the share of two daughters; if the [children] are [only] daughters and two or more, their share is two thirds of the legacy, and if there is only one daughter, her share is half [of the legacy]; and each of the parents inherit one-sixth of the legacy if the deceased had children, and if the deceased had no children and the parents are the only heirs, the mother inherits one-third; if the deceased had brothers, the mother inherits one-sixth; [all this is] after executing the will and settling the debts of the deceased… This is Allah’s injunction; surely Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.” (4:11).

As an Islamic portal sums it up, sons inherit twice that of daughters, brothers twice that of sisters, and husbands inherit twice that of wives, except regarding the father and mother of the deceased: if they are living at the time of their child’s death, each equally receives one sixth of the deceased’s legacy.

On Muslims marrying non-Muslims:

A Quranic verse clearly prohibits both Muslim men and women from marrying infidels or polytheists: “Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe… Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe… (2:221)

Another Quranic verse makes it lawful for Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women: “(Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time (5:5).

But there is no corresponding Quranic verse which says anything about Muslim women marrying Jewish or Christian men. This is interpreted by the orthodoxy to mean that Muslim women are only permitted to marry Muslim men.

Not surprisingly, Egypt’s Al Azhar University – among the oldest and most renowned centres of Islamic learning – has reacted sharply to the proposal mooted by the Tunisian President.

A statement issued by Al Azhar stated that the Quranic texts discussing inheritance leave no room for alternative interpretations. “These teachings leave no space for uninformed analyses or theories that contradict Islamic edicts. It provokes Muslims that hold onto their religion with a firm hand and shakes the stable foundation of the Muslim community.”

Abbas Shouman, the deputy head of Al-Azhar, expressed his institution’s discontent, saying that Essebsi’s decision does away with religion rather than renewing it. He denounced the clerics supporting Tunisia’s line of thought as “unscholarly,” accusing them of being ignorant of the blatancy of certain Islamic rulings “that do not allow for independent reasoning and do not change with time or space.”

For Shouman, Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men defies the purpose of marriage in Islam.

Tunisia’s ruling Nidaa Tounis was quick to rebuff Al Azhar. “Essebi’s proposals are of interest to the Tunisian community only, and no one has the right to engage in this debate,” Burhan Besis, an official from the ruling party said.

More interesting in an interview to the Egyptian Al-Watan newspaper a Tunisian mufti endorsed the Tunisian president’s remarks and defended them on the basis that “God’s ruling on earthly matters” could and should be reinterpreted to stay relevant.

Islamic feminist Omaima Abou Bakr notes that discussing equality in inheritance or marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslim men “is not against Islam, but rather against the classic interpretations of Islam.” In support of her contention, she points out that  “there have been contemporary readings of Islam that discuss these issues and offer new progressive readings and solutions outside the scope of scholars and clerics.”

She cites the recent writings of Tariq Ramadan, a professor of contemporary Islamic studies in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford’s St Antony’s College and Khaled Aboul Fadl, the chair of the Islamic Studies Program at the University of California. The progressive readings and solutions, however, are anathema to the orthodoxy at Al Azhar and to the ulema in India.

Meanwhile, Tunisia’s Islamists are finding themselves in a Catch-22 situation. The country’s Is­lamist Ennahda party has traditionally drawn its support from the country’s rural areas and working-class urban belts around the main cities. In recent years, especially after the ‘Arab Spring’, the party has been trying hard to expand their reach in urban areas and elite constituencies.

The drive to win new adherents has forced the Ennahda to take increasingly “modern” positions on gender issues, among other things. That is why it has had to come around to voicing support the over six-decade-old ban on polygamy. More recently it has endorsed a new law to check violence against women.

But now the Women’s Day proposal of the President has put the party in a real bind. By supporting the “modernists” the Ennahda stands to lose its traditional base. Opposing it will mean a major setback vis-à-vis the new constituency it has been working hard to cultivate.

The 2014 Tunisian Constitution has a novel provision that while Islam would be the religion of the country, Tunisia would remain a civil state. In the issue of reform of family laws in Muslim-majority countries, the Code of Personal Status is seen as “a beacon and a source of hope for other women’s movements and governments”.
 

The post Tunisian Ulema March ‘Ahead’ of the Qu’ran: Endorse Muslim Women’s Right to Equal Inheritance, Marrying non-Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a turnaround within months of the UP state elections (that saw it swept to power in Uttar Pradesh), the saffron party led by Yogi Adityanath in Uttar Pradesh has swept gender concerns for Muslim divorced and deserted women, under the carpet.

Indian Express reports that seminars on triple talaq will not be a part of the BJP’s programmes to mark its ideologue Deendayal Upadhyaya’s birth centenary. Instead, it will move to apprise Muslims of central government schemes for minorities. The BJP had asked its alpsankhyak morcha (minority wing) to organise the triple talaq seminars for two weeks starting from September 1. These were scheduled to preferably be organised in madrasas, where experts on women’s rights would address Muslim women on their legal rights and counsel them on empowerment. However, plans changed during BJP national chief Amit Shah’s visit to Lucknow last week.

UP state president of the BJP’s minority wing Haider Abbas ‘Chaand’, said, “The party will hold seminars at district level to make Muslims and other minority communities aware of schemes being run by the Narendra Modi government in the Centre for welfare and empowerment of minorities.”
In April 2017, prime minister, Narendra Modi, speaking on the final day of the BJP national executive meet at Bhubaneswar, Prime Minister Narendra raised the issue of triple talaq. Modi said if an unfair practice is being followed anywhere, it needs to be addressed. Triple talaq causing difficulties for Muslim women, he is reported to have said.

Now the the seminars would be organised from August 25 to September 20 in all districts and regional meetings for its preparations will begin from August 6, he added.

Irony of ironies, the party is trying to claim credit for the entire legal effort, led by individual Muslim women to get the practice of triple talaq declared unconstitutional.

Asked why his party decided to drop the planned seminars on triple talaq, Haider Abbas is reported to have said, “This was because there is no need to organise seminars on triple talaq now. It is expected that the Supreme Court judgment in the triple talaq case will favour the victims. BJP has fought the battle for the rights of Muslim women.”

In its manifesto for the UP Assembly polls, the BJP had promised to take up the triple talaq matter. After the win, BJP leaders had claimed Muslim women had backed them as the party was opposed to the practice. Now, Haider clarified that the UP election was held on the agenda of development and hence the party will speak on such issues only. “We have to change the anti-BJP perception that opposition parties have created among Muslims,” he said.

Asked what steps the Yogi Adityanath government took to meet its poll promise on triple talaq, Haider replied he was not aware about it.

After coming to power, BJP government planned to start collecting opinion of women on the issue. On April 11, the chief minister, in a meeting with women welfare department, had directed them to draw up a mechanism and asked the minister concerned and other women ministers of the government to meet women organisations and collect opinion of the Muslim women. However, citing absence of legal sanctity for it and lack of time, the exercise was discontinued.

The state government later announced to forward around 200 complaints from aggrieved women, who had allegedly been harassed by their husbands following triple talaq practice, to the Supreme Court, where the case was being heard.

An official in UP Women Welfare department said, “As the state government is not a party in the case, we had held meetings with Muslim women groups, received representations against triple talaq and submitted them to Government of India which is a party in the case.”

It is clear that now that election season is over, the BJP leadership feels more comfortable dealing.
 

The post BJP’s Crocodile Tears for Muslim Women Turn Out to Be Just That, All Seminars on Triple Talaq Dropped appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Representation Image

Officials of the state government gave details on this policy decision to the media. Details like date of marriage, venue of the marriage and city need to be filled in the registration form manually and Rs 10 needs to be deposited through online banking as registration fees, the principal secretary Renuka Kumar said.

With this decision, Muslims opting for multiple marriages will have to get them registered separately in Uttar Pradesh and the government guidelines do not in any way interfere with practices of any religion, said a top official of the Women’s Welfare Department in Uttar Pradesh on July 3.

According to a PTI report, Renuka Kumar, the principal secretary to Women Welfare Department said that the UP Marriage Registration Guidelines, 2017 were approved by the Cabinet on August 1 and the Stamp and Registration Department will implement it once it gets a notification.
This decision goes counter to the Modi government’s much hyped concern for Muslim women.

Kumar was keen to point out that the guidelines “do not interfere” in practices of “any religion”. He said, “The UP government does not intend to interfere in the practices of any religion. If any male Muslim is going to register his marriage, then he will have the option of registering a maximum of four marriages. For this, he has to fill different registration forms.”

Qualifying the move, howe4ver, she added that Muslims opting to marry more than once will have to get each marriage registered separately. “But, if any Muslim male has married more than once, then he has to register each of his marriage. Males from the Muslim community will get the facility of registering four marriages, but Hindus and people practicing other religions will be allowed to register only one marriage,” Kumar said. Registering a marriage henceforth will not need the services of a lawyer, she added.

“A person can register his/her marriage from home simply at the click of a mouse by visiting the website of Stamp and Registration department. The husband and wife after visiting the webpage of the Stamp and Registration department will provide their Aadhaar number. Then an OTP (One-Time Password) will be sent to the registered mobile number. As soon as the OTP is entered on the webpage, all the details (including photographs of the husband and wife) from the Aadhaar card will be auto-filled. There will be no need to provide a copy of the wedding invitation card or marriage photograph,” she said.

Details like date of marriage, venue of the marriage and city need to be filled in the registration form manually and Rs 10 needs to be deposited through online banking as registration fees. If the marriage is registered within a year of marriage, then Rs 10 will be levied as registration charges, the principal secretary added. After this, the marriage will be considered as registered, and a reference number will be given. The marriage certificate can be obtained on one’s personal email id or can be downloaded from any cyber cafe, she said, adding only the reference number has to be remembered.

Further explaining the UP Marriage Registration Guidelines, Ms Kumar also spoke on the benefits of registering a marriage. “This will come handy during application of visas while going to foreign countries. Many government schemes also seek the matrimonial status of both men and women. In government application forms and other documents, where the marital status is asked, the person has to only provide the reference number, from where rest of the information can be retrieved by the government,” she said.

Earlier in the week, Muslim organisations in Uttar Pradesh has welcomed the decision of the state cabinet to making registration of all marriages, including the Nikaah taking place in the state, mandatory.

Winning Muslims over through patriarchical moves, Mr Adityanath?
 

The post Yogi Govt Legalises Polygamy, Muslims Allowed to Register Upto Four Marriages appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Certain universal truths/ customs about Islam are above debate and cannot be dismissed by law, nor need to be authenticated by the so-called clergy whether they are essential or non-essential components of faith.

The Qur’an preaches that there is One God. Muslims recite from the Qur’an in their daily prayers. Muslims are required to do ablution (wet or dry) before commencing the prayer. The Qur’an prohibits flesh of swine as food. The Qur’an abolished the custom of burying alive of new born girls. The Qur’an abolished the custom of instant divorce and introduced a time frame for divorce. The Qur’an abolished incestuous relation between clearly identified close relations.

Now if a clergy or even a secular person says no to any of the above propositions, he is simply telling a lie against the Qur’an or is stark ignorant of what is written in the Qur’an.

This leads up to the tricky question embedded in this statement in the article in the context of instant divorce: It [The Court] does not have the expertise to decide which practice/ritual is essential/non-essential. These are purely religious questions, which is best left to clergy.”

The flaw in the stateent is that i) it does not define ‘clergy.’ ii) it fails to recognize that the Qur’an does not recognize any clergy class or any other authority entrusted with the interpretation of its message.

The question around which this writer’s consistently advocated argument of constitutionally invalidating triple Talaq rests, is its enduringly devastating impact on a poor Muslim woman who receives the triple talaq at a fatal moment.

In the blink of an eye, she loses her husband, her children, her home and hearth, her status, her livelihood. She is barred from all her Qur'anic rights; her fundamental human rights are violated. She is abjectly dehumanized, and is struck with such overwhelming shock, trauma, and mental agony, that may be no less tormenting than if she were about to be buried alive. Also unlike a wife who is, so to say, buried alive (instead of getting instant triple divorce) she will suffer stigma, disgrace and deprivation all her life. So a woman from a poor family who is handed a triple divorce suffers more grievously than if she was buried alive – a parallel that India’s ex-Union Minister Mohammed Arif Mohammed Khan aptly gave in a recent court hearing.

Bearing the above in mind, it is simply ridiculous to suggest that the ‘court’ does not have the expertise to decide the essentiality or otherwise of triple Talaq. The Judges are no robots. They are human beings. Regardless of what Muslim clergy say on a matter that is expressly repugnant to Qur’an (the holy book of Muslims), to universal human values and opposed to the noble notions of justice, mercy, compassion that distinguish man from beast, the court can surely say that such practice/ ritual cannot be ‘essential ‘to Islamic faith or for that matter any faith.

Let us not forget the case of Imrana [June 06, 2005]. Raped by her father-in-law, the local clerics invoked Hanafi law to turn the rapist father-in-law into lawful husband of the rape victim. The Supreme Court did not leave the matter with the clergy. It intervened and handed due punishment to the rapist father in law.

Think of the case of so many un-known sisters of Imrana, whom their husbands instantly divorce in a state of drunkenness or anger and then force to marry a friend and have intercourse with him and get his friend to divorce her for him to remarry her back – all within just a few days – what a colossal violation of human rights under the ambit of MPL. Is the court going to leave the mater in the hands of the clergy, which, in any case, is not recognized in Islam.

As to the learned Professor’s [reference to the article by Faizan Mustafa in the Tribune] repetitive suggestion of incorporating a clause in the Nikahnama ‘that triple divorce shall not be given’, this writer will reiterate that “this will purport to imply imposing some limitations on the prerogatives of the male spouse, who may in practical terms, violate the contract and take recourse to this practice. … In other words, instant triple divorce must be declared constitutionally invalid and culpable in the eye of Law, and not included in Nikahnama as a condition of prenuptial contract.”[5]

This writer, who is keeping a close tab on the arguments of those who are bent on retaining ‘triple Talaq’ either in MPL or in the Nikahnama as a prohibitive clause, and is consistently tabling counter-arguments is now compelled to say this:

Having failed to establish its case by telling lies upon lies about the Qur'an in their recent submission as reported by the media and exposed by this writer in his last two articles [3-5], the advocates of triple Talaqs an Islamic custom, have taken to a labyrinthine legal argument to support their case. It is reminiscent of labyrinthine Fatwas by terror groups who will cite opinions of different scholars of different era and overwhelm the lay reader into accepting their views but the world knows they are terrorists and so are those who advocated instant triple Talaq as expounded in one of my articles referenced below:

AIMPLB Advocates Of Instant Triple Talaq Are Gender Terrorists And Traitors Of Islam And May Be Sued For Human Rights Violation Under Cover Of Religion
http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/advocates-of-instant-triple-talaq-are-gender-terrorists-and-traitors-of-islam-and-may-be-sued-for-human-rights-violation-under-cover-of-religion/d/110871

This is this writer’s 7th article on the subject consistently advocating constitutional invalidation of triple Talaq:

[1]  Qur’anic Sharia (Laws) On Divorce: Triple Divorce, Temporary Marriage, Halala Stand Forbidden (Haram)
http://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/the-qur’anic-sharia-(laws)-on-divorce.–triple-divorce,-temporary-marriage,-halala-stand-forbidden-(haram)/d/6391

 [2 ] The Medieval-Era-Rooted, Qur’an-Conflicting Muslim Personal Law (Sharia Law) Must Be Reformed To Avoid Injustices to Muslim Women – An SOS to the Indian Ulema Fraternity
http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-medieval-era-rooted,-qur’an-conflicting-muslim-personal-law-(sharia-law)-must-be-reformed-to-avoid-injustices-to-muslim-women-–-an-sos-to-the-indian-ulema-fraternity/d/97692

[3]  Indian Muslim Ulema Who Insist On Retaining the Anti-Qur’anic Triple Talaq (Instant Divorce) In Muslim Personal Law Are Sinners, Haters of Their Women-Folk and Criminals and Must Be Resisted
http://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/indian-muslim-ulama-who-insist-on-retaining-the-anti-qur’anic-triple-talaq-(instant-divorce)-in-muslim-personal-law-are-sinners,-haters-of-their-women-folk-and-criminals-and-must-be-resisted/d/104483

 [4] Supreme Court Has Already Declared Triple Talaq Invalid – So What Is the Need for the Recent Petition to the Supreme Court
http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/supreme-court-has-already-declared-triple-talaq-invalid-–-so-what-is-the-need-for-the-recent-petition-to-the-supreme-court/d/111090

 [5]  Triple Talaq Must Be Invalidated Constitutionally and Criminalized – Inclusion of Prohibitive Clause in Nikahnama Could Allow Its Perpetuation by Defaulters
http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/triple-talaq-must-be-invalidated-constitutionally-and-criminalized-–-inclusion-of-prohibitive-clause-in-nikahnama-could-allow-its-perpetuation-by-defaulters/d/111139

Having stretched his vocabulary in protesting against AIMPLB and its sympathizer’s insistence to keep triple Talaq in MPL – at least as an express prohibition (thus tacitly acknowledging its religious bearing, the author would now like to end this article with the following quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero – an iconic figure of the Roman era, remembered for his political and juristic erudition:

“The enemy is within the gates; it is with our own luxury, our own folly, our own criminality that we have to contend.”

Triple Talaq must not be confused with Polygamy that i) is permitted in Islam in exceptional cases – though the Qur’an’s holistic message stands for monogamy [2]  and ii) cannot be paralleled with triple divorce by any stretch of imagination on human rights violations and traumatic impact to a wife (existing versus divorced).

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

This article was first publoshed on New Age Islam.

The post “The ‘no triple talaq’ clause in nikahnama is no use. SC must declare it unconstitutional” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Heightened media coverage on the issue of triple talaq along with the statement of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Chief Minister of UP Yogi Adityanath is causing harm to the struggle for gender justice within the Muslim community. Media coverage is making a public spectacle of victims of triple talaq and encouraging voyeurism for TRPs. Media manages to get a “maulvi” of dubious repute for giving sound entertaining sound bites that make buffoon of the community.

Gender justice within the Muslim community will be achieved primarily by the struggle of Muslim women, of course with the support of democratic institutions. Politicization of the issue to score brownie political points will harm the cause of Muslim women. What Muslim women need is solidarity and support from the feminist movement in particular and liberal democratic forces in general.

Pronouncing the word ‘talaq’ (I divorce thee) thrice in one sitting and instantly snapping matrimonial ties unilaterally by the husband is once again in news as the Supreme Court is going to hear Shayara Bano’s petition on the issue and the PM has chosen to speak on the issue. This form of divorce is called talaq-e-bidat (bad in theology but valid divorce) and popularly it is called as triple talaq.

The ulema (learned religious leaders of the community) have validated triple talaq pronounced orally, even if in a fit of rage, in a state of inebriation, or conveyed on phone, through sms, or through post. The wife so divorced is instantly evicted from her matrimonial home or if not in the house at the time of divorce, she is prevented from accessing her matrimonial home and children.

The practice is abominable and indefensible. Yet the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has claimed in their affidavit that triple talaq is part of shari’a law which is divine and it is their Constitutional right to practice their religion. Elsewhere, we have elaborately argued that triple talaq in one sitting is unconstitutional as well as contrary to the Quranic method of divorce and prayed that Hon’ble Supreme Court read down the provision (Engineer, 2016).

Protectors of Muslim Women

The PM chose to speak on the issue of triple talaq at the BJP’s National Executive meeting in Bhubaneshwar on 16^th April 2017. He said, “Our Muslim sisters should also get justice. Injustice should not be done with them… [I]f there are social evils, the society should be woken up and efforts made to provide justice to the victims.”

The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said on 17^th April 2017 that those maintaining silence on the “burning issue” of triple talaq were as “guilty” as those practising it. Yogi compared the triple talaq to the disrobing of ‘Draupadi’ in the Mahabharata. He also called for a uniform civil code in the country.

Both, the PM and the CM of UP, are trying to project themselves as protectors of Muslim women from the evil and inhuman Muslim Personal Law. However both have a lot to answer for, given their past.

Under the watch of Modi, when he was the CM of Gujarat, in 2002, during the riots, Muslim women’s bodies were the site on which sexual assaults were mounted and they were subjected to worst inhuman atrocities. Neither of them then had any feeling of remorse nor an urge to fight the injustice. Modi, then the CM of Gujarat had to be reminded of his raj dharm by the then PM – Atal Behari Vajpayee of their party. Gujarat government refused to organize any relief work for the 150,000 survivors of the violence huddled in inhuman conditions in various relief camps.

The UP CM in a video on youtube says that if one Hindu woman was married to a Muslim and converted, 100 Muslim women would be married to Hindu men and converted into Hindu fold!

Of destruction of wombs and liberation of Muslim women

In 2002 during communal riots in Gujarat, the Hindu supremacists who mounted sexual assaults and heinous crimes on Muslim women’s bodies did so to pollute or destroy the wombs of Muslim women that gave birth to children of Muslim community (International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat, 2003, pp. 40-41). Now they are posing as liberators of Muslim women from the oppression of their men.

Modi then had sort of provided justification of the riots by terming it as a reaction to burning of Sabarmati Express in Godhra. Thereafter he never expressed his remorse that under his watch the scale of violence had reached its peak. Those who were accused of rapes and involvement in riots had little to fear the judicial process and were being acquitted until the Supreme Court stepped in and set up SIT to prosecute the accused. Bilkis Bano’s rape case trial was transferred to sessions court in Mumbai which resulted in conviction of some of the accused.

Behind the facade of getting justice for the Muslim women in general and victims of triple talaq in particular, the BJP has political motives. When the PM and the CM of UP were not on the posts they are presently holding, they stigmatized the Muslim community in harsher words using cruder language.

In the year 2002, after the riots Narendra Modi took out Gujarat gaurav yatra (pride journey). In the yatra he would address public meeting during and accuse that relief camps for riot survivors to be breeding camps where the survivors were breeding like rabbits. In the next Gujarat state Assembly elections, the target of the Modi’s speeches was “Mian Musharraf (the then President of Pakistan) mentality”! The subtle message was that Muslims were loyal to Pakistan and needed to be taught a lesson.

Posing as protectors of Muslim women, Modi and Yogi are achieving the same objective with more sophisticated means – stigmatising the Muslim community as one having unjust traditions and women in the Muslim community are being disrobed. General Secretary of Hindu Mahasabha – Pooja Shakun Pandey went a step ahead and asked all victims of triple talaq to convert to Hinduism and she would organise their marriage and do their kanyadaan (ritual of father gifting his daughter to the bridegroom). 

The Hindu supremacists then want to convert Muslim women and gift (marry) them off to Hindu men to improve their demographic figures and reduce those of Muslim community. Rescue Muslim women only to gift them off and be property of Hindu men. Hindu supremacists opposed the Hindu Code Bill in 1950s so painstakingly drafted by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar to ensure gender justice to Hindu women. Hindu supremacists organized militant protests and denounced Dr. Ambedkar as an untouchable drafting laws for Hindus.

The Hindu supremacists do not problematise dowry, child marriage, female feoticide etc. Given caste hierarchies, Hindu supremacists defend the parental control over their daughters in matrimonial matters. They have never raised any voice against honour killings when daughters dare to chose their own life partners. “Anti-Romeo” squads and “love jihad” campaigns are precisely to ensure that Hindu women do not choose their life partners and do not have freedom to wear the clothes they like.

Ministers in the present government have advised women to wear appropriate (traditional) dresses to be secure from sexual assaults instead of ensuring safe space for women and inclusion in every field. BJP MP – Sakshi Maharaj and RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat called upon Hindu women to produce 4 children reducing the women to child producing machines for their husbands and their community.

Hindu supremacists are not very different from the religious and political leaders of Muslim community with regard to their attitude towards worth and role of women in family and community – chattels or property of the males within the family and under their complete control; slave labourers for the family confined to home for unpaid domestic work, rearing children for men; labouring outside home if men need their incomes; confine them to religious spaces so that they are indoctrinated to serve the men in the family and accept being reduced to chattels and slaves.

Triple talaq is one such weapon in hands of Muslim men to keep control over “deviant” wives. Khap Panchayats, domestic violence and misogynist culture are weapons of Hindu men. Strategies and instruments of control may differ slightly but nevertheless their objective is to control and reduce women to chattels and slave labourers and objects of sexual pleasure for men. Hindu supremacist talk of “liberating” Muslim women, but only to enslave them to new masters – Hindu men. The feminist movement and awareness and resistance of women – both – Hindu and Muslim have changed the situation slightly and progressively.

Media and stigmatization of Muslim community

Media has been presented with an opportunity to increase their TRPs whenever issues that stigmatise Muslim community are handy. TV channels a few years ago ran extensive coverage of a fatwa which declared that Imrana who was raped by her father-in-law is now forbidden to her husband. It seemed that was the only problem faced by the nation – otherwise everything was hunky dory.

One TV channel made a public spectacle of Gudiya’s problems and coverage went on for hours. Gudiya, a Muslim, married another man after her soldier husband’s whereabouts were not known for some years and presumed dead in war with Pakistan. However, her former husband returned after he was released from Pakistan jail. “Gudiya kiski?” went the title of the programme. All relatives, maulvis, the second husband and former soldier husband and few others were assembled in the studio and public spectacle was made of her life encouraging voyeurism.

Almost all TV channels have similarly conducted talk shows on triple talaq – they got some victims to depose their tragedies, one or two maulvis to entertain their viewers with their ridiculous and provocative views supporting triple talaq and a few gentlemen around. The Islamic scholars who did not support triple talaq were obviously not favoured by invitation.

The stage was then set for a match between the victims and the maulvis with some generous support from ‘nationalist’ anchors. The lung match between Muslim women and maulvis would be good spectacle attracting eyeballs of male voyeurs into a problem of Muslims and beam them various advertisements persuading them to buy various corporate products.

The louder and angrier the fight between the victims and maulvis, more would be the entertainment and fun for the voyeurs. The BJP spokespersons would be there on the panel to represent the PM and Yogi as heroes of the nation liberating Muslim women. Perhaps that is why the media loves the PM and Yogi as they keep giving them such opportunities targeting left and liberal “anti-nationals”, cow slaughterers, terrorists, Kashmir separatist and Paki agents, religious converters.

Democracy and humanist values be damned so long as the voyeuristic media had their TRPs, they would support whatever politics! Is this the responsible fourth pillar of the state?

If stigmatising the Muslim community is one objective of Modi and Yogi, subtly establishing the superiority of Hindu community, the other political objective is to divide the Muslim community along gender lines. They have also tried to win over a section of Shias and Sufis. The political objective as spelled out by Subramanian Swamy once is to divide the Muslim community and unite the Hindus to achieve the objective of Hindu Rashtra – antithesis of democracy.

The Muslim Personal Law Board

Cornered by the media barrage and becoming a laughing stock for defending triple talaq and claiming it to inseparable part of divine Shari’a law, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has come up with a new subterfuge. On 16^th April it issued a code of conduct and warned that those who give talaq (divorce) without ‘Sharia’ reasons will face social boycott.

The ruse of social boycott is more for media consumption than a sincere campaign to curb the menace of triple talaq. Had the Board been sincere, it would not have filed atrocious affidavit in Supreme Court completely against the spirit of Quran which gives dignity and rights to women. Board’s affidavit reduces women to a status of chattel and a slave, unintelligent being.

This ploy of social boycott has occurred to them after 70 years of resisting any change in the Muslim Personal Law and ignoring the plight of victims of triple talaq. The Board has clout and power enough to silence the women suffering oppression and scaring them with curse of Allah. However, they do not have clout or sincerity to enforce social boycott against powerful men.

Declaring, announcing and enforcing social boycott is also an offence in Maharashtra. Social boycott of the husband who has pronounced triple talaq is not going to give any relief to the woman thrown out of her matrimonial home. If a man has divorced by pronouncing the dreaded words in a fit of anger or under inebriation and repents the morning after, will be doubly punished by social boycott if enforced or enforceable without offering any relief to either.

Way ahead

The only remedy in the circumstances seems to be to educate the women and men that any number of pronouncement of the word talaq can be considered as single pronouncement followed by arbitration and efforts for reconciliation. This is the procedure prescribed by the Holy Qur’an.

The Board should agree to codify Muslim Personal Law within the framework of Quran and the spirit of gender equality mandated by Quran and drawing the best from all Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The codified law should be presented to the Parliament for being legislated.

Until the codification, Indian courts have a constitutional duty to ensure justice and equality to Muslim women and read down the provisions of various Islamic schools of jurisprudence like Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi, Maliki, Ahle-Hadith and Shia schools of jurisprudence that are against the constitutional mandate.

Political parties will do great disservice to the country and the Muslim community by politicisation of the issue either in the name of national integration or demography or on any other ground. Peace and justice are more noble goals than winning an election or benefiting from communal polarisation.

The post From Destruction of Wombs to Liberators of Muslim Women: Politics of Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.