"Triple Talaq" violative of women's rights

Power Politics Bureau

The liberation of Indian Muslim women from 1400-year-old Shariat practice of triple talaq by the majority decision of the Supreme Court comes as fresh wind of social change in Indian society. The apex court deserves kudos for looking at this anarchic practice not from narrow religious angularities, but in a larger framework of Muslim women's rights equality, honour and dignity.

It is highly commendable how some progressive Muslim women have carried on their legal battle against all odds. They deserve our salute.

The arbitrary practice of triple talaq was indeed demeaning for Muslim women of the very stability of their "marital status" since this sacred tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically without any attempt at reconciliation. This goes against basic norms of life as spelt out in the Quran. The old Shariat practice allowed a husband to divorce his wife by simply saying the Arabic word of talaq three times. What a shame!
Our disappointment over the

The triple talaq verdict was delivered by a panel of five judges from different major faiths.verdict is that this was not a unanimous five-judge bench decision. Three judges categorically held the practice as "unconstitutional" while the remaining two judges opined that this matter should be left to the country's Parliament to pass legislation officially banning the practice.
The two honourable judges had based their views on what they thought to be the sanctity of personal laws under the Constitution. But the danger in such a course would have been induction of majority versus minority politics for which the country has already paid a heavy price to the disadvantage of basic Muslim women's rights.
This cannot be acceptable to enlightened citizens. They have seen how a simple related issue of alimony got politicized in the Shah Bano case of 1985.

Muslim women celebrate the Supreme Court verdict on triple talaq The majority ruling was clear and candid. It stated that "triple talaq is against the basic tenets of Holy Quran and consequently it violates Shariat…… what is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense what is bad in theology is bad in law as well". The majority ruling minced no words on what is right and what is wrong. It clearly stated that "triple talaq" practice is arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The judge in the majority ruling concluded on the basis of an Act in 1937 that enshrined Muslim beliefs and traditions into law, anything that was "anti=Quranic" was therefore banned and did not deserve institutional protection.

Muslim women celebrate the Supreme Court verdict on triple talaq Even otherwise, where is the question of infringement of religious practice? As an arbitrary social practice, it gave men undue advantage and command which could uproot a womens' life through the cold medium of Whatsapp message. Hundreds of Muslim women have suffered on account of this awful practice.
It is indeed highly commendable how some progressive Muslim women have carried on their legal battle against all odds. They deserve our In 1985 a woman named Shah Bano fought the case in the apex court against her husband after he left her without providing her money to live on her own. She was then in her seventies. salute.

Arif Mohamed Khan Her husband was a well-established lawyer. The court ruled in favour of Shah Bano. But thereafter the whole issue was given a politicoreligious twist and turn by Maulvis, the ruling deities of Muslim practices. The Rajiv Gandhi government was then at the helm of Indian affairs. But he allowed himself to be carried away by maulvis and Muslim vote bank considerations and went back on his promise of support to his cabinet colleague and progressive Muslim leader Arif Mohamed Khan to induce and encourage the Muslim community the process of reforms and adjustment and restore and recreate the fabric of forward looking secular and national society.

It is highly It may be worth recalling the words of BMMA co founder Noor Jahan. She said in last January; "my creator cannot create me in a way subservient to another human being. My creator cannot make me secondary to a man just because I am a woman. That gave me strength to question patriarchial attitudes. I am equal to anybody in this world".

But this was not to be. In fact, it turned out to be a major tragedy as Rajiv Gandhi, though a charming young man with modern outlook, allowed the politics of compromise to degenerate into that of surrender before the forces of reaction and obscurantism. Be that as it may. Finally in 2017 everything has ended on a happy note with the upholding of the right of equality to Muslim women. It may be worth recalling the words of BMMA (Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan) co-founder Noor Jahan. She said last January : "My Creator cannot create me in a way subservient to another human being. My Creator cannot make me secondary to a man just because I am a woman. That gave me strength to question patriarchial attitudes. I am equal to anybody in this world". Indeed, we have all have learnt to respect and listen to the voices of questioning. On honest questioning of wrong, misplaced and anarchic practices alone, we can build a new tolerant and understanding Indian society, of which Muslim women are equal part.



		EDITOR'S MAIL MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY NIA ACTS LANDMARK VERDICT HISTORIC JUDGEMENT MODINAMA REALPOLITIK ECONOMIC SCENE FRANKLY SPEAKING JAYALALITHAA LEGACY JAYALALITHAA LEGACY CHANDIGARH DIARY AMERICAN DIARY MEDICAL ADVANCEMENT HITS & MISSES CRICKET DIARY BOOK BAZAAR BOOK BAZAAR SIGNS OF THE TIMES MISSING ROAD SENSE YOGA IN DAILY LIFE FILM-MAKING ART OF LIVING Issue:Sep' 2017 Subscribe Now	LANDMARK VERDICT "Triple Talaq" violative of women's rights Power Politics Bureau The liberation of Indian Muslim women from 1400-year-old Shariat practice of triple talaq by the majority decision of the Supreme Court comes as fresh wind of social change in Indian society. The apex court deserves kudos for looking at this anarchic practice not from narrow religious angularities, but in a larger framework of Muslim women's rights equality, honour and dignity. It is highly commendable how some progressive Muslim women have carried on their legal battle against all odds. They deserve our salute. The arbitrary practice of triple talaq was indeed demeaning for Muslim women of the very stability of their "marital status" since this sacred tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically without any attempt at reconciliation. This goes against basic norms of life as spelt out in the Quran. The old Shariat practice allowed a husband to divorce his wife by simply saying the Arabic word of talaq three times. What a shame! Our disappointment over the The triple talaq verdict was delivered by a panel of five judges from different major faiths.verdict is that this was not a unanimous five-judge bench decision. Three judges categorically held the practice as "unconstitutional" while the remaining two judges opined that this matter should be left to the country's Parliament to pass legislation officially banning the practice. The two honourable judges had based their views on what they thought to be the sanctity of personal laws under the Constitution. But the danger in such a course would have been induction of majority versus minority politics for which the country has already paid a heavy price to the disadvantage of basic Muslim women's rights. This cannot be acceptable to enlightened citizens. They have seen how a simple related issue of alimony got politicized in the Shah Bano case of 1985. Muslim women celebrate the Supreme Court verdict on triple talaq The majority ruling was clear and candid. It stated that "triple talaq is against the basic tenets of Holy Quran and consequently it violates Shariat…… what is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense what is bad in theology is bad in law as well". The majority ruling minced no words on what is right and what is wrong. It clearly stated that "triple talaq" practice is arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The judge in the majority ruling concluded on the basis of an Act in 1937 that enshrined Muslim beliefs and traditions into law, anything that was "anti=Quranic" was therefore banned and did not deserve institutional protection. Muslim women celebrate the Supreme Court verdict on triple talaq Even otherwise, where is the question of infringement of religious practice? As an arbitrary social practice, it gave men undue advantage and command which could uproot a womens' life through the cold medium of Whatsapp message. Hundreds of Muslim women have suffered on account of this awful practice. It is indeed highly commendable how some progressive Muslim women have carried on their legal battle against all odds. They deserve our In 1985 a woman named Shah Bano fought the case in the apex court against her husband after he left her without providing her money to live on her own. She was then in her seventies. salute. Arif Mohamed Khan Her husband was a well-established lawyer. The court ruled in favour of Shah Bano. But thereafter the whole issue was given a politicoreligious twist and turn by Maulvis, the ruling deities of Muslim practices. The Rajiv Gandhi government was then at the helm of Indian affairs. But he allowed himself to be carried away by maulvis and Muslim vote bank considerations and went back on his promise of support to his cabinet colleague and progressive Muslim leader Arif Mohamed Khan to induce and encourage the Muslim community the process of reforms and adjustment and restore and recreate the fabric of forward looking secular and national society. It is highly It may be worth recalling the words of BMMA co founder Noor Jahan. She said in last January; "my creator cannot create me in a way subservient to another human being. My creator cannot make me secondary to a man just because I am a woman. That gave me strength to question patriarchial attitudes. I am equal to anybody in this world". But this was not to be. In fact, it turned out to be a major tragedy as Rajiv Gandhi, though a charming young man with modern outlook, allowed the politics of compromise to degenerate into that of surrender before the forces of reaction and obscurantism. Be that as it may. Finally in 2017 everything has ended on a happy note with the upholding of the right of equality to Muslim women. It may be worth recalling the words of BMMA (Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan) co-founder Noor Jahan. She said last January : "My Creator cannot create me in a way subservient to another human being. My Creator cannot make me secondary to a man just because I am a woman. That gave me strength to question patriarchial attitudes. I am equal to anybody in this world". Indeed, we have all have learnt to respect and listen to the voices of questioning. On honest questioning of wrong, misplaced and anarchic practices alone, we can build a new tolerant and understanding Indian society, of which Muslim women are equal part.