On 22nd August, Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict declaring Talaq-e-biddat or ‘instant triple talaq’ unconstitutional i.e. the act of pronouncing divorce by a Muslim man by saying (or even electronically sending on messaging platforms) the term ‘talaq’ three times in a go, will no longer be a valid form of divorce in the eyes of law.

A lot of water has flown under the bridge since then. While overwhelmingly it was received as a path breaking decision in the right direction towards achieving the constitutional goal of UCC, some people have openly declared it to be anti-Islamic and they won’t be following this. This topic has been hotly debated in newsrooms, editorials and in the court room of course.  

Let’s look at a brief summary of the PIL, the arguments and the judgment.

The PIL

In October 2016, Justice Anil R Dave and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel while delivering a judgement on Prakash & Others v. Phulavati & Others, observed that Muslim women are subjected to discrimination. There is no safeguard against arbitrary divorce and second marriage by her husband during currency of the first marriage, resulting in denial of dignity and security to her.

They pointed out that the matter needs consideration by the supreme court, as the issue relates not merely to a policy matter but to fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and international conventions and covenants.

Hence they directed the court to register a suo motu PIL and put up before the appropriate Bench as per orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to look at the matter of Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala and polygamy.

Thereafter, one Mrs. Shayara Bano of Allahabad, who was divorced from her husband through triple talaq filed a writ petition under article 32. Article 32 provides remedies when your fundamental rights are violated. It gives you a right to move to SC for the enforcement of the rights conferred under part III – fundamental rights – by constitution of India. In her submission, she wrote:

“This practice of talaq-e-bidat (unilateral triple-talaq) which practically treats women like chattel is neither harmonious with the modern principles of human rights and gender equality, nor an integral part of Islamic faith, according to various noted scholars. Muslim women have been given talaq over Skype, Facebook and even text messages. There is no protection against such arbitrary divorce. Muslim women have their hands tied while the guillotine of divorce dangles, perpetually ready to drop at the whims of their husbands who enjoy undisputed power.”

She also submitted that the legislature has failed to ensure the dignity and equality of women in general and Muslim women in particular especially when it concerns matters of marriage, divorce and succession.

Government stand

In a counter affidavit, Ministry of Law & Justice submitted that the said practice is indeed violative of rights conferred by article 14, 15 and 21. It also submitted that the practice can be challenged against article 13 as it is an established “law” under “Shariat bill” passed in 1937. To quote the ministry,

“Any practice by which women are left socially, financially and emotionally vulnerable or subject to whims and caprice of men is incompatible in letter and sprit with article 14 and 15. Right of a woman to human dignity, social esteem and self worth are imp facets of right to life under article 21. Gender justice is non negotiable and is a constitutional goal.”

The ministry also argued that personal laws can’t supersede fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

“The underlying idea behind the preservation of personal laws was the preservation of plurality and diversity among the people of India. The question arises as to whether the preservation of such diverse identities can be the pretext for denying to women the status and gender equality they are entitled to under article 14 & 21.“

The ministry tried to establish that personal law is a “law” by within the meaning of law under article 13 and any such law which is inconsistent with fundamental right is thus void.

The Union of India, who was also a respondent in the petition, via AG Mukul Rohatgi shared same views as Ministry of Law and Justice. “Gender equality, gender equity & a life of dignity and status is an overreaching constitutional goal.” AG Rohtagi also submitted that the practices which are under challenge, namely, triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy are practices which impact the social status and dignity of Muslim women and render them unequal and vulnerable qua men belonging to their own community; women belonging to other communities and also Muslim women outside India.

Rohatgi raised a very relevant point that article 25 of the Constitution which confer the right to practice, preach and propagate religion are “subject to the provisions of Part III”, which means that it is subject to Articles 14 and 15 which guarantee equality and non-discrimination. In other words, under our secular Constitution, the right to the freedom of religion is subject to and in that sense, subservient to other fundamental rights such as the right to equality, the right to non-discrimination and the right to a life with dignity.

The ‘opposition’

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) having made itself a party to the petition, argued against it. As per AIMPLB, Muslim Personal Law is cultural issue; it is inextricably interwoven with religion of Islam. Thus, it is the issue of freedom of conscience, guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 read with Article 29. 

It tried to establish that personal law is NOT a “law” as defined in article 13 of constitution and hence its validity cannot be tested on a challenge based on Part III of the Constitution.

“The Mohammedan Law is founded on the Holy Qur’an and hadith of the Prophet of Islam and thus it cannot fall within the purview of the expression “laws in force” as mentioned in Article 13 of the Constitution of India”. 

The AIMPLB also argued on why it thinks UCC is not a necessity. As per its submission:

“The whole discourse on Uniform Civil Code is marked with number of illusions. The first illusion is that a common civil code will help the cause of national integration. It is believed that the Hindu Code Bill has unified the Hindu

Personal Law on all the subjects. The question is has the Hindu Code Bill succeeded integrating the Hindu society in real terms. Are they not the caste divisions which still exist and have the caste become extinct in India? Is the untouchability non-existence? Are there no grievances of Dalits of discriminatory treatment? In other words, the perception of uniformity of personal laws has failed to achieve the integration amongst the different sections of the Hindu society.”

Arguing for AIMPLB, senior advocate and former Congress union minister Salman Khurshid also submitted similar arguments. He tried to convince the court that it should just look at the issue at hand i.e. Triple Talaq and not at the broader matter of UCC as such. He started his arguments with establishing that as opposed to common belief, Islamic laws are progressive. He stated that 

“Under Islamic law if the answer to any question, solution to a conflict, or resolution to an issue, is provided for in the Holy Quran – that is the final word and rule of Sharia. When there is no clear guidance in the Quran, theologians must look to the traditions of the Prophet as recorded in the Hadiths. If no guidance is found even there then we must refer to general consensus of opinion or Ijma (which the ulema would arrive at after closely studying the first two). If the resolution is found by Ijma then that too would become a rule of Islamic law. To this extent Islamic law, like any other, is a living and evolving body of law.”

He also opined that triple talaq in theory was unilateral but in practice it is not.

“When the dissolution of the marriage tie proceeds from the husband, it is called talaq. Technically, the power of the husband is unilateral and absolute; but, virtually and in practice, it is restrained within definite bounds by the numerous formulae that are attached to its exercise.”

He went on to argue that it is not for SC to examine the validity of triple talaq as it’s a religious matter.

“It is humbly submitted that it is not the role of the Courts to interpret Muslim Personal Law but rather hold which interpretation is correct.“

He further argued that rate of talaq among Muslims is not higher than Hindus.

“Furthermore, no reliable data is forthcoming to show that talaq/triple talaq amongst Muslims exceeds divorce amongst other communities.”

Also representing for AIMPLB, senior advocate and former Congress union minister Kapil Sibal argued on why personal laws can not be challenged under article 13. 

“Personal law represents matters of faith continued for centuries having a direct relationship to the faith of the community representing a religious denomination. It is clear that ‘personal laws’ are not subject to challenge under Part III of the Constitution. Apropos the above, if ‘personal law’ stands excluded from the definition of ‘law in force’ in Article 13 then all matters of faith having a direct relationship to a religious denomination being matters of personal law cannot be tested on the anvil of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

He also argued that all faiths are patriarchal and reform must come from within. 

“Societies of different faiths are essentially patriarchal. This is true of all faiths, Hindus, Christian, Islam, Parsi, Zoroaster, Buddhist etc. There are very few exceptions to this. Reform through codification of such faith binds all individuals within the community. This process is evolutionary.”

Finally, he submitted that court should not interfere in the matters of faith.

The verdict

After hearing all the arguments, the court declared triple talaq to be unconstitutional by a split verdict of 3:2. CJI Justice Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer held this to be a matter of faith and religion guaranteed under article 25 and hence court doesn’t have jurisdiction over it.

“We have arrived at the conclusion, that ‘talaq-e-biddat’, is a matter of ‘personal law’ of Sunni Muslims, belonging to the Hanafi school. It constitutes a matter of their faith. It has been practiced by them, for at least 1400 years. We have examined whether the practice satisfies the constraints provided for under Article 25 of the Constitution, and have arrived at the conclusion, that it does not breach any of them. We have also come to the conclusion, that the practice being a component of ‘personal law’, has the protection of Article 25 of the Constitution”

However, Justice Kurian didn’t agree with CJI and didn’t think it is part of Islam religion and hence it can’t be argued under article 25. Therefore, court has the right to declare this unconstitutional.

“I find it extremely difficult to agree with the learned Chief Justice that the practice of triple talaq has to be considered integral to the religious denomination in question and that the same is part of their personal law.

Merely because a practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible. 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.”

Justice Nariman and Justice Uday Lalit had a different view although they agreed with Justice Kurian on the unconstitutionality of triple talaq. However, as per them, it’s not unconstitutional because it’s not part of Islam, but it’s unconstitutional because it’s violative of fundamental right under article 14,15 and 21, being part of Islam or not notwithstanding.

“This being the case, it is clear that this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, therefore, the 1937 Act, insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “laws in force” in Article 13(1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq.”

Although the the practice of instant triple talaq has been outlawed via this verdict, the practice of Nikah Halala and polygamy continues to be legal in India.

I have long believed that in order to expose the real face of the Liberal-Islamist axis, we have to look at what is happening inside the Muslim world (and not just inside the free world). For example, in the free world, you will see liberals actively promoting “whiny” complaints about the media spreading so called “Islamophobia” (see for example, this TEDx talk at Stanford).

Even though liberals actually control most of the media, they still promote this “whining” to increase the guilt among free societies, which results in ever more pandering towards the Muslims. While we in the free world wallow in self-condemnation over supposed “Islamophobia”, liberals almost never tell you what the media looks like in the Islamic world. Sample this bone chilling kids’ TV program that tells the ‘heroic’ story of a girl who walks in on her mom getting ready to become a suicide bomber!

The same doublespeak can be found in the way liberals make a show of supporting science and rationality over here in India but you will see how the same liberal outlets are happy to promote the opposite in the Muslim world.

Here is the HuffPost India, gladly trashing “unscientific” claims at the Indian Science Congress:

Okay, first of all, they are wrong about the Pythagoras Theorem part. It is an established and near universally accepted fact within the academic community that ancient Indians were well aware of Pythagoras Theorem. That HuffPost would even try to present well known facts as “lies” means they probably were counting on the low self esteem of Indians who have passed through the colonised education system.

But what about the Vedic aeroplanes part? Surely that’s ridiculous and deserves to be mocked? Yes. And you might well do that.

But interestingly one hand HuffPost India is debunking this so called “bad science” and on the other hand, HuffPost Maghreb is actively promoting the same thing:

Don’t believe me? See this editorial:

Published in Maroc (Morocco) and therefore written in French, the headline (translated) tells you the story of the world’s “First Aviator” Abbas Ibn Firnas and how he inspired Leonardo da Vinci. Well, let’s find out the amazing story of this amazing Muslim man from around the year 880 CE (at the time when Muslims ruled over Spain).

Which translates to:

“He launched himself from the top of a tower and managed to hover for a while before he crashed. Result : two broken ribs but a very promising beginning. It was thus that the first glider in the history of humanity was created, ancestor of Boeings and propellers that allow us to fly in the air today. ”

Wow! The ancestor of Boeing aeroplanes! How do we know this actually happened? A short trip to Wikipedia provides us a reference :

That’s right : there is no evidence that this flight actually happened, except for one Moroccan historian who wrote about this nearly seven centuries after the death of Ibn Firnas! 

In fact, reading the actual words of the Moroccan historian on Wikipedia, the flight seems even more implausible. It is said that Ibn Firnas covered himself with feathers and attached a couple of wings, then flew around and managed to land at the same place where he started.

That’s not gliding, that’s controlled flight on wings powered by human muscles! And no, that’s also not possible. The Editor of Huffington Post is most welcome to try it out himself/herself for verification purposes.

Of course, when I researched the Ibn Firnas story further, I didn’t find any real academic references for this “flight” (naturally). However, I did find a blog that actually complains about skeptics like me, accuses us of being prejudiced against Muslims and tries to establish that the flight actually happened by quoting the Moroccan historian in “full context”.

And that’s where I learned what Ibn Firnas saw during his flight:

To be fair to Abbas Ibn Firnas, he was definitely a genius, a man way ahead of his time who made many advances in physics and technology. After all, they named a crater on the moon in his honour. But Ibn Firnas did not invent a flying machine, let alone an “ancestor” of Boeings and propellers. The only people who seem to believe it are outlets like the HuffPost. And no, Ibn Firnas was also not the first person to attempt gliding flights (if he attempted it at all). The Chinese would have beaten him to it by several centuries.

And yet, HuffPost had no difficulty passing it off as real history and real science a “story” of a scientifically impossible feat, full of mythical references, written by one person seven centuries after the death of the supposed hero! For them, it was the ancestor of Boeing…

So much for caring about science and reality.

Science has always fascinated the human mind. That is why in every age, in every era, there have existed impostors who have tried to fool people in the name of science, like the alchemists who used to have “secret formulas” to turn lead into gold.

The HuffPosts and the larger Liberal complex of today claim to be inheritors of the spirit of inquiry that drives science. They are not. Instead, they are inheritors of those impostors who have tried to mislead people in the name of science.

Abhishek Banerjee

Abhishek Banerjee is a math lover who may or not be an Assistant Professor at IISc Bangalore.

https://dynastycrooks.wordpress.com/

In complete disregard for the sentiments of minorities in Pakistan, a temple in Karachi was used to keep sacrificial animals.

In a tweet, Pakistani journalist Bilal Farooqui shared the video of animals being kept in the temple premises.

A Hindu temple near Karachi airport being used by Muslims to keep sacrificial animals. Shameful! Via Chander Parkash Khatri #minorities pic.twitter.com/uXEKaLpNKu

— Bilal Farooqi (@bilalfqi) September 2, 2017

In the video it can be seen that a camel is kept inside a temple along with a motorcycle. This triggered a discussion on situation of minorities in Pakistan.

Abdullah Rajput, a journalist associated with Dawn News in Pakistan showed concern that the minority may get offended by this behaviour.

This is a very sensitive matter, and this will be able to put Minorities on anger.

— Abdullah W Rajput (@AWRajput) September 2, 2017

As against how minorities are treated in India.

In another world: Uttarakhand-Muslims offer prayers in a Gurudwara, Joshimath as they were unable to do it at Gandhi Maidan due to rains

— Hermanprit Singh (@hermanprit) September 2, 2017

Twitterati also condemned the disrespect shown towards minorities in Pakistan.

This is how minorities and their places of worship are openly desecrated in Pakistan. Disgusted to the core…!!!!! https://t.co/T2Kg8mxq2t

— Manak Gupta (@manakgupta) September 2, 2017

Hope to see this happening in India too. Hindus should be shown their place https://t.co/znT5ioeT5w

— Eminent Intellectual (@padhalikha) September 5, 2017

This is the kind of secularism Owaisi, Kamal Farooqui, Rana Auub & other Jinnah wannabes miss in India! Their anguish understandable https://t.co/msrVW4l9Hh

— MadhuPurnima Kishwar (@madhukishwar) September 3, 2017

Of course, there were secular liberals from India who denied such thing could exist in Pakistan. And how this could be used by “Hindu terrorists” as part of “terror training”. Farooqi, on his part, stood by his tweet.

Just to conclude, here’s what could have happened if religions were switched.

Had this been done to Muslims, imagine the number of cars they would have thrashed n tyres burnt. https://t.co/92zf8PxXyx

— Bakhtawar Javed (@BJ_Socialist) September 2, 2017

Meat & Livestock Australia’s latest ad campaign, in an attempt to show ‘inclusiveness’ showed Lord Ganesha eating and consuming meat, despite the fact that Lord Ganesha is considered vegetarian by majority of his followers. The release of ad which shows gods and religious leaders and other prominent personalities sitting together, eating lamb and consuming alcohol, coincided with the Hindu festival Ganesh Chaturthi.

The Hindu community at Melbourne has demanded the withdrawal of the controversial ad. According to a media report, the advertisement released yesterday by the Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) has already been referred to Australian Standards Bureau. Other divinities shown in the commercial included Jesus, Buddha, Thor and Zeus, sitting around a dining table tucking into lamb at a barbecue.

Following the controversy, Andrew Howie, the Group Marketing Manager of MLA, in his statement said that the marketing drive was aimed at reaching more consumers by making lamb more relevant to a diverse, modern Australia. He said that under the “You Never Lamb Alone” banner, campaign was aimed to bring people of all backgrounds and beliefs together to unite and bond over lamb.

The ad, however, does not feature Mohammad, since depiction of the prophet is considered highly offensive to some Muslims.

Recently it was reported that the Yogi government had been taking steps to ensure transparency in the state funded madrasas. These included having to register on the newly launched “Madrasa Portal” of the state government. The madrasas were required to upload the details of the teachers, support staff and also were required to provide infrastructure details along with photographs.

During the launch of the online portal the UP Waqf Minister, Mohsin Raza had stated that they had received many complaints of irregularities in the madrasas. Now reports have claimed that out of a total 19,000 madrasas in the state, just 3000 have registered themselves on the portal.

As a response to this lackadaisical approach by madarsas, the Yogi government has reportedly stopped the funding of 46 fully aided madrasas in the state. These 46 madrasas belong to Kanpur, Kushinagar, Kannauj, Mau, Azamgarh, Maharajganj, Siddhartha Nagar, Mahoba, Shravasti, Banaras, Faizabad, Ghazipur, Jaunpur, Barabanki, Sant Kobirnagar and Jhansi districts. There are about 560 fully aided madrasas in the state.

It turns out that a committee comprising of a district magistrate, district minority officer and basic education officer had in April sought the details of the aided madrasas the funding of these 46 madrasas, which was consequently stopped after the lapses were detected.

These irregularities had reportedly been revealed after a 2 month long investigation and the issue seems to be that these institutions weren’t following the necessary infrastructure guidelines. These madrasas were reportedly being run in rooms smaller or larger than the prescribed limit and some were even being run in verandas. These madrasas used to receive an average grant of at-least about 3-4 lakh rupees per month and it also included the salaries of the teachers.

The total grant aid stopped by the government reportedly amounts to about Rs 2 crores. The information revealed on Wednesday also claimed that salary of teachers has also been stopped. It remains to be seen if the funding is resumed if and when these madrasas manages to comply with the necessary regulations.

--- Read the article From the stables of Indian Express: After ‘They hanged Yakub’, here is another gem on OpIndia website ---

Indian Express’ string of bad headlines and shoddy spins continue. In the midst of the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor controversy, Indian Express has reported that some Congress leaders have expressed happiness about Captain Amarinder’s stand of not visiting Pakistan for the groundbreaking ceremony.

Except, Indian Express chose to point out their religious identity.

In the article, Indian Express again points out religious identity of the leaders who have, on condition of anonymity, expressed their displeasure at Captain Amarinder’s decision, calling it a move to appease ‘Hindu vote-bank’.

Indian Express mentions how Captain Amarinder got support from “Hindu leaders” but “Sikh leaders” have expressed displeasure.

Captain Amarinder has maintained that as a Sikh himself, he understands the importance of the Gurudwara Kartarpur Sahib, the holy shrine in Pakistan, but as chief minister of a border state, Punjab, it is his responsibility to maintain law and order in his state. He says that owing to the cross-border terrorism which has claimed lives of security forces and civilians, he, in good conscience, could not visit the land which sponsors such acts of terrorism.

One wonders how this headline or spin is any different from Indian Express’ “and they hanged Yakub” headline. For decades, the media has been assigning national security issues to religious identities and playing a dangerous game. When Yakub or Kasab were handed the death penalty for their unspeakable crimes, often, the narrative was of Muslims being under attacked and not being given their fair share in India. Here, while the degree is different, the narrative is no different.

Captain Amarinder Singh made a decision which upholds the interest of the nation above even his own religious identity. For the Indian Express to divide support from his decision as “Hindu leaders” supporting him is playing a dangerous game of communal rhetoric where national interest is concerned.

Per the likes of Indian Express, it seems national interest will always be reduced to a “pro Hindu”, “anti Muslim” rhetoric. Where upholding national interest in their mind is appeasing Hindus.

Editorial Desk

Editorial team of OpIndia.com

http://www.opindia.com