A Partition Mentality: Those supporting Triple Talaq are displaying the same mindset which once brutally divided India
Triple talaq has always been considered sinful in Islamic law. Countries like Iraq banned it as far back as 1909. There is a reason this evil has persisted in India till the present day. That must end.
'Triple Talaq' means a form of divorce recognised by Muslim law that permits the husband to make three pronouncements in one sitting and effect irrevocable annulment of marriage.
What happens as a result of triple divorce is that the woman is immediately whisked away by her family as they are told by the clergy that now, the man and wife have become strangers and their being under the same roof would amount to immorality and sinful behaviour.
In Muslim law (the Hanfi School of Jurisprudence), triple divorce is described as bad in religion and good in law — it is bad in religion because neither does the Quran sanction it, nor does it find favour in the prophetic traditions. It became good in law because during the reign of the second Caliph Umar, he decided to enforce it to punish and discipline men, who often used it to harass and oppress their wives.
The Quran being a scripture mostly talks in parables, but on the subject of marriage and divorce, it has described the procedures in great detail. A casual glance at the provisions of the Quran on this subject clearly shows that the book goes to the farthest extent to save the family and prescribes a detailed procedure of divorce, which gives the spouse time to rethink and makes the option of reunion available till the completion of iddat. The Quran says: 'As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, counsel them first, then do not share bed with them and then explain to them by giving examples, if they return to obedience then seek not means to annoy them (4.34).'
If all these attempts bear no positive result, then the Quran commands to 'appoint two arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers, if they wish peace then God will cause their reconciliation (4.35).'
These are the conditions precedent before a final decision is taken to end the relationship. It will take a minimum of two to three months to take all these steps. If nothing works, then a man is allowed to make the pronouncement of divorce but it will need another three months for the divorce to take effect.
The Quran says: 'When you divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods (when they are not menstruating) and count their prescribed periods and fear God your Lord. And turn them not out of their homes, nor shall they leave except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness. (65.1)'
Further, the Quran says: 'Thus when they fulfill their term appointed, either take them back on equitable terms or part with them on equitable terms and take for witness two persons among you endued with justice and establish the evidence before God. (65.2)'
From the above mentioned verses, it is clear that the procedure of divorce is elaborate and time-consuming — it is not difficult to understand why it is so. The Quran takes every possible care to save the family from disintegration and shield the future of families and children from a disaster.
On the other hand, the law that is relied upon by the clergy hastens the process and provides for the instant dissolution of marriage, leaving no space to rethink and reunite.
What the community itself feels can be assessed on the basis that all schools of Islamic jurisprudence do not allow triple divorce — for the Shias and the Ahle-Hadith, triple divorce has always been a taboo. The right to triple talaq, as it is practiced in India, is not available today in any country — including the Sunni majority countries.
Egypt was the first Muslim country that banned it in 1929 and provided in the law that numerous pronouncements of divorce in one sitting shall be counted as only one pronouncement, which means that divorce shall be final after three months and during this period, the option of reunion as provided in the Quran would remain available. Sudan followed the suit in 1935, Jordan in 1951, Syria in 1953, Morocco in 1958 and Pakistan (including Bangladesh) in 1961.
Iraq banned triple divorce in 1909.
One point of contention is that the proposed Bill seeks to criminalise the civil law — it is true that laws relating to marriage and divorce are basically of civil nature. But what is ignored by the critics is the fact right from the beginning that the pronouncement of three divorces in one sitting has been considered a criminal offense in Muslim law and that is the reason that Caliph Umar, who made it good in law, used to punish the offenders with forty lashes.
Divorce is a civil law, it is not a crime — but instant divorce, through three pronouncements, is sinful, prohibited and an innovation. It is in pure and simple words a criminal offense — that is the reason it has always attracted corporeal punishment.
But it is strange to see this argument being made by those who felt no compunction in reversing the Shah Bano judgment in which the Supreme Court had decided the case under a provision of criminal law. But the then-government succumbed to the pressure and threats of the Muslim Personal Law Board and reversed a judgment given under criminal law to protect the personal law, which is admittedly a civil law.
Basically, this whole issue does not relate to religion or law.
What the Muslim Personal Board had done in 1986 — and are doing now — is raising the bogey of Milli Tashakkhus (separate identity) being in danger. Before 1947, this mindset was talking about two separate nations — and succeeded in getting India partitioned. Now, they cannot talk about a separate nation — so they talk about 'separate identity' and want to project themselves as the sole spokesperson of this viewpoint.
We need to ask ourselves whether we wish to build a strong, inclusive and harmonious India or whether we shall allow the divisive forces to heighten community consciousness by creating internal divisions and fissures.
Triple talaq has always been bad in religion and since the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2017, it has become bad in law as well.
If bodies like the Muslim Personal Law Board incite their followers to ignore the SC judgment and continue this nefarious practice, as they did in Bhopal about a week after the judgment in 2017, then it is the constitutional duty of the government to enact a law that ensures both the dignity of our legal system and the dignity of our womankind.