 "'Will judges base verdicts on what the PM says?'")
Kamal Faruqui, member of Working Committee, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, tells Aditi Phadnis that triple talaq is not against women and that legislation in religion is the job of the Divine.
This is not our belief. We believe it is for women. At the time of nikaah (wedding), which is a contract between the would-be husband and the would-be wife, the first option of accepting or rejecting is with the woman. The woman is asked first whether she agrees to enter into the contract. She has to say “qabool”— that she accepts. At that point she has all the right to ask for the contract details and for additions or deletions according to law. Once you follow that contract, it gives you the right of separation as well.
An Allahabad High Court judge has made some observations about triple talaq and said that no personal law board was above the Constitution. You are an office-bearer of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). What do you have to say?
He has not made the observations against AIMPLB; his observations are against personal law. He has said no personal laws are above the Constitution. The fact is, this very Constitution has given citizens the right to follow their religion, religious practices and customs. It is a fundamental right. So how can anybody say this is not allowed in the Constitution? We are not saying whether we are above or below the Constitution. We are as per the Constitution.
Whether triple talaq and personal law come under fundamental rights is a different matter. The matter is before the Supreme Court. But in the past, the Supreme Court has said it is not empowered to legislate on religion. Legislation of religion is the job of the Divine. As far as Muslims, who follow Islam are concerned, it is our belief — and we are not saying others should believe this or not — that our laws are the Divine’s laws and the source is the Quran and the Hadees (the Prophet’s life) and the interpretation by wise men in those times.
As far as talaq is concerned, this is the most undesirable thing that is being allowed. It shakes up the entire universe of two people because a relationship that has been created in accordance with Allah’s permission gets broken. It is a sad thing. And I am talking about single talaq, not triple talaq.
But as with single talaq or triple talaq, these are the modes of separation. In extreme circumstances triple divorce is allowed. But even this has had the Prophet Mohammad express extreme anger. All this has been recorded and he expressed this to his most trusted companions — that he does not approve of this. But it was short of not allowing it. We believe that if it was not to be allowed, the Almighty Allah could have pronounced that triple talaq is not allowed. But he did not say that.
But surely it is anti-women and a weapon in the hands of men?
Also Read
This is not our belief. We believe it is for women. At the time of nikaah (wedding), which is a contract between the would-be husband and the would-be wife, the first option of accepting or rejecting is with the woman. The woman is asked first whether she agrees to enter into the contract. She has to say “qabool”— that she accepts. At that point she has all the right to ask for the contract details and for additions or deletions according to law. Once you follow that contract, it gives you the right of separation as well.
The AIMPLB has, for more than 25 years, sought reform in society, telling people that they should be careful in pronouncing divorce. We have come up with a model nikaahnama, which has conditions for arbitration as well, if relations between you and your wife are not okay.
The Supreme Court in its wisdom — we don’t want to comment on it — has done two things in the past. One, it has said that it is not the job of the judiciary to legislate on religion. If at all anything is to be done, it is to be done by legislation.
The other thing that happened recently — the reason triple talaq has suddenly come up — is when a Hindu woman went for a judgment in the Supreme Court after all the hassles of the lower court. Reaching the Supreme Court — she was there for inheritance and succession — and in this case, no Muslim woman was involved, the judge in his judgment brought in the issues of Muslim women.
Haven’t Muslim women approached the court as well?
There is a misconception that Muslim women approached the court. This is wrong. It was entirely on the initiative of the Supreme Court. No Muslim case was involved. It was the case of a Hindu woman. Unfortunately, even she was not given relief. But the Supreme Court on its own, went in for a suo moto petition, which is the basic issue now.
Then how did you come into the picture?
The Supreme Court asked us, the AIMPLB, to become a party at an initial stage. We filed an affidavit, which is the requirement of the law. Not only us, but several others also filed petitions — women, activists, representatives of other religious groups, etc. The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court.
When it is before the apex court, I do not see the wisdom of commenting on the issue. As a lawyer, I fail to understand the motivations of such observations….
Maybe a cue was taken from the prime minister’s appeal on behalf of “meri pyari Muslim behnein (my dear Muslim sisters)...” and his argument that they must be protected from the effects of triple talaq….
So will our judges now base their judicial pronouncements on the basis of remarks by the prime minister? It is a very important question! We have such high hopes from our honourable judges. If all other pillars of our democracy fail, our last resort will be the judiciary. In that event, will the remarks of a prime minister or a leader of the Opposition become the basis for judicial pronouncements?
The very Muslim sisters the PM is referring to are saying: “Don’t interfere with our personal law. Don’t try to change it. We believe in Shariah.”
And another thing. When we came to know that the present government is going to file an affidavit — as indeed, it is duty-bound to — we, the AIMPLB, in its official capacity, approached the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and wrote to them, saying “please also listen to our point of view before filing an affidavit”.
I want to ask everyone: When I, the Muslim Personal Law Board representing the second-largest religious majority in the country, the largest minority in the country, representing the overwhelming majority of the Muslim Ummah in India, is asking you: “please also listen to us before filing your response to the Supreme Court”, don’t you think that it was the duty of the PMO to ask, even if just as a formality, for our observation as well?
They did not do that and we are still waiting to hear from them. In the past, whenever these situations have come up, the AIMPLB has been approached by the government for its view.