Talaq Al-Bid'ah (Instant Divorce) among Muslims banned in India

[Aupmanyav]

Instant divorce (Divorce, Divorce, Divorce, Talaq Al-Bid'ah, commonly known as 'Triple Talaq in this part of the world) outlawed in India today (it is already banned in Pakistan and Bangladesh). A great relief to Muslim women. 99 for and 84 against in Upper House of the Parliament. It has been already passed in the Lower House.

 

[Glaurung]

And so it should be. Allowing men to arbitrarily divorce their wives at whim is gravely unjust.

 

[Nakosis]

Instant divorce (Divorce, Divorce, Divorce, Talaq Al-Bid'ah, commonly known as 'Triple Talaq in this part of the world) outlawed in India today (it is already banned in Pakistan and Bangladesh). A great relief to Muslim women. 99 for and 84 against in Upper House of the Parliament. It has been already passed in the Lower House.

It'd be fair if women could do the same.

 

[Wasp]

And so it should be. Allowing men to arbitrarily divorce their wives at whim is gravely unjust.

How is this prevented here? The truth is a man can do it in Islam.

I don't see how this is a 'great relief'. There will be iddat anyway. If the man wants to divorce the woman he will, whether you make him say it on separate occasions or not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It'd be fair if women could do the same.

What about the woman? Now they will not be able to do it on their whim as it was done earlier in India. The law includes a 3-year jail sentence for violators. Some more laws are coming. These will include Nikah-Halala, the question of maintenance, custody of children and polygamy. Basically we are going towards a 'uniform civil code'. Saying that it is so in 'Sharia' would not help. Indian Constitution guarantees complete equality to all.

 

[Glaurung]

How is this prevented here? The truth is a man can do it in Islam.

From what I read, a three year jail term for violators. Anyway, that triple talaq is illegal in many Muslim nations runs counter to your claim.

I don't see how this is a 'great relief'. There will be iddat anyway. If the man wants to divorce the woman he will, whether you make him say it on separate occasions or not.

Divorce isn't being banned. You just can't instantly and arbitrarily divorce your wife on mere whim. Goodness forbid that a man should have to go though some kind of mediated process. What oppression!

 

[Wasp]

From what I read, a three year jail term for violators. Anyway, that triple talaq is illegal in many Muslim nations runs counter to your claim.

I was responding to this:

And so it should be. Allowing men to arbitrarily divorce their wives at whim is gravely unjust.

It doesn't prevent men from arbitrarily divorcing their wives at whim and unjustly. The banning of it still doesn't prevent this.

Divorce isn't being banned. You just can't instantly and arbitrarily divorce your wife on mere whim. Goodness forbid that a man should have to go though some kind of mediated process. What oppression!

you can, you just have to do it in a more complicated manner for the sake of appearances at least. There is the iddat in any case.

 

[Wasp]

Indian Constitution guarantees complete equality to all.

I doubt it, a lot - and more still.

Nevertheless, islam isn't limited by such rulings. A good Muslim abides by sharia as much as he/she can within the limits of the laws of the country he/she is in.

 

[Glaurung]

It doesn't prevent men from arbitrarily divorcing their wives at whim and unjustly. The banning of it still doesn't prevent this.

I don't know much about Islamic marriage rules. Nevertheless, requiring some kind of formal process over a period of time (thus allowing for reasonable avenues for reconciliation) is far better than allowing Muslim men to instantly divorce their wives by text message. Marriage is meant to be a serious commitment, not a mere indulgence of male whim. Triple talaq is as indefensible as temporary marriage, both blatant examples of institutionally sanctioned hypocrisy masquerading as religious law.

 

[Aupmanyav]

From what I read, a three year jail term for violators. Anyway, that triple talaq is illegal in many Muslim nations runs counter to your claim.

If it is a sin, if it is 'haram', if it is against rules, then there should be a punishment for one who engages in it. Just saying it is 'haram' does not help.

Nevertheless, islam isn't limited by such rulings. A good Muslim abides by sharia as much as he/she can within the limits of the laws of the country he/she is in.

Yeah, if Allah had not wanted it, they would not have come to power. A Muslim should obey the ruler.
"lā ḥawla wa-lā qūwata illā bi-llāh" (All change and power is with Allah).

 

[Wasp]

Yeah, if Allah had not wanted it, they would not have come to power. A Muslim should obey the ruler.
"lā ḥawla wa-lā qūwata illā bi-llāh" (All change and power is with Allah).

A just ruler.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The ruler is just and that is why this law. In case of the earlier ruler a woman of 62 years of age and a mother of five was turned out of the house with just three words.

"Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim mother of five from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was divorced by her husband in 1978. She filed a criminal suit in the Supreme Court of India, in which she won the right to alimony from her husband. However, the Muslim politicians mounted a campaign for the verdict's nullification. The Indian Parliament reversed the judgement under pressure from Islamic orthodoxy."

"On November 1978 her husband gave an irrevocable talaq (divorce) to her which was his prerogative under Islamic law and took up the defence that hence Bano had ceased to be his wife and therefore he was under no obligation to provide maintenance for her as except prescribed under the Islamic law which was in total ₹5,400 (USD 77). In August 1979, the local court directed Khan to pay a sum of ₹25 per month (US 38 Cents) to Bano by way of maintenance. On 1 July 1980, on a revisional application of Bano, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh enhanced the amount of maintenance to ₹179.20 per month (USD 2 & 50 Cents). Khan then filed a petition to appeal before the Supreme Court claiming that Shah Bano is not his responsibility anymore because Mr. Khan had a second marriage which is also permitted under Islamic Law."
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum - Wikipedia

 

[Nakosis]

What about the woman? Now they will not be able to do it on their whim as it was done earlier in India. The law includes a 3-year jail sentence for violators. Some more laws are coming. These will include Nikah-Halala, the question of maintenance, custody of children and polygamy. Basically we are going towards a 'uniform civil code'. Saying that it is so in 'Sharia' would not help. Indian Constitution guarantees complete equality to all.

I was referring to religious code, not civil code. Unfair religious practice is another reason why secular governments are better.