India: Oppose the unconstitutional demand of the AIMPLB and other organisations for an anti-blasphemy law in India | IMSD - 27 Nov 2021

Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD)

November 27, 2021

PRESS STATEMENT

Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD) strongly opposes the unconstitutional demand of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and some other organisations for an anti-blasphemy law in India. The IMSD statement has been endorsed by nearly 400 secular Indians. A large majority of the signatories are Muslims.

We condemn the constant attempts by certain hate factories of Hindutva which are working overtime to demonise Islam and Muslims. However, IMSD fully supports the principle that in a secular state there can be no place for a law criminalising blasphemy.

Muslims demanding such a law should instead take recourse of the already existing law against hate speech in our country. Section 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code states: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of (citizens of India), (by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise) insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to (three years) or fine or with both”.

As equal citizens of India Muslims have the right to invoke Section 295(A) against every attempt to target the community with hate speech and demand strict enforcement of the existing law. But the demand for a special law to punish blasphemy must be opposed for more than one reason. Among other things, the experience of neighbouring countries shows that such a law promotes fanaticism and seeks to silence even rational critical commentaries on religion.

The Board cannot be unaware of the notorious blasphemy law in neighbouring Pakistan which is frequently misused to hound individuals from religious minorities and even fellow Muslims with sectarian and personal motives.
According to the Minorities Association of Pakistan, “between 1987 and 2021, 1,865 people have been charged under the blasphemy laws, with a significant spike in 2020, when 200 cases were registered. Punjab, the province where most Christians of Pakistan live, is leading with 76% cases and 337 people are in prison for blasphemy... Also, at least 128 people have been killed by mobs, outside any judiciary process, after being signalled as having committed blasphemy or apostasy, without any chance to have access to an investigation, and nobody has been arrested for their murder”.

Neighbouring Bangladesh started off as a secular state at its birth in 1971 but adopted Islam as a state religion in 1988. It does not have a law against blasphemy but often misuses the same secular penal code of the British period – section 295(A) – to silence all critical comments on Islam in the name of blasphemy.

Signatories:

1. Aaftab Khokar, Student, Jaipur
2. Aalishan Fatima, Student, Bhopal
3. Aamir Khan, Student Leader, Rajasthan
4. Aasha Ramesh, Bengaluru
5. Aasid, Student, Jaipur
6. Aazam Amin, Student, Bihar
7. Abbas Muzaffar, Filmmaker, Mumbai
8. Abdul Barek, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
9. Abdul Hamid, Retired executive,
10. Abdul Jalil, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
11. Abdul Kadir, Businessman, Muradabad
12. Abdul Malik, Farmer, Jharkhand
13. Abdul Qadir, Bank Employee, Aligarh
14. Abdulla Sama, Social Activist, Kutch, Gujarat
15. Abdullah Sheikh, Student, Jaipur
16. Abdur Rouph, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
17. Abjal Hoque, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
18. A C Michael, Former Member, Delhi Minorities Commission, New Delhi
19. Adnan Bari, Student, Aligarh
20. Adan Khan, Student, Kota, Rajasthan
21. Afreen, HR Manager, Delhi
22. Afroz Khan, Social Activist, Bori, Parbhani
23. Afroz Pathan, Social Activist, Bori, Parbhani
24. Aftab Alam, Businessman, Kushinagar
25. Afzal Sayyed, Social Activist, Pune
26. Ahsan Khan, Student, Jaipur
27. Aijaj Pathan, Social Activist, Latur
28. Akbar Shaikh, Social Activist, Pune
29. Akbar Shaikh, Farmer, Activist, Solapur
30. Akheeb Shaikh, Social Activist, Selu
31. Akhil Ahmad, Student, Jaipur
32. Akhil Soudager, Social Activist, Latur
33. Akhter Hussain, Business, Muzaffarpur
34. Ali Asghar, Social Activist, Hyderabad
35. Ali Sheikh, Social Activist, Gujarat
36. Aliya Syed, Social Activist, Nashik
37. Altaf Sayyed, Social Activist, Pune
38. Altamash Pathan, Social Activist, Bori, Parbhani
39. Amir Abbas, Journalist, Patna
40. Amir Rizvi, Designer, Mumbai
41. Ajit Kumar Jha, Media, Delhi
42. Amita Buch, Freelancer, Ahmedabad
43. Amjad Shaikh, Social Activist, Solapur
44. Ammar Khan, Student, Jaipur
45. Anand Patwardhan, Documentary Film Maker, Mumbai
46. Anayatullah, Social Activist, Jharkhand
47. Aniket Alam, Historian, Hyderababd
48. Anis Sayyed, Social Activist, Pune
49. Anjum Rajabali, Film writer, Mumbai
50. Ankit Kumar, Teacher, Muzaffarpur
51. Antara Dev Sen, Journalist, New Delhi
52. Antony, Service, Delhi
53. Anil Rawat, Made Academy, Bengaluru
54. Anuradha Bagadthey, Chartered Accountant, Kolkata
55. Anurag Chaturvedi, Freelance Journalist, Mumbai
56. Anwar Azmat Khan, Businessman, Kalyan
57. Anwar Shaikh, Social Activist
58. Arbaz Khan, Student, Chaksu
59. Arbaz Khan, Student, Jaipur
60. Archana Kaul, Social Activist, New Delhi
61. Arif Kapadia, Businessman, Social Activist, Mumbra
62. Arshad Jamal, Lecturer, Aligarh
63. Arshad Khan, Student, Jaipur
64. Arshad Shameem, Government Employee, Aligarh
65. Arshid Bashir, Lawyer, Srinagar, J&K
66. Asad Ahmad, Political Activist, Muzaffarpur
67. (Dr) Asha Saxena Ahmad, Doctor, New Delhi
68. Ashfaq Inamdar, Social Activist, Pune
69. Ashik Rabbani, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
70. Ashiq, Civil Engineer, Mungher
71. Ashish Maharishi, Journalist, Varanasi
72. Ashok Sharma, IFS (Retried), Noida
73. Asif Naik, Social Activist, J&K
74. Askari Zaidi, Senior Journalist, New Delhi
75. Aslam HS, Student, Jaipur
76. Aslam Kazi, Social Activist, Solapur
77. Athar Khan, Business, Muzaffarpur
78. Athar Qazi, Social Activist, Parbhani
79. Atikur Rahman, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
80. Avanee, Lawyer, Bengaluru
81. Aysha B, Assistant Professor, Mumbai
82. Azam Amin, Shopkeeper, Jhanjha, Jharkhand
83. Azam Khan, Businessman, Hyderabad
84. Azam Khan, Advocate, Mhow
85. Azer Shaikh , Social Activist, Latur
86. Aziz Lokhandwala, Businessman, Mumbai
87. Bader Sayeed, Lawyer, Chennai
88. Baharul Amin, Advocate, Darang, Assam
89. Bebaak Collective, All India
90. Bharti Ali, Civil rights activist, New Delhi
91. Bina Sarkar Ellias, Poet-editor, Mumbai
92. Brinelle D’souza, TISS, Mumbai
93. Cedric Prakash, Human Rights Activist, Ahmedabad
94. Chandrashekhar Tibrewal, Parsipanny, NJ, USA
95. Charanpreet Singh, Educationist, Kolkota
96. Claire Noronha, Concerned Citizen, Delhi
97. Danish Alam, Business, Muzaffarpur
98. Danish S Ahmed, Business, Muzaffarpur
99. Dastgir Tamboli, Social Activist, Pune
100. Deshdeep Dhankhar, Hyderabad University, Hyderabad
101. Dev Desai, Social Activist, Ahmedabad
102. Dewan Shahidul Islam, Advocate, Barteta, Assam
103. Dharam, Retired, Hisar, Haryana
104. Dimple Oberoi Vahali, Social Activist, Shimla
105. Dinesh Kamble, Social Activist, Latur
106. Dinesh Savle, Social Activist, Latur
107. Dipak Malik, Varanasi
108. Dolly, Student, Lucknow
109. Ena Zafar, Dasam, Delhi
110. Faiz Bagwan, Farmer, Solapur
111. Faizi, Professional, Aligarh
112. Faraz Ahmad , Student, Jaipur
113. Faraz Ahmad, Freelance Journalist, New Delhi
114. Farha Hussain, Teacher, Hyderabad
115. Faseeh Ansari, Engineer, Aligarh
116. Fatima Anwar, Teacher, Gorakhpur
117. Feroze Mithiborwala, IMSD Co-Convener, Mumbai
118. Firdaus Shrivastava, Indore
119. Furkhan Pathan, Social Activist, Latur
120. Gafur Sayyad, Social Activist, Latur
121. Gary Shostak, Boston, MA, USA
122. Ghalib Deccani, Social Activist, Pune
123. Ghulam Mohiyuddin, Faruki, M.D., Physician, New York
124. Gias Uddin, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
125. Guddu Bhai, Business, Muzaffarpur
126. Gufran Pathan, Social Activist, Latur
127. Gulfam Khan Bhatti, Student, Jaipur
128. Gulnaaz Parveen, Beautician, Gorakhpur
129. Gulser Ali, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
130. Hamid Taylor, Retired Senior Executive, Bengaluru
131. Harsh Kapoor, Social Activist, New Delhi
132. Hasan Abdullah, Writer, New Delhi
133. Hasan Pasha, Writer, Allahabad
134. Hasan Patel, Social Activist, Latur
135. Hasin Ansari, Businessman, Varanasi
136. Haya Khan, Student, Lucknow
137. Huma Nizami, Teacher, Ahmedabad
138. Huma Rifat Kidwai, Author, Hyderabad
139. IA Khan, Student, Jaipur
140. Ikraj Khan, Student, Jaipur
141. Ikramul Hoque, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
142. Imran Ahmed, Business, Muzaffarpur
143. Imran Khan, Social Activist, Parbhani
144. Imran Mulana, Social Activist, Chaksu
145. Imran Shahid, Teacher, Aligarh
146. (Dr.) Indu Prakash Singh, Businessman, New Delhi
147. Iqbal Patel, Political Activist, Pune
148. Iqram Ahmed, Professional, Muzaffarpur
149. Irfan Engineer, IMSD Co-Convener, Mumbai
150. Irfan Sayyed, Social Activist, Pune
151. Irfan Sheikh, Social Activist, Latur
152. Ismail Khan, Engineer,
153. Jaa Mand, Writer, Journalist, Jalandhar
154. Jahan Siddiqui, Student, Bhopal
155. Jainuddin Shaikh, Social Activist, Pune
156. Jainul Khan, Student, Jaipur
157. Jakir Bhai, Student, Jaipur
158. (Dr) Jami Rizwani, France
159. Jahnvi Andharia, Development Professional, New Delhi
160. Jamil Ahmad, Business, Muzaffarpur
161. Jamil Shaikh, Businessman, Pune
162. Jamsheed Ahmed Rizwani, Retired, Chennai
163. Javed Ahmad, Political Activist, Muzaffarpur
164. Javed Akhtar, Poet, Film Writer, former MP, Mumbai
165. Javed Ali Khan, former MP, New Delhi
166. Javed Anand, Convener, IMSD, Mumbai
167. Javed Hashmi, Social Activist, Latur
168. Jawed Naqvi, Freelance Journlist, New Delhi
169. Javed Shaikh, Social Activist, Pune
170. Jiarul Hoque, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
171. John Dayal, Writer and activist, New Delhi
172. Joy Sengupta, Actor, Mumbai
173. Junaid Siddique, Urdu government teacher, Aligarh
174. K. M. Shrimali, Retired Professor, New Delhi
175. Kafeel Deshmukh, Social Activist, Pune
176. Kalim Shaikh, Social Activist, Parbhani
177. Kamil Shamsi, Businessman, Aligarh
178. Kasim Sait, Businessman, Social Activist, Chennai
179. Kayum Khan, Student, Jaipur
180. Khaleda Parveen, Women’s Help Group, Hyderabad
181. Khalil Deshmukh, Political activist, Jalgaon
182. Khalil Sheikh, Social Activist, Latur
183. Khatija Khan, Teacher, Hyderabad
184. Lara Jesani, Advocate, Mumbai
185. Latif Sayyed, Social Activist, Pune
186. Leila Passah, Consultant, Bengaluru
187. M. Patel, Farmer, Bihar
188. Maaz Arshad, Professional, Aligarh
189. Mafiz Ali, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
190. Mahammad Ali, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
191. Mahmooda, Professor, Satna
192. Mahtab Alam, Software Engineer, New Delhi
193. Maimoona Mollah, Women’s Rights Activist, New Delhi
194. Majhar Alam, Business, Muzaffarpur
195. Maliha Mateen, Social Activist, Gurgaon
196. Maksud Shaikh, Businessman, Satara
197. Manabi Majumdar, Academic, Kolkata
198. Manish Kumar, Social Activist, Delhi
199. Manju, Social Activist, Patna
200. Manoj Savle, Social Activist, Latur
201. Mansoor Sardar, Social Activist, Bhiwandi
202. Marfat Ali, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
203. Martin Hill, Advertising, Mumbai
204. Masooma Ranalvi, WeSpeakOut, Goa
205. Mateen Pathan, Social Activist, Bori, Parbhani
206. Mehnaz Parveen, Teacher, Gorakhpur
207. Mehul Devkala, Poet, Rohtak
208. Miftaur Jannat, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
209. Mirza Beg, Student, Jaipur
210. Mohammed Akbar Alam, Social Activist, Bihar
211. Mohammed Anas, Teacher, Muzaffarpur
212. (Dr) Mohammad Atif, Defence Analyst, Delhi
213. Mohammed Jikrullah, Teacher, Muzaffarpur
214. Mohammed Mahtab Alam, Businessman, Muzaffarpur
215. Mohammad Mansoor Alam, Patna
216. Mohammed Nasir, UP
217. Mohammed Talib, Student, Jaipur
218. Mohammed Imran, New Delhi and New York
219. Mohammad Yaseen, Social Activist, Nanded
220. Moin Khan, Student, Jaipur
221. Molvi Luqmaan, Teacher, Aligarh
222. Molvi Rizwaan, Teacher, Aligarh
223. Moulana Rafikul Islam, Social Activist, Sunitpur, Assam
224. Mridula Mukherjee,Retired JNU Professor, New Delhi
225. Mubin Hashmi, Social Activist, Latur
226. Mukhtar Ahmad Shaikh, Social Activist, Baramulla
227. Muniza Khan, Social Activist, Mumbai
228. Munna Ali, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
229. Murad Bhatti, Student, Jaipur
230. Mushfiq M Khan, Media Professional, Mumbai
231. Mushtaq Inamdar, Social Activist, Manglewadi, Solapur
232. Muslim Bari, Businessman, Aligarh
233. Mustak Ali, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
234. Nadeem Gorakhpuri, Student, Gorakhpur
235. Nadeem Khan, Student, Jaipur
236. Nadim Shaikh Author, Social Activist, Parbhani
237. Nair Iqbal, Professional, Muzaffarpur
238. Najid Hussain, New York, USA
239. Nandita Sehgal, IAS (resigned), Dubai
240. Naresh Kumar, Theatre Activist, Rohtak
241. Naseem Ansari , Student, Jaipur
242. Nasreen Fazalbhoy, Academic, Social Activist, Mumbai
243. Nasreen Ghazala, Teacher, Jhanjha, Jharkhand
244. Nasseruddin Shah, Actor, Mumbai
245. Nazmul Hoque, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
246. Nisar Shaikh, Student, Solapur
247. Noor, Lawyer, New Delhi
248. Noor Islam, Social Activist, Assam
249. Noordeen, Concerned Citizen, Chennai
250. Noorjahan Deewan, Social Activist, Ahmedabad
251. Nouman Sayyed, Social Activist, Latur
252. Nur Islam, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
253. Omar Ali, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
254. Pamela Philipose, Senior Journalist, New Delhi
255. PK Ravindranathan, Social Activist, Ahmedabad
256. Padma Velaskar, Sociologist, Mumbai
257. Pramod Gouri, AIPSN, Rohtak
258. Qaisar Sultana, Homemaker, Allahabad
259. Qamarjahan, Professor, Lucknow
260. Qamber Husnain, Meridian Construction, Patna
261. Qamruddin, Business, Muzaffarpur
262. Qutub Kidwai, Social Activist, Mumbai
263. Rafeek Pathan, Social Activist, Bori, Parbhani
264. Rafik Shaikh, Social Activist, Pune
265. Rafikul Islam, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
266. Rafiq Khan, Advocate, Jaipur
267. Rahim Khan, Social Activist, Parbhani
268. Rahim Shaikh, Social Activist, Solapur
269. Rahim Shaikh, Social Activist, Pune
270. Ramesh Dixit, Retired professor, Lucknow
271. Ranbir Singh Dahiya, Surgeon, Rohtak
272. Rashid Sayyed, Social Activist, Pune
273. Rashid Sheikh, Social Activist, Latur
274. Rashma Sayyad, Social Activist, Solapur
275. Raunaq, Teacher, Kushinagar
276. Ravi :Palat, Professor of Soiciology, Birmingham, NY, USA
277. Rehan Tirmizi, Social Activist, New Delhi
278. Renchu Sheikh, Student, Jaipur
279. Reyasat, Photographer, New Delhi
280. Riyaaz Shaikh, Social Activist, Parbhani
281. Riyaaz Shaikh, Social Activist, Pune
282. Rizwan Tamboli, Social Activist, Pune
283. Rubul Ali, Social Activist, Gowahati, Assam
284. SGA Zaidi, retired, Mumbai
285. SN Sahu, Retired government servant, New Delhi
286. S R Malik, Retired, Lucknow
287. Sabah Khan, Parcham, Mumbai
288. (Dr) Sabah Siddiqui, Professor, Pune
289. Sabed Ali, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
290. Saddam Dabar , Student, Jaipur
291. Safiqul Islam, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
292. Sahidul Hoque, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
293. Saidur Rahman (Akond), Darang, Assam
294. Saidur Rahman, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
295. Saif Ali Shaikh, Student, Nanded
296. Saif Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court, New Delhi
297. Saifuddin Saifee, Editor, Bhopal
298. Saleem Bari, Businessman, Aligarh
299. Salim Attar, Social Activist, Solapur
300. Salim Shaikh, Doctor, Kalyan
301. Samad Khan, Student, Jaipur
302. Sameer Pathan , Student, Jaipur
303. Samsher Manu, Social Activist, Jaipur
304. Sanjay Chouhan, Screenwriter, Mumbai
305. Sanjay Singh, Business, Muzaffarpur
306. Sarah Mathews, Social Activist, Hyderabad
307. Sarfaraz Nawaz, Social Activist, Kolkata
308. Satish Misra, Freelance Journalist, Noida
309. Satyajeet Chavan, Social Activist, Nashik
310. Satya Narayan Sahu, Writer, Press Secretary to former President KR Narayanan, New Delhi
311. Syeda Hameed, Delhi Muslim Women’s Forum, New Delhi
312. Sayyed Akif, Student, Muzaffarpur
313. Sayyed Kashif Shamshad, Student , Muzaffarpur
314. Sehba Taban, Politicial activist, New Delhi
315. Selvyn Jussy. University of Calcutta
316. Shaan Ali, Social Activist, Nalbari, Assam
317. Shabana Azmi, Actor, former MP, Mumbai
318. Shabana Khatoon, Teacher, Kushinagar
319. Shabana Mashraki, Lead Assessor (ISO standards), Mumbai
320. Shabbir Alam, Business, Sitamarhi
321. Shabbir Shaikh, Social Activist, Solapur
322. Shabnam Hashmi, Social Activist, New Delhi
323. Shafi Mulani, Businessman, Karad
324. Shahajan Shaikh, Farmer, Mohol, Solapur
325. (Dr) Shahid, Doctor, Aligarh
326. Shahnaz Parveen, Home Maker, Gorakhpur
327. Shahrukh, Advocate, Rajasthan
328. Shahrukh Khan, Student, Jaipur
329. Shaikh Aslam, Social Activist, Parbhani
330. Shaikh Mohsin, Social Activist, Bori, Parbhani
331. Shaikh Shakir, Social Activist, Latur
332. Shaikh Salman, Social Activist, Parbhani
333. Shakeel Jaleel Khan, Businessman, Aligarh
334. Shakeel Sardar, Kalyan
335. Shakil Khan, Student, Jaipur
336. Shalini Dhawan, Designer, Mumbai
337. Shama Zaidi, Documentary Film Maker, Mumbai
338. Shamim Abbasi, Ghazipur
339. Shamshad Alam, Business, Muzaffarpur
340. Shamsher B Gandhi, Urdu Teacher, Churu, Rajasthan
341. Shanti Paswan, NGO, New Delhi
342. Sharad Raj, Film Director, Mumbai
343. Sharifa, Concerned Citizen, Secunderabad
344. Sheikh Farid, Social Activist, Darang, Assam
345. Shehzad Khan, Student, Jaipur
346. Shikha Sen, Editor, Teacher, Noida
347. Shivani Bhardwaj, Social Activist, New Delhi
348. Shuaib Ahmad Ansari, Self-employed, Varanasi
349. Shuja, Teacher, Aligarh
350. Sikandar Pathan, Social Activist, Baramati, Pune
351. Sohail Bhatti, Student, Jaipur
352. Sohail Hashmi, Social Activist, New Delhi
353. Sohel Pathan, Social Activist, Parbhani
354. Sohel Soudager, Social Activist, Latur
355. Subamiya Kadri, Retired Senior Executive, Ahmedabad
356. Sufiyan Shaikh, Social Activist, Pune
357. Suhail Jaleel Khan, Businessman, Aligarh
358. Suhana Chowdhary, Student, Meerut
359. Sultan Shahin, Editor-in-chief, New Age Islam, New Delhi
360. Supriyo Nandy, IIHM, Kolkata
361. Sunny, Social Activist, Parbhani
362. Tahzeeb Pathan, Social Activist, Parbhani
363. Taizoon Khorakiwala, Businessman, Philanthropist, Mumbai
364. TK Rajalakshmi, Journalist, Ghaziabad
365. Tameem SB, Businessman, Aligarh
366. Tanveer Jafri, Entrepreneur, Surat
367. Tarun Sagar, Social Activist, Delhi
368. Tayiyab Khan, Student, Jaipur
369. Teesta Setalvad, Human Rights Defender, Educationist, Mumbai
370. Toheed Atar, Social Activist, Bori, Parbhani
371. Tousef Sayyed, Social Activist, Latur
372. Tousif Ansari, Teacher, Hata, UP
373. Urdu Khan, Student, Jaipur
374. Utpala Mukherjee, Citizen, Delhi
375. Vani Subramanian, New Delhi
376. Vasanthi Raman, Academic, New Delhi
377. Vasid Khan, Student, Jaipur
378. Vibhuti Narain Rai, IPS (retired), writer, Noida
379. Vinod Iyer, Mumbai
380. Vishal Hiwale, Social Activist, Mumbai
381. Vivekanand Tripathi, Social Media Activist, Noida
382. Waseem Shaikh, Social Activist, Parbhani
383. Wasif, Professional, Aligarh
384. Wasim Ansari, Social Activist, Parbhani
385. Yameen SB, Businessman, Aligarh
386. Yousuf Saeed, Film maker, New Delhi
387. (Dr) Zaheer Ahmed Sayeed, Neurologist, Chennai
388. Zeenat Shaukatali, Wisdom Foundation, Mumbai

India: Homophobia of the clerics - Hindu, Muslim, Christian - upset with supreme court order of 6 sept 2018

Gay sex decriminalised: Clerics protest order, hint at moving court

"I want to make it very clear that homosexuality is against Islam and there is a whole chapter on Quran on this. If this becomes the norm, then 100 years later, humanity will be wiped out. It is against the very essence of nature,” Kamal Farooqui, a lawyer and a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board said

Written by Abantika Ghosh | New Delhi | Published: September 7, 2018
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/gay-sex-decriminalised-clerics-protest-order-hint-at-moving-court-5344015/

o o o

See also:

Reactions of the Apostolic Churches Alliance, a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Imam council are reported in India Today ->

"Homosexuality is an abomination as per the Bible. The act of sodomy, as per the Christian philosophy, faith, belief and sentiments of Christian religion as a whole is a most contemptuous sinful act," said Manoj V George, lawyer for Apostolic Churches Alliance set to file a petition opposing the demand to scrap section 377.
AIMPLB member Sayyed Qasim Rasool Ilyasi, told Mail Today: "We will become a party in the case and oppose the plea. Homosexuality is unethical and is against all religious faiths. If it is legalised, it will create problems in society."
Echoing the same sentiments, Maqsood Ul Hasan Qasmi, President of Imam Council of India "After some years we may find some people who want to do animal sex. Do we think it is their right to choose what they want? Will it be correct if some people demand to legalise it?

source: https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/sects-unite-to-save-section-377-1282317-2018-07-11

Here is a tweet from the official twitter handle of All India Muslim Personal Law Board which says" Legalizing homosexuality is against Indian values and culture. No religion allows immorality. The government must pass a bill to protect the rights of women as they are the major victims of legalised homosexuality" https://twitter.com/AIMPLB_Official/status/1038083943629824002

The Hindu Mahasabha has also reacted adversely: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/meerut/ulemas-hindu-mahasabha-fume-at-sc-verdict-on-section-377/articleshow/65710964.cms

India: Religion and constitutional tenets need to be reconciled in triple talaq case (Edit, The Times of India, May 18 2017)

The Times of India - May 18, 2017

Strike a balance: Religion and constitutional tenets need to be reconciled in triple talaq case

  TOI Editorials | Edit Page, India 

In a submission before the five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court hearing the triple talaq case, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has stated that a Muslim woman could insist on specific clauses in the nikahnama (marriage contract) to protect her interests and dignity. This may include provisions like her right to pronounce triple talaq or oral instant divorce. Needless to say AIMPLB is being inconsistent in making this argument. It stated in an affidavit submitted to the apex court last year that Sharia grants right of divorce to husbands because men have greater power of decision-making. Given such patriarchal thinking, AIMPLB’s take on Muslim women too having the right to exercise triple talaq appears far removed from reality.
There’s no denying the fact that triple talaq is a discriminatory practice that treats Muslim women as second-class citizens. Plus, to argue that triple talaq is intrinsic to Islam is specious. Triple talaq is banned in more than 20 Muslim-majority countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh. That most petitioners against triple talaq have been Muslim women shows that AIMPLB can’t even claim that the entire Indian Muslim community supports this practice.
There is, however, merit in the argument that religious beliefs are given considerable currency in matters of state and society in India. As has been argued by AIMPLB counsel Kapil Sibal, Hindu customs and practices are often protected by the law. At a time when such protections are being expanded through provisions such as food bans in BJP-ruled states, completely ignoring religious sentiments in the Muslim community will legitimately attract the charge of discrimination.
In that context, the Centre’s proclamation that it will come up with a new law if the apex court strikes down triple talaq as unconstitutional doesn’t add up. This position doesn’t elaborate what the alternative to triple talaq is. Government, in consultation with the Muslim community, needs to propose such an alternative that is compatible with Muslim jurisprudence. An ideal approach would be to look at best practices among Muslim communities – the Ahle Hadees and Jafri sects consider talaq uttered thrice in one sitting as one talaq and allow for mediation and reconciliation between the couple – and mandate those religious practices that are in conformity with the constitutional principle of women’s equality.

India: The case against triple talaq - Personal law must be subordinate to fundamental rights . . - Editorial in Livemint

livemint.com - May 16, 2017

The case against triple talaq

Personal law must be subordinate to fundamental rights and subjected to the test of constitutional validity

Editorial

“Can what is sinful in the eyes of God be lawful? If God considers it a sin, it can’t be legal. Can it be?” Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar’s question on the second day of the Supreme Court (SC) case regarding the constitutional validity of triple talaq sums up the difficulties surrounding the contentious issue. Wading through the thicket of religious interpretation is a tricky task for any secular legal authority. More importantly, Khehar’s framing of a just law validated by religious belief points to the dangers inherent in blurring the boundaries between the two.

Triple talaq as it is practised in India—the husband saying “talaq” thrice to the wife in one go—must be addressed on multiple fronts. The same holds true for the associated practice of Nikah Halala—a divorced woman having to marry another man, consummate the marriage and have him divorce her before being able to remarry her first husband. The first front is that of constitutional protection—whether these practices are safeguarded under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to “profess, practice and propagate religion”. This is the approach the SC has adopted; it is examining if triple talaq forms an essential part of Islamic belief and practice.

That is venturing into tricky territory. On the face of it, there is substantial evidence that triple talaq is an innovation that has little to do with Quranic prescriptions. This is the argument made by the petitioners. It is buttressed by the text of the Quran as interpreted in the bulk of Islamic scholarship, as well as historical evidence and legal precedent. After all, a number of Islamic states, from Morocco and Algeria to Iran and Indonesia, have introduced modernizing legislation when it comes to divorce. And in multiple instances—A. Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma, 1970, Kerala high court and Shamim Ara v. State Of UP And Ors, 2002, Supreme Court, for example—the courts have ruled against triple talaq as it is practised today.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, on the other hand, defends triple talaq as an integral part of Islamic law and, therefore, beyond the realm of the judiciary. Thus, the SC must in effect take a stand in a long-running global debate: Is Islam a “blueprint for a social order”, in Ernest Gellner’s words, or is there a distinction between Islamic—the religious—and Islamicate—associated cultural phenomena—as Marshall Hodgson suggested? The limits this imposes on the SC are apparent. If it concludes in the triple talaq case that the former holds and the practice is indeed an essential part of the religion in India, its hands are tied. It has admitted as much by saying that if it finds that triple talaq is fundamental to religion, it will not go into the issue of its constitutional validity.

This gives an undeserved sanctity to religious law. It is why addressing the issue on another front as well—placing Islamic or any other personal law in the context of constitutional liberalism rather than depending merely upon religious reform—is important. A number of the petitioners have argued that triple talaq violates their fundamental right to equality before the law, to non-discrimination on grounds of sex and to life and liberty. Indeed, Article 25(1) explicitly states that freedom of religion is subject to other fundamental rights. The Allahabad high court recently ruled so as well in the Shayara Bano case; she is also one of the SC petitioners.

The other argument against subjecting personal law to the constitutional validity test—that it is not a “law” as defined by Article 13 of the Constitution—has a precedent in the 1951 Bombay high court judgement in State Of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali. But as Gautam Bhatia has argued convincingly, this rests on far too narrow a reading of Article 13—one that can and must be overruled by the SC.

And that brings in the third front: the uniform civil code. Much of the opposition to the SC’s taking up the triple talaq issue stems from the fear that it is a back door for bringing in the uniform civil code. That would be the wrong way to go about it—but the goal is a worthy one. Arguments that this will stifle diversity and result in the imposition of Hindu laws are specious. As B.R. Ambedkar pointed out in the Constituent Assembly debates, uniform criminal laws and what amounts to a uniform civil code in the majority of civil law areas other than personal law already exist. They have not compromised religious freedom in any fashion. Nor is the need for a uniform civil code solely to do with Muslim personal law. Inequities exist in the other personal laws as well, from Hindu to Parsi.

The move to a uniform civil code will be a slow process and must be an inclusive, multi-stakeholder one. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made conciliatory noises so far regarding the triple talaq case. But if he gives in to the temptation to use the issue for political advantage, it will make introducing the UCC debate in the public domain unviable for a good many years. Indeed, the wider political context—his administration’s failure to reign in gau rakshaks, or cow protection vigilantes, for instance—is already unhelpful.

Seven decades ago, the members of the Constituent Assembly chose the politically expedient path. The uniform civil code has been frozen as a directive principle of state policy since. If the ideal of a common law for all citizens in a secular republic—one that adheres to constitutional principles and ensures gender equality—is to be realized, the Centre will have to show both courage and statesmanship.

India: ‘We oppose triple talaq but don’t dare call us BJP’s handmaidens’: Petitioner Hasina Khan

Asking us to lie low lest we are seen as rallying with the ruling party trivialises our decades-long struggle for justice.

Hasina Khan

In 1985, when the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Shah Bano case granted divorced Muslim women the right to alimony, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, a non-governmental organisation that professes to represent Indian Muslims in all matters of their faith, shouted “Islam is under threat”.
In response, Muslim women rallied to fight for their rights, especially in matters of marriage and divorce, and several women’s groups emerged from the community over the next three decades. Bebaak Collective, Awaz-e-Niswaan, Sahiyar, Muslim Mahila Manch, Pehchan, Muhim, Parvaaz Sangathan, and, more recently, Bebaak Collective Sahiyar articulated a radical politics, at one with secular and feminist causes. [. . .]

https://scroll.in/article/836509/we-are-against-triple-talaq-but-dont-dare-call-us-bjps-handmaidens

India: AIMPLB open to out-of-court talks on Babri dispute

The Times of India

Babri dispute: AIMPLB open to out-of-court talks
Arshad Afzal Khan | TNN | Mar 29, 2017, 06.33 AM IST
The disputed structure at Ayodhya (File photo)The disputed structure at Ayodhya (File photo)
FAIZABAD/AYODHYA: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is in favour of Supreme Court-monitored negotiation with Hindu parties for out-of-court settlement of the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute.

Talking to TOI, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali, memeber of the executive body of AIMPLB, said, "We are ready to talk if there is opportunity of peaceful negotiation between the two parties. Talks are necessary and we were always ready but before we are on the negotiation table, Supreme Court must chalk out an agenda of the debate and must authorise and nominate the Hindu parties for negotiation."

Convenor of the Babri Masjid cell of AIMPLB, Syed Qasim Rasul Ilyas said, "We will talk after Supreme Court monitors the negotiation and gives both parties equal status."

AIMPLB, the apex body that represents Indian Muslims religiously and socially, is of the opinion that if the talks of negotiation start, it must be protected by the Supreme Court, as in the past, some talks were held but yielded no result and ended up in Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Muslim side blaming each other for the failure. "The actual reason for the talks not materialising was that the VHP was involved at every stage," claimed Khaliq Ahmad Khan, a party in the case.

India: Muslim women opposing triple talaq, polygamy face attack, but are fighting back

Indian Express

Battles in the basti

Muslim women opposing triple talaq, polygamy face attack, but are fighting back.

Written by Javed Anand | Published:November 7, 2016 1:12 am

Tahera Apa faces the heat for demanding Muslim personal law be reformed. In the ten years I’ve known her, she’s never been like this. Between her “Assalam-o-Alaikum, bhai” and what follows, there’s barely a moment’s gap. “Main do teen din se bahut pareshan hoon. Aap ko phone karne wali thee,” (I’ve been very disturbed over the last few days. I was planning to call you), says Tahera Apa.
What’s causing her pain is what’s causing pain to many Muslim women these days; the “Islam in danger” cry raised by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). Just about every Muslim religious body and Muslim leaders across the political spectrum — left parties excluded — have joined the chorus. Be ready to sacrifice your life to save the Shariah, Muslims are being enjoined inside mosques and in Muslim mohallas across the country. Anyone opposing the countrywide signature campaign launched by the Board to resist any “interference” in Muslim personal law is projected as an “enemy of Islam”.
In the belief that they’re defending “Allah’s law”, Muslim men and women are signing up. “They’re even collecting signatures from young children,” report Muslim women activists. Some Muslims who know their Islam better are refusing to sign, publicly asserting that triple talaq, halala marriage and polygamy must be banned. Tahera Apa is one of them.
No maulvi has it in him to cow down Tahera Apa. So they conceive a devious scheme. They’ve been working on her son, brainwashing him into believing his mother is anti-Islam. In consequence, son, mother and the rest of the family have spent several sleepless nights. “Kal ko aapki Islam mukhalif mahila mandal masjid tudwane ki bhee baat karegi. Aap chodo yeh kaam.” (“Tomorrow your anti-Islam mahila mandal will even talk of demolishing mosques. You leave this work)”, the anguished son has been arguing with his mother. There is no way Tahera Apa will give up her activism. But a threat her son hurls torments her, “If you don’t leave the mahila mandal, I’ll immolate myself with my children.” What if, in some dark moment, he acted on his threat?
What comes to the rescue is a little pocket book, a compilation of verses from the Quran on gender relations. Reading them gives the son an idea of Islam that is very different from what the ulema have been telling Muslims. It cools him down, for now at least.
Tahera Apa is not the only Muslim woman facing the heat for demanding that the “inhuman, unjust, anti-women and un-Islamic” Muslim personal law in India be reformed, as it’s been in over 20 Muslim-majority countries. Burqa-clad Zeenat Apa, from another basti in Mumbai, seethes as she narrates what Abu Asim Azmi, the Samajwadi Party MLA, reportedly said at a public meeting, “Agar chaar shadiyaan nahi karenge to kya hamari bewa auraton ko kothe pe bithayenge?” (If we’re prohibited from marrying four women, should we send our widows to brothels?). Azmi later “clarified” that he was only talking of women from his family, not Muslim women in general.
A few days later, Muslim women from Zeenat Apa’s basti who were running a counter-signature campaign supporting reforms were jostled and abused by a group of men. “Since then, even women who want triple talaq, halala and polygamy to go have been bullied into signing in the Board’s support,” she says.
But at a gathering of 25 Muslim women from across Mumbai, the mood is upbeat. “Deen aur dastoor dono hamaare haq mein hai. Hum ladenge, hum peechay nahin hatenge.” (Both the Quran and the Constitution are on our side. We will fight, we will not withdraw), they asserted with confidence. Of course, Tahera Apa was there.

The writer is general secretary, Muslims for Secular Democracy, and co-editor, ‘Communalism Combat’

India: The Debate on Triple Talaq Must be Based on Proper Research and Data

The Wire

The Debate on Triple Talaq Must be Based on Proper Research and Data

By Faizan Mustafa on 06/11/2016 

Reports published by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan leave several questions about Muslim personal law unanswered.

Representational image. Credit: Robert Schrader/ Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The debate over Muslim personal law (MPL) has taken a serious turn in recent weeks with the government of India filing an affidavit supporting its reform. While the All India Muslim Personal Law Board  (AIMPLB) – established in 1972 – is being blamed for all the regressive provisions of MPL (Hanafi Law) in operation in India for about 1000 years, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), formed in 2007, is rightly given credit for aggressively leading the current debate to reform MPL. The prime minister himself spoke of the plight of Muslim women a few days back and promised to bring an end to what he called the tyranny of triple talaq.
What’s at stake?
The BMMA deserves credit for undertaking two major empirical studies on the MPL but its statistical findings have at times been contradictory. The first study says 88% of divorces were unilateral while the second study says 59% divorces were unilateral., to give one example. Both the government and the media have blindly relied on these studies to make the case for reform. I am also not opposed to either the demand for reforming MPL or even to a uniform civil code. My concern in the present context is whether we can really achieve ‘gender justice’ simply by ‘banning’ polygamy and triple talaq.
The BMMA has come up with two reports. The first one is based on 117 case studies of triple talaq – though their study details only 88 cases and from one state, they have picked up just three cases. The second is a survey of 4710 Muslim women.
The BMMA maintains that it is a democratic organisation of Muslim women led by Muslim women which fights for the ‘Quranic rights of Muslim women’. Thus the fundamental premise of their argument with which a liberal scholar may disagree is that they simply want those rights for Muslim women which are given to them by the Quran. Like many others, the BMMA erroneously thinks that the Quran is a code of law or a statute enacted by the parliament. As a matter of fact, the Quran is neither a legal nor a constitutive document. The Quran by itself is not law. It is the source of law. Law is to be extracted from the Quran through interpretation.
The BMMA’s position is problematic on a number of points as they demand several rights which are not provided in the Quran, such as mandatory wills or gifts in favour of daughters to ensure that their share of inheritance is more equitable. Moreover, most constitutionalists would have problems with Quranic rights as they do fall short on women’s rights, as judged by modern standards.
The BMMA runs shariat courts with some efficiency but no one has bothered to question this parallel judicial forum run by them. Just like the AIMPLB, the BMMA too has asserted in the Supreme Court that ‘Muslim personal law’ is related to the ‘core religious beliefs’ of Islam and is thus, protected by the freedom of religion under Article 25 of the constitution read with Article 26. This position excludes the possibility of major reform in the MPL as courts have consistently held that freedom of religion under Article 26 protects the ‘essential or core’ religious practices of both “religious denominations as well as sects thereof”.
Thus the Hanafi sect and its law stand protected. Similarly, just like the AIMPLB, the BMMA too, opposes the uniform civil code and has explicitly asserted in the apex court that the same is ‘neither desirable nor practical.’
To be fair to the BMMA, one must concede that it is not asking for much. In fact, the BMMA looks as confused as Shayara Bano. Both of them have asserted in court that triple talaq, as per judicial verdicts, is now counted as one and yet asks the court to hold it as unconstitutional. Those opposing it are also not free from fault. As a matter of fact, the BMMA is basically asking that instant oral triple talaq must end and that the Quranic procedure of divorce in three months, with prior efforts of reconciliation between spouses, be strictly followed.
Thus they are not asking for revolutionary change but simply requesting the court for an ‘Islamisation’ of MPL. Most liberal scholars have been making similar demands and are against instant triple talaq. I feel courts have already ruled on this question in a number of cases and, indeed, such cases have been quoted by the BMMA in its application to the Supreme Court. To that extent,  the current hue and cry is  unwarranted.
Problems with BMMA’s research
The empirical studies undertaken by the BMMA to substantiate their views and demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of Muslim women want reforms in the MPL can be questioned in terms of their scientific validity and empiricism. The study titled ‘Seeking Justice Within Family – A National Study of Muslim Women’s Views on Reforms in Muslim Personal Law’ was published in March 2015. Any empirical study must clearly reveal its research methodology and the reasons for adopting the same. The sampling methodology needs to be revealed so that the reader may understand the representative nature of the sample.
There are internationally recognised norms and any research which claims to be scientific, must conform to them. Neither the aforesaid survey of 4710 Muslim women from 10 states, nor the study entitled ‘No More Talaq, Talaq, Talaq’ published in October 2015 – based on case studies of 117 Muslim women in eight states – mention the research methodology. The BMMA study relies solely on its self-selected respondents. What was the basis on which certain states or districts were selected and others excluded? What were the parameters by which the 4710 women were identified? Why did the BMMA not talk to their husbands, family members, neighbours as well to corroborate the accounts? In the absence of answers, their study cannot be termed scientific. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, who led one of the studies, has herself admitted that they prepared the study on the basis of their interaction with women they work with.
The first major finding of their initial study is that 15.5% women out of 4710 were married below 15 years of age.  No question was asked about the “option at puberty” under MPL, which entitles a minor to nullify his/her marriage, nor about how many of them exercised it, or why they could not. The study did not mention the shocking finding that 1.2 crore children in India are married before they reach the age of 10 and the percentage of Hindus among them – 84% – is in keeping with the share of Hindus in the population.  Eleven percent of Muslim children were married before reaching 10.  These figures also show the limitation of normative changes in the law. The Child Marriage Restraint Act,1929, and the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act, 2006, incorporate the general law of the land and are applicable to Muslims – yet these laws have not had their desired effects in any community.
The BMMA, which stands for codification, found that 83.3% of respondents thought ‘full codification of MPL was the answer to their fight for legal justice’. Despite the low level of education among Muslim women, as many as 35.2% of respondents were aware of codified laws in the Islamic countries and understood all the implications of codification. The BMMA should have asked its respondents how they came to know about the codification of law in Muslim countries. Even the government, in its affidavit to the apex court favouring the banning of polygamy has quoted the example of eight Muslim countries without realising that most of them have not really ‘banned’ polygamy.
Triple talaq
Muslim divorce is the central concern of the BMMA. It told the Supreme Court that in 2014 its Shariat courts received 219 cases of which only 22 were about triple talaq. Their study found that 22% divorces occur within the first year and 22% within first three years. Only 0.2% of the divorces happen after 15 years of marriage and 0.4% after 20 years of marriage. Shayara Bano got divorced after 15 years. This means hers is an exceptional case, like Shah Bano. As per the BMMA survey, the divorce rate amongst Muslims is as high as 11.1%. But the 2011 census data says that divorce rate amongst Muslims is just 0.56% (0.53 in 2001 census). This disparity has not been explained by the BMMA’s researchers. Ideally, there should have been comparative analysis with the divorce rates amongst Hindus. If divorce and separation are clubbed together, the Hindu rate would be 0.76%.
Contrary to popular perception that most Muslim women get unilateral divorces through phone, email and via text messages, the BMMA case study shows only one divorce out of the 117 was delivered in the absence of wife. As per the  BMMA’s own findings, only 0.2% got divorced over the phone, 0.6% received it through email and out of 525 divorces, only one was delivered via SMS, that is only 0.19%. Thus the problem is not as serious as it is made out to be by the media and the government. Moreover, as many as 220 divorces occurred in family homes, 110 in court and 46 through Darul Qaza. Thus as many as 71.6% of divorces happened publicly, according to the BMMA’s study, in the presence of family members, judges, lawyers, panchayats, NGOs and qazis. One is inclined to believe that in most cases there must have been some effort at reconciliation prior to actual divorce pronouncement and divorce in most cases was just the final act of  amicably dissolving the marriage.
The BMMA study itself reveals that in as many as 40.57% cases, Muslim women demanded a divorce and therefore it is clear that poor Muslim women, even under the existing and regressive MPL, do take initiative on their own. Thus the BMMA has exaggerated the problem of unilateral divorces. A triple talaq at the request of the wife or her family or as a result of mutual consent between two families may not be that unjust. As compared to this, what about Hindu wives who are unceremoniously discarded on flimsy grounds? The husbands remarry thereafter, without divorce, leaving these destitute women to fend for themselves. The Law Commission should conduct a detailed empirical study on the plight of Hindu women as well before it submits its report for a uniform civil code.
Polygamy 
The BMMA has powerfully argued for the abolition of polygamy and one may really be inclined to agree with them in the absence of a more nuanced solution. ‘Banning’ or ‘prohibiting’ does not fall within the purview of the Supreme Court. No court can create ‘offences’. The first principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the legislature alone can create ‘crimes’ or ‘prohibit’ or ‘ban’ something. Thus the court has no power to either ban polygamy or triple talaq. This is the parliament’s prerogative.
Interestingly the BMMA’s case study has not probed the issue of polygamy at all. In an indirect observation, it demonstrates the extremely low incidence of polygamy amongst Muslims. Here again, petitioner Shayara Bano is not a victim of polygamy and thus she is not an aggrieved party – but still in the very first paragraph of her petition she requests banning polygamy. She has filed a writ petition to get her own divorce deed declared as void ab initio. The BMMA study shows that only 2% of Muslim men had taken a second wife prior to divorce and as many as 38% preferred to remain single even after divorce. The BMMA researchers cannot complain about the 54% who married someone after divorce as this cannot be termed as bigamy. The BMMA study also did not include questions about how many divorced women got remarried.
Maintainance and ‘nikah halala’
The BMMA study reveals that only 50% of women get maintenance during the ‘subsistence of marriage’. This means post-divorce, destitution is not the only issue. Even married women during the continuance of their marriage are not being maintained by their husbands. The existing law is absolutely clear on this point. The study does not tell us why they could not use these provisions.
Most liberal scholars are against halala which they argue is an un-Islamic practice. Here again, Shayara Bano is not a victim of halala. The BMMA case study mentions just two cases out of 117 where respondents said that ‘they were asked to undergo halala’ – i.e. marriage to a second husband before they can return to the first. The weakness of their questionnaire becomes evident as there was no follow-up question on who asked them to undergo halala. In the second study as well, they found 1.6 % of women underwent halala. Thus, a massive majority of 85.52% of the divorcees were not subjected to halala. Again, the BMMA study does not tell us why these women went back to their husbands who were not giving them maintenance even during subsistence of the marriage.
Again, the BMMA study does not tell us why these women went back to their husbands who were not giving them maintenance even while they were married and had been subjecting them to domestic violence. Did their parents force them to remarry first husbands? Was this intervening marriage used as a device to facilitate their remarriage with the first husband? Do they have the nikahnama of these marriages? Did they freely consent to the second marriage? Were they given triple talaqs in these marriages? Did they receive their mehr for these marriages? The BMMA in its petition, admitted that the Masroor Ahmad case has now negated the effect of so-called halala.  If so, this means the problem has been solved by the judiciary. The BMMA has not clarified whether it is in agreement with so-called halala in the event that the divorce is in ahsan form, i.e., just one pronouncement as per the procedure prescribed in the Quran.
Let us try to understand this controversial subject of intervening marriage, or halala, from the perspective of the MPL. As a matter of fact, a Muslim can revoke his first divorce within three months without doing anything. If three months have passed without revocation, and if both the husband and the wife want to revive their relationship, they may simply remarry with a fresh nikah and mehr. If again, after some time, there is a second divorce, the husband may either revoke the divorce on his own within three months or remarry yet again if three months have passed. If the same story gets repeated a third time, then MPL treats the husband and wife as within ‘prohibited degrees’ and they cannot remarry each other any longer.  But in case the wife contracts another marriage with someone else and this second marriage too collapses on its own accord or if she becomes a widow, and if her first husband and she, out of their own free will, want to marry yet again, the prohibition stands removed and they can enter a fresh marriage contract. But no intervening marriage is permissible as an arranged device to simply remove the prohibition of marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act also talks of ‘prohibited degrees’ within which marriage is not permitted. Even the Special Marriage Act, which is the most progressive piece of legislation, also mentions certain ‘prohibited degrees’.
BMMA and shariat courts
The BMMA in their application to the Supreme Court has referred to Shariat courts run by them. They have stated that 219 cases came to these courts in three centres. Again domestic violence, dowry harassment, alcoholism of husbands, suspicious nature etc., appears to be the major problems – and the BMMA claims to have resolved most of them. How these cases were resolved is not clear. Did they end in reconciliation? If yes, can it be presumed that the husbands participated in the proceedings and did not pronounce triple talaq while the reconciliation procedure was going on? This analysis defeats their case that a Muslim husband pronounces instant oral talaq on the flimsiest grounds.
Alternatively, did the BMMA use the Domestic Violence Act? How were the many erring husbands held liable owing to BMMA’s intervention, not mentioned? How much money was spent on these litigations by the poor victims of domestic violence and how much time did these cases take? What difficulties did they face in using the criminal justice system – particularly section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The BMMA gives no data on vital issues like how they dealt with issues like dowry and domestic violence.
The BMMA shows the deplorable condition of Muslim women. But their condition is much the same as Hindu women from the same social class. The evil of instant ‘Triple talaq’ need only be replaced with the sin of ‘desertion’. Why is no one bothered about the plight of Hindu women on the issue of domestic violence, desertion and polygamy? The recent film, Parched, highlights this reality. The problems of poor women amongst all religious communities are similar and there is nothing special or distinct about Muslim women. The class character must be given due consideration in the analysis of any social problem.
Should the Supreme Court or government take crucial decisions to reform personal law on the basis of such unscientific research? The apex court should ask the Law Commission to conduct a major comparative study on this subject to know the ground realities of women from various religious communities. On its part, the government should release all the data from the socio-economic- caste census. Let this research be used as a starting point for a truly informed debate on the plight of women in Indian society – all women, regardless of caste, region or religion.
The author is the vice-chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. The views expressed here are personal.

India: Alternate voices on talaq - Jyoti Punwani

Mumbai Mirror

Alternate voices on talaq
By Jyoti Punwani, Mumbai Mirror | Oct 23, 2016

More and more Muslim men are speaking out, though in hushed tones, against the practice that lets them dissolve their marriage with just a single word.

Shehnaaz Sheikh was 24 when she challenged Muslim Personal Law in the Supreme Court in 1983, the first one to do so. Her husband had pronounced triple talaq at one sitting after two years of marriage, but under pressure from her parents, kept calling her back. Mumbai’s muftis gave her different fatwas on whether the talaq was final or not. When a lawyer explained to her that under Muslim law, there was little she could do, she decided to challenge the entire set of provisions regarding marriage, divorce and inheritance that make up Muslim Personal Law. “I wanted to be treated as an equal citizen,” she tells Mumbai Mirror.

Then followed two years of physical threats, changing homes and jobs, for she was now an “enemy of Islam”. Her father publicly disowned her. What kept her going, she says, was the support of the feminist “Forum Against Oppression of Women”, which made her cause its own. Just a few brave Muslim women openly supported her: historian Asiya Siddiqui, Women’s India Trust founder Kamila Tyabji, Prof Anees Syed, Shabana Azmi.

In the thick of this campaign came the Shah Bano judgment and the furore against it, whipped up by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), followed by the opening of the locks of the 450-year-old Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, and the BJP’s campaign to demolish it. Shehnaaz’s petition never came up for hearing, but she went on to set up the first feminist Muslim women’s organisation Awaaz e Niswaan (voice of women).

Shehnaaz had to flee her home during Mumbai’s 92-93 riots, yet she got Awaaz e Niswaan involved in relief work. All of this led to a nervous breakdown, and she turned to Vipassana. But the Neerja Bhanot Award winner has no regrets about her petition; in fact, Shehnaaz feels that the campaign sowed the seeds for the current challenge to Muslim Personal Law. “It’s heartening to see so many Muslim women approaching the Supreme Court. I was alone, walking in a desert, falling and picking myself up. What’s amazing is that this time, so many men are supporting these women.”

Among them is 80-year-old Mohammed Imran, an engineer from a distinguished Lucknow family. “While nikaah is a legal contract between two equals,” says Imran, “triple talaq is an abomination that takes away all the rights of the wife in the contract and gives them to the husband. This is legally and morally unacceptable. The concept of nikaah has become corrupted in Muslim society.” Imran points out that the Shariah is a collection of Quranic ayats, Hadees and Fiqh, and includes the personal opinions of the Ulema composing it. “It is neither divine nor immutable, as claimed by the AIMPLB.”

‘AIMPLB brainchild of politicians’

“80 per cent of the applications in our family courts are filed by Muslim women divorced through instant triple talaq,’’ says advocate Kader Sayani, who claims he was not allowed to speak at a meeting last week, after he told the organiser, Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi: “Please take us forward, not backwards. Triple talaq has been banned in so many Islamic countries. Act against this sinful practice.”

Sayani questions the authority of the AIMPLB to represent Muslims. “The Board is the brainchild of politicians who want to win Muslim votes. It has no legal standing.”

Many practising Muslim men share this abhorrence of both triple talaq and the AIMPLB. But few are willing to own up to it in the current atmosphere, for fear of being branded anti-Islam.

The Law Commission has chosen to release its questionnaire on a Uniform Civil Code while the triple talaq petitions are being debated. Hence these petitions have been submerged under the explosive issue of one-lawfor-all. Falling straight into the BJP’s trap (given that the UP elections are near), the AIMPLB is whipping up an “Islam-in-danger” hysteria, as it had during Shah Bano’s time.

‘Shariah faces threat from within’

On condition of anonymity, however, some men freely expressed their rejection of the AIMPLB’s stand on triple talaq. One of them had even called up a leading light of the Board to express his horror at the views expressed in its affidavit in the Supreme Court, only to be told off harshly.

“The issue of triple talaq should be analysed as a social practice that needs correction, not from an ‘RSS+BJP+Left+Liberals V/s Muslims’ angle,” said businessman Abbas (name changed). “The Shariah is not merely limited to the validity of instant triple talaq. The Ulema should realise that the Shariah faces a larger threat from within than from outside. Its spirit is badly damaged daily by Muslims.”

Activist M Saleem (name changed), an engineer by profession, was aghast at the AIMPLB’s affidavit. “It equates Islam with patriarchy, whereas Prophet Mohammed preached justice and equity. Marriage has to be based on justice. Besides, this affidavit reflects only the Deobandi viewpoint. The Ahle Hadees and the Shias do not accept instant triple talaq. Why has the Board not informed the court that there is no unanimity in this practice? Should we call it the Deobandi Personal Law Board?’’

Saleem wondered how the AIMPLB had formulated its views without calling for opinions from the community. “Where is the space for debate on such an important issue? I hope the religious organisations supporting the AIMPLB will give us the space to dissent and initiate reform.”

‘Board’s bizarre logic’

Waheed (name changed), a businessman who has been working with the community since the 92-93 riots, felt that the AIMPLB should have consulted scholars from renowned Islamic seminaries such as Cairo’s Al Azhar before submitting its affidavit. Referring to the fear expressed in the affidavit, that men might murder their wives at night if thwarted from giving instant talaq, Waheed hoped that the Supreme Court would order the arrest of the signatories to the affidavit. “Do these men have daughters? The court should ask them on what basis they claim to represent Muslims. Our women are right in approaching the court for justice.”

Some, however, felt the AIMPLB did represent the community, and it was right in rejecting judicial interference in Muslim Personal Law. But even they acknowledged that instant triple talaq was a problem.

They wanted the AIMPLB to assure the court that it would prescribe timebound punishments for those who gave such talaqs: either a social boycott, or getting their property attached.

Given this growing revulsion for instant triple talaq among ordinary men too, Muslim women have reason to hope.

India: How the Ulema Are Jumping, Feet First, into the BJP’s Trap (Zafar Agha)

https://sabrangindia.in/article/how-ulema-are-jumping-feet-first-bjp%E2%80%99s-trap

How the Ulema Are Jumping, Feet First, into the BJP’s Trap

Written by Zafar Agha | Published on: October 24, 2016

If the Board fails to put reason above emotion, the only possible conclusion will be that wittingly unwittingly it is playing the BJP’s game.

Image: Divyakant Solanki / EPA

Muslim Personal Law is hot news these days. Statements after statements are being issued from the Muslim Personal Law Board on one hand and the BJP leaders on the other concerning the issue of the triple talaq practice prevalent in India. Members of the Board are proclaiming that Islam is in danger, enjoining upon Muslims to be ready to sacrifice their lives if need be to ensure that the right of Muslim men to the triple talaq practice is not interfered with. In other words, Muslims are being told that if men were prohibited from instantly divorcing their wives by simply uttering ‘talaq, talaq, talaq’, it would (Allah forbid!) spell the end of Islam in the world.

Muslims are being told that if men were prohibited from instantly divorcing their wives by simply uttering ‘talaq, talaq, talaq’, it would (Allah forbid!) spell the end of Islam.

Is Islam only about the right to instant divorce? Does Islam deny to Muslim women the right to ask her husband at the time of divorce: “Sir, what wrong have I committed that you are unilaterally damning me to hell in the here and now? And what about the all important question: Do countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which claim to be governed according to the Quran and the Shariah also give Muslim men the right to unilateral, instant talaq?

The fact is that neither is Islam limited to the practice of triple talaq, nor has Islam given men the right to divorce their wives without rhyme or reason, nor do Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan consider the triple talaq practice to be in accordance with the Shariah. Why then is the Muslim Personal Law Board crying itself hoarse over this issue? We will revert to this question a little later.

The other equally important question is this. Why is the BJP so seemingly concerned to ensure to Muslim women their rights? Having demolished the Babri Masjid, having sponsored the genocidal targeting of Gujarat’s Muslims, why is the BJP now losing sleep over the need to reform Muslim society? It is but obvious that reform of Muslim society, gender justice for Muslim women is a mere facade.

The real objective is altogether different. Everyone knows that stopping the practice of triple talaq among Muslims has for long been part of the BJP and the sangh parivar’s communal agenda. It is the contention of the BJP and the sangh parivar that because of this practice Muslim men marry four wives and produce numerous offspring. This is how, according to them, the Muslim population keeps multiplying and the day would soon dawn when Muslims will become the majority and Hindus reduced to a minority in India. Once again the BJP and the sangh parivar have raised the Muslim bogey with the sole intent of prejudicing Hindus and deepen communal polarisation.

The question is: where is the urgency, what has prompted the BJP and the sangh parivar to stir fear of Muslims among Hindus at this juncture? After all, the party is ruling the roost at the Centre. The Modi government faces no imminent threat; there is no real challenge as of today. Along with the Congress all opposition parties are in a state of disarray.

Where is the looming crisis propelling the BJP into rallying all Hindus behind it? Please remember that in the coming months Assembly elections are due in five states, including Uttar Pradesh. UP is not only the most populous state in India with the largest number of voters. It is also the state where in the 2014 general elections, the BJP had bagged 72 of the total 80 Lok Sabha seats in UP. It is also the state where Muslims constitute around 25per cent of the total population.

Further, as in case of Bihar, because of Mandal politics, in UP too Hindu voters tend to vote along caste lines. It’s because of this factor that BJP lost heavily in the last Assembly polls in Bihar. If the same pattern were to repeat itself in UP and Hindu votes are fragmented along caste lines while Muslims votes are consolidated, BJP could face a similar debacle here too.

Therefore in the coming polls in UP a few months from now, it is critical from the sangh parivar’s point of view that instead of fragmentation along caste lines a Hindu vote bank is consolidated in the BJP’s favour. In the absence of this, the BJP’s prospects in UP will remain uncertain.

The issue therefore is this. How to get Hindus to think of religion instead of caste in the run-up to the elections? Ever since the implementation of Mandal Commission’s recommendations for OBC reservations, the BJP and the sangh parivar have hit upon a simple formula. Prompt Muslims to unite. Let them organise rallies after rallies, scream ‘Islam in danger’, chant ‘Allah-o-Akbar’! When that happens Hindus will begin to feel this country too is beginning to look like Pakistan.

As is only to be expected the media will gleefully publicise these rallies, live telecast images of massive Muslim gatherings, project the atmosphere surcharged with cries of Allah-o-Akbar to imprint on Hindu minds the spectre of Muslims uniting on a single platform. Once the anxieties over aggressive Muslim unity is firmly planted in Hindu minds, what is sure to follow are even larger rallies mobilised by the VHP and other sangh parivar outfits with the counter ‘Jai Shri Ram!’ cry filling the streets.

Thus by the time the polls draw close, putting aside caste considerations they will rally behind those projecting themselves as “protectors of Hindus”. Hindus will then turn out in large numbers to vote for the BJP while the by now fear-gripped ordinary Muslims will stay behind closed doors praying to Allah to save their lives. And in that moment there will be no sign either of the Muslim Personal Board or of the self-appointed leaders who had earlier sworn to lay down their lives for the sake of Islam and the Muslim community.

This is by no means an imaginary scenario. The Muslim community has been through this very experience again and again. This is exactly what happened at the time of the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi face-off. Leaders of the Muslim community had then organised thousands of rallies across the country under the banner of the Babri Masjid Action Committee. Delhi’s Boat Club then had resounded with cries of the ‘Allah-o-Akbar’. What followed were mammoth rallies mobilised by the likes of Uma Bharti which shook the nation with cries of ‘Jai Shri Ram!’

In the end the Babri Masjid was demolished. While thousands of ordinary Muslims were killed in the communal violence that followed, nothing untoward happened to the leading lights from the Babri Masjid Action Committee.

The same scenario is being reenacted In the name of triple talaq. Please note that what is happening today is the product of a cleverly conceived political ploy of the BJP. As the drama unfolds, Muslims will once again be in the forefront and there will be publicity aplenty by the electronic media. Next, an Uma Bharti type demagogue will emerge on the scene and cries of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ will once again rent the air.

This will unite Hindus by election time and voting will assume the form of a Hindu vs. Muslim jihad. Hindus will leave caste considerations aside and vote as Hindus. It’s not difficult to guess who will then emerge victorious from the polls.

The Muslim Personal Law Board needs to look before it leaps. Emotive sloganeering and taking to the streets should be the last thing on their mind. The issue of Muslim Personal Law is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Wisdom lies in focusing all one’s energy on the legal issues involved and not in organising rallies and raising religiously-charged slogans. If the Board fails to put reason above emotion, the only possible conclusion will be that wittingly unwittingly it is playing the BJP’s game.

(This is an English translation of Zafar Agha's original column in Urdu published by the daily Raabta Times). 

India: Why Flavia Agnes ends up on the same side as the anti-women Muslim Personal Law Board: Javed Anand

scroll.in


Why Flavia Agnes ends up on the same side as the anti-women Muslim Personal Law Board: Javed Anand
Contrary to her argument, the so-called concessions in the Board’s affidavit to the apex court is a tactical move for survival and continued relevance.


I am reminded of a friend who used to say, “Bhaagte bhoot ko langoti sahi." He would then go on to translate his version of the popular Hindi saying as: "To a fleeing devil trying to hide his shame, a loin cloth would do.”

The “few positives for women” that Flavia Agnes discovered in an affidavit recently filed by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board in the Supreme Court are just that.

Last week, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind launched a law institute to bring prominent muftis (experts in Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh) and legal luminaries among Muslims together for the first time for a training course on Muslim Personal Law. At the inaugural of the institute, the highly-regarded Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, general secretary, Islamic Fiqh Academy, declared that “triple talaq is as essential for law as a toilet is for any home”.

Got it? A toilet is not a great place to go to, but when you need to quickly excrete the unwanted out of your system, flush it out of sight, where else? So also with an unwanted wife.

The toilet analogy found no mention in the Board’s current affidavit before the apex court. Perhaps it will in future affidavits or arguments. However, even as it is, the Board’s affidavit reeks of a medieval, misogynist mindset.
No concessions

The three “important takeaways” that Agnes nonetheless managed to extract from a document that stinks are as follows. One, in its affidavit, the Board, for the first time, publicly accepted the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shamim Ara case wherein triple talaq or instant divorce was declared invalid. Two, the Board, also for the first time, conceded that a Muslim woman victim of domestic violence has the right to claim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a secular statute. Three, the Board at last “seems to have accepted” the judicial interpretation that the community-specific Muslim Women (Protection of Rights upon Divorce) Act entitled a Muslim woman to a fair and reasonable provision for her entire life, not only for three months as it had earlier argued in the Danial Latifi case.

Agnes would have us believe that these three important public concessions by the Board mark a huge religio-cultural leap towards gender justice by India’s Sunni ulema, or religious scholars. “The agency of the Muslim woman and her multiple choices, which are seldom highlighted, are captured in a nutshell in this affidavit,” wrote Agnes.

In an earlier article in Scroll.in, Agnes had made the same argument. And now that the Board has conceded crucial ground, where’s the point in Muslim women trooping back to the Supreme Court seeking an end to triple talaq, nikah halala (the stipulation that a divorced Muslim woman cannot remarry her former husband until she marries and divorces another man after having sex with him), and polygamy?

On halala, Agnes wisely maintains a discreet silence since there is absolutely no space for manoeuvre here. On polygamy, she sees yet another “important takeway” in the Board’s affidavit. Though she has problems with the “clumsy manner” in which the Board has argued the case for continuing polygamy, both are on the same page.
Polygamy vs bigamy

Muslim women, who have petitioned the Supreme Court, want polygamy to be declared unconstitutional, and banned along with triple talaq and halala. But the ulema want polygamy to stay as part of Muslim Personal Law. And so does Agnes, in a roundabout way. For the former, it is because the Quran so permits it. For Agnes, there is the “harsh ground reality” that the Hindu Marriage Act has hardly helped curb bigamy.

Agnes argues that because the “second wife” of a Muslim man is legally recognised, she has the “same status” as the first wife. Thus, Muslim women are far better placed than their Hindu sisters because having banned bigamy, the Hindu Marriage Act refuses recognition to the second wife. As a result, the Hindu second wife has no legal claim on her husband’s income or wealth and in case of separation, she is rendered destitute. Monogamy sounds good in principle, in line with the constitutional right to equality and non-discrimination. But in practice, barring bigamy renders the second wife highly vulnerable.

But what about the first wife? Is cash for sex what marriage is all about? These do not seem to register on Agnes’ radar. For others, including the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, polygamy is a matter of serious concern because of its consequences for women (first wife or second) and children within such marriages.

Yasmin Rehman, who has been researching polygamous practices in the UK for the past six years, notes:

“The emotional and psychological impact of polygamy is significant with some women stating they felt they had somehow failed as a wife, others were burdened by the shame of being a first wife as they knew they were being pitied at one level and judged at another. The hierarchy of wives and ensuing competition for the attention of their husbands places a huge strain on women. Polygamy drives down the age of women and girls, it also enables older men of wealth and status to gain sexual access to young women for marriage. I have gathered evidence of incidents of physical, psychological and sexual abuse directly linked to their polygamous marriages – either due to resisting it or the dynamics within these unions”.

Rehman quotes author Geraldine Brooks, who in her book, Nine Parts of Desire, refers to polygamy as:

“...[T]he spectre that haunts every Muslim woman…The threat, possibility and fear that their present or future husband may take another wife is a reality for many Muslim women, and undoubtedly influences their perception and management of their relationships”.

Unlike Agnes, while Rehman believes that responding to polygamy requires much more than a mere ban on its practice, she is fully alive to the multiple consequences for women and children of this grossly discriminatory practice against women. It’s not just a question of money.

In keeping with Agnes’ monochromatic perspective on polygamy, one might as well ask: Why not demand that the personal law for Hindus be amended to legalise bigamy in order to bring the Hindu second wife on par with her Muslim counterpart? This Agnes cannot do for it would take her to the camp of right-wing Hindu men, who agonise over being denied the same right that Muslim men are free to enjoy: the right to multiple wives.
Who knows best?

We have a truly ironical situation here. Despite her disclaimers, her distancing herself from the internal contradictions in the Board’s affidavit, Agnes effectively ends up on the same side of the street as the male-oriented All India Muslim Personal Law Board.

On the other side of the street is an entire spectrum of Muslim women who individually and collectively have petitioned the Supreme Court. Shayara Bano (Uttarakhand), Afreen Rehman (Rajasthan) Ishrat Jahan (West Bengal), Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan and the Bebaak Collective. The All India Muslim Women’s Personal Law Board, an organisation that years ago parted ways with its “anti-women” counterpart, is heading towards the apex court too.

Are we to believe then that Muslim women don’t know what’s good for them, but the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Agnes do?

Contrary to how it appears to Agnes, the ulema in India have made no conceptual leap. The Board’s affidavit is simply a tactical move for survival and continued relevance. Until Shayara Bano and following her, a host of Muslim women petitioned the Supreme Court, the ulema were content co-habiting in a live-and-let-live world. It was wise on their part to continue running their male-oriented Darul Qazas (Shariah courts), and maintain strategic silence while individual Muslim women approached the courts in search of justice. But what will happen to them and their institutions if the apex court rules that triple talaq, nikaah halala and polygamy are unconstitutional?

Clearly, it’s time for the ulema to at least appear reasonable. The “important takeaways” from the Board’s affidavit mean nothing more than the fact that it is now compelled to concede in writing what it in any case has been reconciled to for years. No one dared challenge verdict after verdict from the high courts and the Supreme Court declaring the triple talaq practice as invalid from a Quranic perspective. The takeaways are simply the langoti the Board needs to run away from the shame of their continuing denial of justice to Muslim women.