By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New
14 September 2016
Muslim media is in a state. Acclaimed poet
and writer Javed Akhtar has rightly condemned the All India Muslim Personal Law
Board (AIMPLB) “in the strongest words” for justifying the instant divorce
prevalent in India. In its affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the AIMPLB had
defended the practice of triple talaq and polygamy, professing that “polygamy
is a social need and a blessing and not a curse for women.
The Muslim reaction to Javed Akhtar’s tweet
can be summed up by what Khalid Yunus Ansari wrote in Pratap of 11 September:
“There has never been any dearth of opportunists and traitors among Muslims.
These people may appear intelligent and educated but are ignorant of Muslim
mores. … A real Muslim is one who consciously and even sub-consciously believes
in and follows Islamic Laws, someone who cannot even imagine finding fault with
or challenging or violating any of them. Even imagining any fault with Muslim
Laws is absolute kufr (disbelief), not to speak of expressing such
I have been reading Urdu newspapers for 45
years. While Muslims have been constantly fighting for the so-called Muslim
Personal Law which allows them to treat women as inferior beings, never have I
come across any Muslim demand for being governed by Islamic criminal laws. If
Sharia is so important, if it is such a vital part of our faith, then why this
dichotomy? Except for drinking alcohol, punishments for all other hudud crimes
(mentioned in the Quran, considered crimes against God) are to be amputation,
flogging and beheading. One would have thought that at least those Muslims who
are so particular about following Sharia, and, of course, all ulema who
consider Sharia divine, would demand the implementation of the entire Sharia.
Why follow only the part that helps keep women subjugated and avoid those that
may lead to severe medieval punishments specified by Quran and Hadees.
Triple talaq or instant divorce is
one of the evils emanating from the personal laws instituted for Muslims by the
British. Hardly any Muslim in India follows the Quran-based practice of divorce
in three stages, encompassing three menstrual cycles. After Independence from
the British, a united Pakistan had refused to accept the Anglo-Mohammedan Law
and reformed its personal law in 1961. These reforms have passed the test of
time. Pakistan has since gone through much upheaval including an era of
Nizam-e-Mustafa under General Ziaul Haq, in which even traditional pre-Islamic
forms of punishment like whips and lashes and public flogging were practised
for Hudud violations. So what progressive Muslims in India should be and indeed
have been demanding for long is reforms in Muslim personal law itself. But
perhaps we should also be demanding that those who claim to believe in the
divinity of Sharia should be punished in medieval Hudud ways. If the government
cannot reform Muslim Personal Laws, out of deference for ulema’s views, it can
at least extend Hudud punishments to them. Ulema say Muslims have to be fully
Muslim, accept Sharia laws literally, not be partial Muslim. The ulema must be
given the option to face medieval Hudud punishments and be fully Muslim
according to their own interpretation.
Reform of Muslim personal law is urgent. A
demand for this has been made for decades. This is inevitably opposed and
equally inevitably exposes the two-facedness of Islamic fundamentalists. India
should not tolerate these archaic and un-Islamic personal laws.
But, to my mind, the most important benefit
is the opening up of a theological debate within the community. This has
already started to a certain extent.
Reacting to Dr Tahir Mahmood’s recent call
for reform, AIMPLB’s Secretary Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani made a
dangerous and subversive statement. He said: “This issue is not related to the
laws of the country but it is an issue related to Fatwa. Hence this issue
should be dealt with by reliable scholars of Islamic jurisdiction.”
The clerics questioning Supreme Court’s
jurisdiction should understand that the Muslims are as much subject to the
Indian Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court as any other
citizen. Muslim personal law is a part of the Constitution and the Supreme
Court has every right to interpret it. Progressive Muslims are not committing a
sin by encouraging the courts to intervene in the matter.
The most important outcome of this debate,
however, is that it is breaching the complete stagnation in Islamic theological
thinking. This is essential to replace the current theology of violence,
exclusivism, xenophobia and intolerance with a new Islamic theology of peace,
coexistence, inclusiveness, pluralism and gender equality.
Note: This article was first published
in India Today’s Daily newspaper Mail Today and its online newspaper Daily “O”.
Ahmad AL-Hakeem, B.A Civil Engineering, Qassim University
“True Sharia law is never practices in any Muslim country
despite what they might say .. Muslims countries are of three types:
“Countries ruled by western-backed military dictators who
struggle against Islam in general since it goes against them.
“Monarchies that claim to follow it but really don’t .. they
might restrict it to one class of people or allow what’s not allowable (like
financial interest) by giving it some bullshit name.
“democracies like Malasia and Turkey where they’re slowly
regaining a lot of their freedom back (turkey un particular) and implementing
aspects of Sharia back into the government.
“Sharia is both very detailed and broad in subjects. So, on
personal and community level it’s practiced and held by the people themselves,
not governments. On the government level, somethings like divorce or
inheritance laws generally follow Islamic ruling.”