Triple talaq in India Quotes (2019-)

“In a recent essay Tahir Mahmood goes even further: on his reckoning the Triple talaq is not just a rule which the Islamic jurists formulated to help women be rid of undesirable husbands, it is a rule which the jurists came to recognize and accept at the initiative of the aggrieved women! ‘This simple but meaningful reform introduced by the Prophet got corrupted in the course of time,’ he writes, recounting that the Prophet’s pronouncements constituted a deterrent to husbands and that they put limits on what a husband could do. ‘In fits of anger husbands began pronouncing on their wives “three divorces at a time”. And married women, sick of their tyrant husbands, in a bid to get rid of them, insisted that “three divorces at a time” should be given the effect of third-time divorce so as to instantly divorce the marriage. To help wives in distress, most jurists of the time agreed.’”

“‘By a deplorable, though, perhaps, natural, development of the Sunni law,’ wrote Justice Faiz Badruddin Tyabji in his famous work, ‘it is the fourth and most disapproved or sinful mode of talaq (that is, the Triple talaq) which seems to be the most prevalent, and in a sense, even favoured by the law...’ Not only was it the most prevalent and favoured form, he noted, its effects are ‘aggravated’ in that talaq having been pronounced thrice, it could not but be taken to be conclusive and irrevocable. That was Justice Badruddin Tyabji writing eighty years ago. Forty years ago, Justice Shahmiri observed that as this form of divorcing the wife is the ‘least onerous for husbands, it is the most prevalent form obtaining in India.’10 Eighty years ago... Forty years ago... And three years ago Professor Tahir Mahmood noted, ‘For centuries the common Muslim has believed that the so-called ‘Triple talaq’ is the only ‘Islamic’ form of divorce...’, that ‘Divorce by a Muslim husband in this country (India) almost invariably means a Triple talaq’—with the concept of a single revocable talaq people have little acquaintance.’”

“For ever so long Indian Muslims, and therefore Indians in general have suffered because of this amorousness of the Muslim liberal. For a brief moment it seemed that Ayodhya would spell a change. On the one hand, the Muslim community was brought face to face with the costs of the politics of Shahabuddin, Imam Bukhari and the rest: it seemed more willing to listen to the liberal voices within it. On the other, the Muslim liberal was reminded that it was not enough for him to be liberal. If the community continued to follow obscurantist leaders, there would be a reaction, and all, including the Muslim liberal would be sucked down in its tow. Several Muslim liberals therefore began taking a lead in defining what ought to be done on issues which had become the preserve of the obscurantists. On ‘Triple talaq’ itself, as we saw, several months before Justice Tilhari gave his judgment, the Muslim Intelligentsia Meet had passed a resolution condemning the practice as being in violation of the Quran and Hadis. It had drawn attention to the ‘extreme hardship and harshness’ to which the practice exposes women. So, there was an aperture of opportunity. But the moment passed: soon enough Ali Mian, the All India Milli Council and the rest were once again in the forefront; the Muslim liberal was once again back in his cubbyhole. Each of these factors contributes to the power of the ulema. But, as we shall see, the central explanation is different.”