‘Triple talaq’ found sinful by God; how can men validate it by law, asks SC

‘Triple talaq’ found sinful by God; how can men validate it by law, asks SC

The Personal Law Board of Muslim women across India (AIMWPLB) said Friday that the Supreme Court that the triple Talaq was not fundamental to Islamic principles, as the upper court was asked how something that was ordered “sin” by God can be part of the Muslim personal law.

“Perhaps found a sin by God, to be validated by men by law,” Kurian Joseph asked the judge, Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice is on constitutional bench headed by the Chairman of the Supreme Court Jagdish Singh Khehar.

The court’s observation intervened in the hearing when the lead lawyer Salman Khurshid has helped the court pointed out that the Indian government’s staff board indicated that India, despite the triple Talaq is a sin, but was left under Shariat .
The second day of the hearing on a batch of petitions from different individuals and organizations questioning the validity of Triple Talaq, the Court made a number of observations, including the triple Talaq was a “death penalty”, which was odious, but allowed .

In another application, the court asked if the triple Talaq was specific to India and extended to other countries as well. The court was informed that at present, it was a specific practice in India.

Attorney Mohammed Arif Khan, by AIMWPLB, said that “far from fundamental sacrosanct or” triple Talaq was against everything that was good in Islam.

In explaining the procedure in the Islamic principles of divorce, Arif Mohammed Khan broke the Defense Council of Muslim Employees in India to “begin to distort ridiculous depths” by holding that the Talaq was valid even though it was declared under Threat of the sword or a depressed mood.

He quoted the Koran extensively saying that the constitutional court that divorce in Islam is a well-defined procedure that includes counseling, a husband separated life and woman in the same house and arbitration, and at no time was instantaneous.

He said that even after the husband has pronounced a divorce, he and his divorced wife still live in the same house for three months to give a reconciliation.

Arif Mohammed Khan, who was a Rajiv Gandhi minister, said that every law has a social context and that we can change laws but not habits. In this context, he referred to the law against untouchability, saying that 70 years after its adoption, untouchability persists in some parts of the country.

Chief Counsel Ram Jethmalani said that leaving the election to dissolve marriage to man was discriminatory for women under Article 14 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth .

As indicated by the Court, article 14 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth only in respect of State laws and not personal laws. Asking Jethmalani, “Is this a constitutional right for a husband to get rid of his wife, and if so, is it disgusting for Article 14?

He said that because of the multiplicity of religions, the promise of a uniform civil code could not be reached under article 44 of the Constitution, but at least it should not be a uniform application of the law.

By saying that when you are dealing with a husband and a wife, there must be a uniform application of the law therefore, Jethmalani said that the Muslim Marriage Dissolution Act of 1939 applies to all Muslims regardless of their different Sects Shared by the bank.

He told the court that every religion has its “core” and disposable parts that are garbage, Jethmalani referred to Article 37 of the Constitution affirms that secularism was only present religion to a doctrine of the country.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *