The Injustice of Muslim Divorce Laws

Triple talaq is a practice unique to the Muslim community in India. Otherwise known as “instantaneous divorce,” it allows husbands to divorce their wives simply by uttering the word Talaq (repudiation) three times. In common practice, some men do not even speak to their spouses face-to-face, instead utilizing technologies such as Facebook, Skype and Whatsapp. “Provocations” that lead to talaq can be as trivial as putting on weight, burning the dinner or giving birth to a daughter. This situation is outrageously unjust, as not only does a woman have no say in the couple’s decision to separate, but she might not even be informed about her spouse’s intentions until the second it is executed, after which she is left destitute, sometimes without support from her own family. The exact number of women afflicted by this practice is unknown; however, unless it is clearly banned by the Supreme Court, different parties will continue to have conflicting interpretations on its legality. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has hitherto defended triple talaq, claiming that it is “valid” according to Sharia law. However, nowhere in the Qu’ran was triple talaq mentioned; in fact, the religious text clearly stated that to be legally divorced, a couple must go through at least a three-month period of reflection and reconciliation. Other majority-Muslim states, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia, have already abolished the pernicious practice.

Most prominent leaders of the fight against triple talaq are  Muslims who see it as an oppressive custom that falsely represents their religion. “Far from being fundamental or sacramental to Islam, it is an extremely dangerous concept which violates every good thing Quran prescribes,” said Mohammed Khan, former cabinet minister of India. He is backed by the All India Muslim Women's Personal Law Board, the Muslim Rashtriya Manch and one million Indian Muslims who signed the petition against triple talaq. Five of India’s most senior judges, coming from five different religions, have worked on the case since the beginning of May. Hearings are scheduled to end May 19, after each side has had three days to present their arguments. The Indian government stands behind the petitioners, stating that triple talaq is “against gender justice and the dignity of women.” In 2015, after a two-year investigative period, the government committee established to examine women’s status in India recommended its ban. Public opinion has decidedly shifted towards outlawing triple talaq.

However, it is also true that like all polarizing issues, triple talaq has alienated the two groups of people: conservative Indian Muslims and women’s rights activists. As evidence amounts to support one side, the other scrambles to assert their position even more adamantly. The main arguments made by the All India Muslim Women's Personal Law Board are: one, triple talaq is actually beneficial to women, as it provides dissatisfied husbands with an easy way out, and two, if the practice were banned then the men might resort to disposing their wives by more gruesome means, such as burying her alive or dousing her with kerosene. There is also the issue of religious law versus secular law, with the All India Muslim Women's Personal Law Board arguing that the government has no right to intervene in personal practices of devouts. The Muslim Personal Law, which came into existence in 1937, has established that “In matters of personal dispute, the state shall not interfere.”

Of these two contentions, the second one is undoubtedly more complicated, as it calls attention to a broader issue that has been heatedly debated by many people in both camps. One can easily argue, in refutation of the claim that “triple talaq helps women,” about how the best way of stopping violent practices such as wife-burning is to directly address it at its core. If law enforcers are genuinely committed to protecting women’s safety, they could do more to persecute perpetrators of domestic violence against women; allowing for supposedly “less harmful” practices like triple talaq is not the answer. Furthermore, customs built on unequal distribution of power between the two sexes will undoubtedly consolidate the collective belief that women’s worth is not comparable to men’s and thus make assaults against them seem more condonable.

Regarding the issue of the Muslim Personal Law however, it has always been hard to navigate the intersections between secular constitutions and religious codes of conduct or between universal human rights and cultural relativism. Should a clear line be drawn to separate acceptable and unacceptable practices? If so, where? These are questions that the five justices of the Supreme Court need to answer before reaching their final decision, knowing that this ruling, whatever it is, will establish a precedence for many other controversial cases to come.