“Three of the five Supreme Court judges called the controversial practice ‘un-Islamic, arbitrary and unconstitutional’. One of the judges, Justice Kurien Joseph, said the practice was not an essential part of Islam and enjoyed no protection.”
Presumably if the court had determined that the practice was Islamic, it would not have outlawed it.
The Qur’an does say that a man can divorce his wife unilaterally, and that the third time is final:
“Divorce is twice. Then, either keep her in an acceptable manner or release her with good treatment. And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they will not be able to keep the limits of Allah. But if you fear that they will not keep the limits of Allah, then there is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself. These are the limits of Allah, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah – it is those who are the wrongdoers. And if he has divorced her for the third time, then she is not lawful to him afterward until she marries a husband other than him. And if the latter husband divorces her, there is no blame upon the woman and her former husband for returning to each other if they think that they can keep the limits of Allah. These are the limits of Allah, which He makes clear to a people who know.” (Qur’an 2:229-230)
But there is supposed to be a waiting period, not simply an instant divorce through the declaration that a woman is divorced repeated thrice — and that’s the basis on which the Indian court says this practice is un-Islamic:
“O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them for their waiting period and keep count of the waiting period, and fear Allah, your Lord. Do not turn them out of their houses, nor should they leave unless they are committing a clear immorality. And those are the limits of Allah. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah has certainly wronged himself. You know not; perhaps Allah will bring about after that a matter. And when they have fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or part with them according to acceptable terms. And bring to witness two just men from among you and establish the testimony for Allah. That is instructed to whoever should believe in Allah and the Last day. And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him a way out.” (Qur’an 65:1-2)
“Triple talaq: India court bans Islamic instant divorce,” BBC, August 22, 2017:
India’s top court has ruled the practice of instant divorce in Islam unconstitutional, marking a major victory for women’s rights activists.
In a 3-2 majority verdict, the court called the practice “un-Islamic”.
India is one of a handful of countries where a Muslim man can divorce his wife in minutes by saying the word talaq (divorce) three times.
The landmark court decision came in response to petitions challenging the so-called “triple talaq” custom.
The cases were filed by five Muslim women who had been divorced in this way and two rights groups.
Women’s rights campaigners have hailed the court’s decision as a historic win.
What is instant divorce?
There have been cases in which Muslim men in India have divorced their wives by issuing the so-called triple talaq by letter, telephone and, increasingly, by text message, WhatsApp and Skype. A number of these cases made their way to the courts as women contested the custom.
Triple talaq divorce has no mention in Sharia Islamic law or the Koran, even though the practice has existed for decades.
Islamic scholars say the Koran clearly spells out how to issue a divorce – it has to be spread over three months, allowing a couple time for reflection and reconciliation.
Most Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, have banned triple talaq, but the custom has continued in India, which does not have a uniform set of laws on marriage and divorce that apply to every citizen.
What did the court say?
Three of the five Supreme Court judges called the controversial practice “un-Islamic, arbitrary and unconstitutional”. One of the judges, Justice Kurien Joseph, said the practice was not an essential part of Islam and enjoyed no protection.
The judges also said it was “manifestly arbitrary” to allow a man to “break down (a) marriage whimsically and capriciously”….
epistemology says
India is the largest democracy and this custom isn’t compatible with either democracy or civilization. The times of the mogul dynasties are long gone, so Indian judges shouldn’t care whether something is Islamic or not. Anyway we all know the problem muzzies always claim to be victimized when their bloody sharia and their stupid inhuman customs aren’t respected. The Indians just shouldn’t care.
Frank Cicero says
Well after our president spoke highly of India, it was in the best interests not to swing into the Muslim arena.
moeped says
Here come the accusations of bsaphobia and attacks. God speed India!
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
It will be fascinating to see what our professional feminists have to say about this move in the world’s largest democracy. There are thousands of them, most of them professors on sinecure at Womens Studies departments in universities, so they have the time to comment. If they say nothing, which is what’ll happen, then that’s a damnation upon them and Western feminism.
Westman says
Has Google and Facebook, arbitrators of human decorum, developed AI software to intercept triple talaq? Better get crackin’ and cut those men off YOUR internet.
And how about that leftist Washington Mall “foundation” that says they’re going to add racism to the Jefferson Memorial plaque because they’ve spent money on the Mall and have a special “right”? Are you giving them donations? http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/21/jefferson-memorial-to-be-altered-to-emphasize-slave-ownership/
Just give some spray paint to some lefties and it will be cheaper. When will this crazy leftist nonsense stop?
Guest says
It’s stupid and wrong, but clearly they didn’t know that, so they had to use the law
No Fear says
Oral divorce? Reminds me of the old joke: My wife uses oral contraception….I ask her for sex and she says “No”.
Chand says
A good decision, long overdue. Thanks, judges!
Vann Boseman says
This is a good thing. WIth the extreme disappointment I have over Trump’s speech last night in that it did not describe the terrorism as Islamic, it is good to see a positive movement culminate into a good decision. It would be great if it stands over time. I cannot always assume that either the US or India will do the right thing. But here, India did the right thing.
Kepha says
Jai Hind!
Hari Singh says
I LOVE IT, INFIDEL JUDGES MAKING RULINGS ON WHAT IS SHARIAT.This could only happen under PM Modi.
Now will the Muslims riot or just continue the practice? No doubt the Salafi and Deobandi Imams will continue to uphold these divorces. Will India then indict for polygamy?
But still muslims are allowed more than one wife.
The Islamic divorce makes no provision for alimony or child support, leaving children without support and old cast off wives in poverty.
Make no mistake, this is a political struggle for hegemony. Many Muslims and the Pakistan Army feel that Northern India must come under Islamic rule again, as shariat forbids the cessation of territory to infidels. The Koran says that Indians, unlike people of the book have no option but conversion or death as they are idolaters.Those who wish to continue this practice can move to Pakistan or Bangladesh.
dumbledoresarmy says
All Indian resistance-to-Jihad people here posting or lurking MUST communicate with PM Modi *at once*, if they have not already done so, to express their strong approval of this striking-down of mohammedan ‘law’ that oppresses women. They should add that they would like to see a flat ban on Muslim polygyny and child ‘marriage’, and to see such a ban *enforced*; and NO subsidy to allow mohammedans from India to make hajj to Jihad Central, aka Saudi Arabia.
Make sure that all your like-minded friends also express their approval.
It’s time for India to start saying NO to Mohammedan nastiness, big-time.
It’s time for India to NOT be a dhimmi. And the way to get rid of the problem of the mohammedan ‘vote bank’ is for the counter-jihad to coordinate their own votes with one thing and one thing firmly in mind – halting and reversing the Islamisation of India. Muslims don’t want to live under Infidel rule/ Non-Islamic laws as regards marriage etc/ among Infidels? – fine, then they can move to Bangladesh or Pakistan, and renounce Indian citizenship. If Mohammedans kick up a stink about this striking-down of the permission of talaq divorce, then Modi must tell them flat-out… if they don’t like it… LEAVE. p*ss off to Bangladesh or Pakistan where they can mistreat their wife/ wives to their hearts’ content.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Re: “Triple talaq divorce has no mention in Sharia Islamic law or the Koran, even though the practice has existed for decades…. Most Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, have banned triple talaq, but the custom has continued in India.”
NONSENSE AND LIES!
Islam ruled India for centuries, and the British Raj translated their own most applicable sharia law book, The Hedaya, from Farsi into both Arabic and English in 1791 (and reprinted it 80 years later, and then issued another reprint in 1953 and 1963)!
Note that The Hedaya was used in both India and Bengal (Bangladesh) and was used before that as the main Hanifi text to rule the entire Ottoman Empire, so it’s tenets are hardly unfamiliar to all muslim states!
In it, the triple-divorce regulations are spelled out in repetitive detail!
See an online version, here:
https://archive.org/stream/TheHedayaCommentaryOnIslamicLawsByShyakhBurhanuddinAbuBakrAlMarghinani/TheHedaya-CommentaryOnIslamicLawsByShyakhBurhanuddinAbuBakrAlMarghinanitranslatorByCharlesHamilton#page/n0/mode/2up