The Triple Conspiracy

What does a Muslim man do on his divorce night? After one kind of quickie, does he go for another sort? If he has been drunk when he uttered those three words to his wife, then does he regret it, feel good that he was man enough, just live with the hangover?

“Talaq, talaq, talaq!”

Is this really a Muslim man’s birthright, his guarantee card to keep women in their place – behind the veil, beneath his feet? In all this talk of Islamic fundamentalism, where is the Muslim woman?

On July 4, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, the highest body governing civil law for Muslims in India, is likely to adopt a resolution scrapping the ‘triple talaq’; it is set to adopt ‘phased talaq’, with the couple being given three months to think it over. According to a report, the AIMPLB believes this is in line with Shariat-approved procedure. Many Islamic countries, including Pakistan, do not follow the ‘triple talaq’ system. Even within India, there are differing opinions about its validity. But the system has persisted.

As expected, the protests are loud already. The Ulema Council held an emergency meeting to declare that the Koranic laws are complete in themselves and “any effort to change them under the guise of reinterpretation will be met with stiff resistance by the community”.

Maulana Abdul Quddus Kashmiri, vice president of the council, said, “When talaq is uttered the first time it is called ‘talaq-e-rajie’ and it is followed by ‘talaq-e-baien’ and the final one is called ‘talaq-e-mugalazza’. If talaq is uttered the third time, the divorce is final. Those misusing this provision deserve to be condemned since they are acting against the spirit of Islam. But that does not give the right to anyone to declare a divorce invalid just because the word talaq was uttered thrice in quick succession.”

When our so-called Islamic scholars – jokers in disguise – hold forth on the triple talaq as talaq-e-bidda (the most disapproved form when said at one sitting), how can they say things like, “The fact is that Muslim women enjoy a high degree of freedom and respect” and yet validate the divorce in a few seconds? Don’t they see the irony? Why don’t they ever raise questions about the changed scenario of today? That a Muslim man may want a divorce because he finds his wife’s company stifling and a Muslim woman may want to leave her husband because her career is more important? Why do they never elaborate on how the various Muslim communities go through talaq proceedings?

Why is it that when Islam has guaranteed a woman the right to divorce (‘khul’), it is only mentioned in parenthesis?

Jameda, a sprightly young woman, had gone up to the Prophet and told him that she wanted to leave her husband. The Prophet, not one bit perturbed, had asked, “Why, is he not a good Muslim?”

“Oh, he is a very good Muslim,” she replied.

“Does he not love you?”

“He gives me more than I need.”

“Then what is it?” asked the Prophet.

Jameda, without any hesitation, replied, “I don’t like him anymore.”

The Prophet granted her the divorce.

There are many such women in our society today, walking free, breathing the air. It isn’t merely the chit of paper in their pocket that declares their freedom; it is the self-respect that has found its way into their minds and hearts. From the raging flames to the cold embers, theirs has been a journey outside the stereotype of a black veil and a blacker verdict.
* * *

It was dark, pitch dark. But she could see the blood. It trickled down her chin to her saree. From outside his mother kept up the drone of, “Beat her, beat her”. He was a good son. He beat up his wife for a crime even he was unaware of.

And the wife? Rukaiya Hussein was brought up to be a good Muslim girl, but not so good that she would not utter a cursory protest or scream with pain and fall into a heap when it was over. There was no reason for her to take this, but she did because she thought things would change. After all, Aslam, the man she had married, did keep her photograph in his wallet, he brought her chocolates when his mother was not looking and she was pregnant with his child. She looked forward to the time at her mother’s just before the delivery. It would be the time for her scars to fade.

But he did not come to meet her. Fear gripped her. At night she would break into a sweat. She would see them beating her, dumping her baby into the well. How could she return to that hell and did they want her back?

One day there was a message. Aslam wanted a divorce on grounds that his wife had deserted him. Says Rukaiya today, “It was an excuse. He had put conditions like I could return only if I did whatever my in-laws asked me to do. They wanted a servant. I had agreed to return if he shifted to the flat his company was giving him, but he refused.”

Fortunately for her, the Ismaili laws were applicable to them. According to them, a man cannot flash his trump card to claim his freedom. The case was submitted before the Ismaili Khoja Board Council and was decided in her favour. Her husband could not divorce her on such a pretext. Rukaiya sat sphinx-like, the verdict making no dent on her expressionless face. Had she really won? What would the victory give her besides the status of a wife and the position of a hostage?

A few days later, she got the news. He had married again, on the sly, as a second marriage is prohibited by Ismaili law and he could be excommunicated.

Aslam was a smart man. He had got hold of an old qazi from one of the bylanes of Bhendi Bazaar. His aim was to legitimise an illegitimate act for the benefit of a society that did not know the details and a god who he thought he would make happy.

As Rukaiya says, “Let us not blame only the laws. Here the law was on my side but the circumstances were not. You cannot always fight on technical grounds. Had I done so, I would have won, but I would lose much more.”

To put an end to a festering chapter and to revive an atrophied soul, Rukaiya asked for a divorce. She did not claim maintenance for fear that they would demand custody of her child. She would have to return the meh’r amount he had given her. However, she was entitled to get everything that her parents had gifted her. “Of course, they behaved in an uncivilised manner by breaking some things before handing them over.”

Wisps of pain still play around her visage. The years have chiselled an identity. There is a certain dignity attached to the fact that you can demand your rights or forgo them at will. “Any man who behaves like a brute and cannot decide for himself deserves to be pitied.” Hindsight does have the tremendous capacity to give confidence, but what if she had been a prey to the triple talaq verdict, would she then have been so magnanimous? “This is like asking a kid today if he would have enlisted for the Vietnam War. Theoretically, I can hold forth on issues, but after being at the receiving end my perspective may be different. As an outsider, I cannot even think of a man dismissing me from his life in such a manner but then I was brought up differently. I had a family support system.”

Life as a Muslim divorcee -- is it any different from others? “Not in basic attitudes. A divorcee from any community is seen as an aberration, a free woman. But being a Muslim the problem gets compounded because people believe you have been thrown out of the house because some bearded guy has uttered talaq thrice. This is infuriating because it is not true for everyone.”
* * *

Asghar Ali Engineer, reformist Bohra and head of the Institute of Islamic Studies, finds even the Ahle-Hadees call for a ban on instant talaq as not a process of modernisation. “This has been in practice since 14th century AD. For the triple talaq spread over three sittings to be valid there is a provision that the woman must be in a state of purity. If she is menstruating, it is not permissible. Besides, if within the three months a man wants to take his wife back he can do so without a nikaah.”

(In practice, it does not always work. In a village in Orissa a couple faced social ostracism and economic misery because they chose to stay together after the husband said ‘talaq, talaq, talaq’ in an inebriated state. Once sober, he insisted he had no wish to leave his wife, but was evicted from his home by villagers.)

What about the other Shia communities? “Among the Bohras and Itha-asharis there is no concept of triple talaq at all. Two witnesses are compulsorily required. As for the Ismailis, no Shariat permission is applicable to them; the jamaat actively intervenes if the talaq is to take place.”

Since the courts here are not even keen to enforce the Indian Muslim woman’s right to ‘khul’, where she can demand a divorce, is there any way out?

“Registration stands above the nikaah in a court of law, so Muslim women could register their marriage.”
* * *

Seema Jaffer admits that she read Germaine Greer at the right time. The need to assert herself was strong. So when she fell in love with a Muslim boy, Qasim, everyone heaved a sigh of relief. There would be a nice nikaah, both would say “qubool hai” loud and clear. It would be a memorable day.

It was, except that Seema insisted that her marriage be registered first. After much argument, it was agreed to. At least she was going through the motions...bridal finery and revelry. Seema and Qasim lived the life of what can be called progressive Muslims. They followed rituals only during festivals. But against this backdrop was their individual assertion for space. Seema does not want to go into the details of that phase. “All I can say now is that I am a happy divorcee. I am so thankful for my foresight in getting the marriage registered. A lot of people shy away from it because it goes to the courts. If two people in love can come down to creating scenes, then where is the shame in cutting out the rot to retain your dignity?”

Is she aware that other Muslim women are not so fortunate? “Don’t dismiss me as someone who just got lucky. I worked for it, I demanded it. What Muslim women need is education. Who has given the maulvis sanctity? There are many women who register their marriages for official purposes because their husbands need it, but do they get to use it in a situation of divorce? Why can’t they put their foot down?”
* * *

Which is easier said than done. We have met two women who were not victims of triple talaq and we can understand their freedom better if we compare it with the case of Asma Saeed.

Brought up in a family where the only form of communication expected from her was silent assent, she lived the life of a recluse. She also became insecure because she had been rejected by a few men. Therefore, when one man proposed to marry her, she readily agreed without even looking at him.

Their marriage was a nightmare of serial sexual assaults. From a human wreck in her parent’s home, she became a property here. A piece of flesh. She decided to lump it instead of leaving. At nights after her husband’s need and greed were satiated, he would push her out of the house and many a season she had witnessed in its full fury. On one such night he said talaq thrice. In a jiffy it was over. She was free. All her pain vanished.

“It really seemed like a relief then. The anger came later when I was not permitted to take my belongings, and when I realised that a man could just walk out without any sense of responsibility.”

Asma had some basic education. But what about the rest? Islam on paper gives woman a right, but does it imbue her with the courage and wherewithal to exercise it?

There was the case of Khatoonisa in Uttar Pradesh who was divorced in 1969. She got the sympathy of Justice H.N.Tilhari in 1994! Such pronouncements create the impression that the Muslim woman’s rights are being upheld, but this is far from the truth. As one activist had put it then, “At one level Khatoonisa is divorced by her husband and hence not eligible for maintenance by him. At the other level, the court has held that she is not really divorced through a court order and so her land will be taken over by the state. So the women lose out at both levels.”

Two decades lost in a woman’s life for a society to decide her status.

Instead of threatening a nationwide agitation against a progressive move, the Ulema Council members must ask their women to utter ‘talaq’ thrice, let them spit out those words in their faces. Only then will they realise how ridiculous it sounds. I firmly believe that in taking recourse to this silly ‘licence’, it is the men who come out looking pathetic, not the women. Unfortunately, fools do not suffer for their own acts. Others do. I would not even venture to suggest a severe punishment, for is there any point in castrating the impotent?