Muslim Man Divorcing Wife Without Reason, Must Be Socially Boycotted: New Age Islam's Selection, 12 April 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
12 April 2017
• Muslim Man Divorcing Wife Without Reason, Must Be Socially Boycotted
By Rohit E David
• Cow Vigilantism — Or Minority Hunting?
By Surjit S Bhalla
• Forgiving The Enemy
By Father Dominic Emmanuel
• Bangladesh’s Main Opposition Party’s Distrust Of India Is Politically Imprudent
By Ashikur Rahman
• Is Pakistan Close To A Nuclear Deal With The US?
By Sunil Sharan
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Muslim Man Divorcing Wife Without Reason, Must Be Socially Boycotted
By Rohit E David
April 12, 2017
… Triple talaq is not the best way but it happens’
With a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court set to begin hearings on the constitutional validity of triple talaq next month, the central government has issued a fresh submission before the apex court arguing that the practice, along with polygamy among Muslims, should be scrapped as it is not protected by fundamental rights to practise religion. All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has argued that these practices are part of essential practice under the religion. Asaduddin Owaisi, President of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and member of AIMPLB, spoke to Rohit E David on the issue:
What is your response to the central government’s affidavit in Supreme Court that triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy – all part of Muslim personal law – should be struck down?
Now the matter is in the apex court and they will decide on May 11. The Muslim Personal Law Board has given their version. BJP is saying that other Muslim countries have abolished triple talaq, then why not us? Well, this is not right. No, they haven’t abolished it.
What is your opinion on triple talaq?
My opinion is the same as that of AIMPLB, which has told Muslims that this is not the way to divorce a person. What we can do is that when a Muslim marries a woman he pays a mahr (amount). At the time of marriage, let this condition be incorporated that if a Muslim man divorces a Muslim woman by triple talaq then he will have to pay her over and above that. This should apply to anyone who divorces a Muslim woman without any genuine reason (if you follow the Muslim personal law, there are 17 conditions wherein a divorce can be given).
Unfortunately, that’s not the case in Hindu marriage law, where only seven conditions are given. If any of those 17 conditions are not met then a divorce can happen.
If any Muslim man without having any reason to divorce his wife does it, then the community must socially boycott such elements. Triple talaq is not the best way of divorcing a Muslim woman but talaq happens.
Is it right for a Muslim to have triple talaq?
If you don’t want to get married according to Sharia one has the choice to get married under Special Marriages Act. If you have a nikah and tomorrow you say that you want a talaq, it is open for you to do that and the Muslim personal law applies to you.
How can Muslim women be protected under triple talaq?
How do we safeguard a woman from a man who without having any genuine reasons divorces a lady? Recently, it was reported that a Muslim man gave divorce to his pregnant wife because he thought he’ll have a daughter. This man does not know Sharia. You cannot divorce a Muslim woman when she is pregnant. If a divorce happens, there is a Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986. That section says, that if you do not want to use this Act use Section 125 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure), order for maintenance of wives, and Section 128 of CrPc, for recovery of maintenance. Use it.
Do you feel that people who follow triple talaq should live under Sharia completely?
Can you do it in India? No, you can’t. You cannot impose Sharia laws in a secular country.
Do you feel that the central government is trying to polarise the entire issue?
Whether it is cow, triple talaq, Uniform Civil Code, anti-Romeo squad, ghar wapsi – they are trying to polarise everything. They have failed in governance. They have not been able to provide jobs.
Do you feel that the entire debate on triple talaq is biased?
Yes. Why is it that only the Muslim divorce has become an issue? What about Hindu divorce? In the census of 2011, chart C-3 says there are 43.56 lakh Hindu women who outnumber Hindu married men. Now, this is possible either if they can be in bigamous relationships with Hindu men or of course if it can be proved that they are mostly married to non-Hindus. Why is there no debate on this?
What do you have to say about many Muslim women getting divorce through telegram, phone or mail?
On this, we have to go according to the 2002 Supreme Court judgment on Shamim Ara. In that case, the court clearly said that without reconciliation talaq doesn’t happen.
-----
DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.
Source; .timesofindia.indiatimes.com/the-interviews-blog/muslim-man-divorcing-wife-without-reason-must-be-socially-boycotted-triple-talaq-is-not-the-best-way-but-it-happens/
-----
Cow Vigilantism — Or Minority Hunting?
By Surjit S Bhalla
April 12, 2017
Of the six innocent individuals transporting cows and calves bought at a cattle fair in Alwar, Rajasthan, one was a Hindu named Arjun. He was released by the vigilantes acting in the name of the cow; the other five, all Muslim, were severely beaten. One of them subsequently died of the lynching by the Hindu mob. While most of the media has mentioned this fact and gone on to dwell on other horrendous details, I consider the Hindu being released as the most crucial in interpreting what happened, and possibly why it happened.
These facts, and the official reaction to them, illustrate several aspects about our degraded polity. First, one can rule out the claim that this was slaughter on behalf of a cow — if it were so, then why was the Hindu not guilty of the crime? This fact also puts a lie to the statement made by the Rajasthan Home Minister that both sides were to blame for this incident. Parenthetically, when will our not-so-savvy Indian politicians realise that they are operating in a social media-camera age and they cannot brazenly lie about crimes committed in the name of their reprehensible “ideology”.
What Alwar has done is to expose several BJP and RSS leaders to scrutiny. Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje has been surprisingly quiet; Nirmala Sitharaman, the Commerce Minister, felt compelled to point out that “cow protectionism was the spirit behind India’s freedom movement”. Really? Most people believe, perhaps mistakenly, that it was the “protection” of the Indian human (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isai) from colonialism.
If one is looking for sources for the Hindu obsession with cows, one need look no further than the Hindu Constitution, otherwise known as India’s Constitution. Directive Principle no. 48 (does any other constitution in the world have directive principles? Just asking) states the following: “The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” (emphasis added).
Why is the prohibition of cow slaughter part of a constitution ostensibly meant to protect individual human freedoms, not individual cattle freedom? Given that the gau rakshaks have concentrated on the white cow rather than the black buffalo, is this an admission of racism among the cow worshippers? The Constitution does not distinguish.
There isn’t much support for cow worship in ancient Hindu texts (Ramayana and Mahabharata), nor among Hindu scholars like Swami Vivekananda (Madurai lecture) or V.D. Savarkar (Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya).
Swami Vivekananda: “There are two sorts of truth we find in our Shâstras (contained in the Vedas and Smritis). The Smritis speak generally of local circumstances, of duties arising from different environments, and they change in the course of time. There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sanyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed; how in time it was found that as we were an agricultural race, killing the best bulls meant annihilation of the race. Therefore the practice was stopped, and a voice was raised against the killing of cows.”
Now have the customs changed as well? With globalisation, imports, etc., we need not be dependent on our cattle, white or black, to give us milk.
Vivekananda again: “As time rolls on, more and more of the Smritis will go, sages will come, and they will change and direct society into better channels, into duties and into paths which accord with the necessity of the age, and without which it is impossible that society can live. Thus we have to guide our course… and I hope that every one of us here will have breadth enough, and at the same time faith enough, to understand what that means, which I suppose is the inclusion of everything, and not the exclusion.” (emphasis added).
Savarkar was dismissive of cow worship: “A substance is edible to the extent that it is beneficial to man. Attributing religious qualities to it gives it a godly status. Such a superstitious mindset destroys the nation’s intellect… Let the movement for cow protection be based and popularised on clear-cut economic and scientific principles. Then alone shall we achieve genuine cow protection like the Americans.” Note the specific reference to a people known for their beef-eating.
Savarkar again: “The cow should not be the emblem of the Hindu nation. The cow is but a milch symbol of the Hindu nation. By no means should it be considered its emblem. The symbol of Hindutva is not the cow but the man-lion (reference to Narasimha, considered the fourth incarnation of Lord Vishnu). Whilst considering the cow to be divine and worshipping her, the entire Hindu nation became docile like the cow. It started eating grass. If we are to now found our nation on the basis of an animal, let that animal be the lion. We need to worship such a Narasimha. That and not the cow’s hooves, is the mark of Hindutva (emphasis added).”
Sometime back, I was pleasantly shocked to read that the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, argued for education and job reservations on economic criteria and not on caste grounds. Very sensible. But did Bhagwat say this
before the Bihar election to embarrass Modi and make him lose the election, or because underneath it all, the RSS leader is actually very progressive?
Banish the thought — the Muslim hunters in Alwar belonged to the VHP, a part of the RSS. Further, the economic arm of the RSS, the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, has more in common with the communists and the Indira-Sonia brand of economics, than with progressive economics (a la Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and especially Modi). And now, Bhagwat’s demand that there be a national law against cow slaughter (despite Hindutva, Swami Vivekananda, Sarvarkar) is suggestive of the RSS fishing in troubled waters.
The Akhlaq murder happened before the Bihar election which the BJP lost; the Alwar murder has happened post-UP, a state where Modi’s BJP scored a spectacular victory. After Lok Sabha 2014 and UP 2017, it is Modi who is the undisputed leader of the party. Since that is the case, can anybody point to any rational argument as to how Modi benefits from any of this abominable Muslim hunting? He doesn’t — but he can be hurt by all the ill will it generates among the large middle class that was previously not for the BJP. For example, the middle class might just vote Congress (or AAP) in the forthcoming Delhi municipal elections.
Last year, post-Akhlaq, PM Modi made the following statements on cow vigilantism: “A gau bhakt (cow devotee) is different, seva (cow protection) is different. I have seen that some people are into crimes all night and wear the garb of rakshaks in the day… 70-80 per cent will be those who indulge in anti-social activities and try to hide their sins by pretending to be gau rakshaks. If they are true protectors, they should realise that most cows die because of plastic, not slaughter.”
There is little evidence to suggest that Modi has changed his mind on so-called gau rakshaks; he has nothing to gain and everything to lose by pursuing a divisive social agenda; he has to worry both about the enemy within, and the enemy outside, his development tent. There is a natural, near-universal suspicion that the BJP is actually quite happy with the Hindu vote consolidation that Muslim hunting might bring about. Modi needs to forcefully correct this impression if his agenda is indeed development rather than a covert or overt establishment of a Hindu Rashtra. For the sake of India, and social harmony, let us hope he succeeds in tackling this latest threat to his goal of transforming India.
Source: indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/cow-vigilantism-or-minority-hunting-ajmer-lynching-gau-rakshaks-bjp-rajasthan-hindu-muslim-4609449/
-----
Forgiving The Enemy
By Father Dominic Emmanuel
Apr 12, 2017
The week began already last Sunday — the Palm Sunday which signifies Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem.
Christians the world over observe this week as the “Holy Week”, commemorating Jesus Christ’s very last days, leading to his humiliating death on the cross on Good Friday, but ending with joy on Easter Sunday when he defeated death by resurrection.
The week began already last Sunday — the Palm Sunday which signifies Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem, where after having his many miracles, the crowd waved palms, singing “Hosanna”, wanting to crown him their King.
But this was unacceptable to the authorities and they decided to get rid of him.
He was brought before Pilate, the Roman governor, who though finding no fault in him, finally caved into the pressure from the crowd, which demanded to crucify Jesus. He died a criminal’s death at about 3 pm on Friday.
But before Jesus could be arrested, he dined with his disciples his “Last Supper” on Thursday.
While this was to celebrate the annual Jewish Passover feast — the “Pasch” — commemorating the freedom the Jews gained through God’s intervention from the Egyptian Pharaoh, Jesus used this opportunity to do two significant things.
As a cleansing act before meals, he got up and washed the feet of his disciples, setting a supreme example of humble service.
He said: “If I the Lord and Master have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet”. In doing so, he established the sacrament of priesthood.
The most important thing, however, followed when at table, he took bread, broke it and gave to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat, this is my body”. He did the same with wine, saying, “Take and drink, this is my blood”.
Like the disciples who did not fathom this act then, many find it difficult to comprehend it even today, leave alone accept it.
Jesus was, however, referring to his impending death the next day. His body and blood would be sacrificed as ransom for humanity but his real presence would continue as often as the memory of the “Last Supper” would be celebrated in the Holy Mass until today.
Seeing no hope that Jesus would escape the clutches of death, some disciples abandoned him.
A loyal disciple, Peter, too, developed cold feet when he saw the furious crowd instigated by the authorities against his master.
Sadly, despite Jesus forewarning him, thrice he denied having anything to do with him.
Thus, left painfully alone, moments before he breathed his last crying, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”, Jesus consciously prayed for his enemies.
“Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing”. No wonder then that many people who suffer in their lives, find help as they contemplate on Jesus’ rigorous suffering on the cross.
Many others also find it in their hearts to “forgive their enemies”.
asianage.com/opinion//120417/mystic-mantra-forgiving-the-enemy.html
-----
Bangladesh’s Main Opposition Party’s Distrust Of India Is Politically Imprudent
By Ashikur Rahman
April 12, 2017 12:15 am
Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed’s recently concluded visit to India has reignited an old anti-India discourse in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), the country’s principal opposition party, has not only raised red flags against the MoUs and agreements signed during the visit but has stated that the visit ensured Bangladesh’s servility to India’s economic and security interests. This pathological anti-India stance is not new.
The BNP’s anti-India position, during its stints in government, between 1991 and 1996, and 2001 to 2006, has cost Bangladesh dearly. During these stints, the BNP failed to address critical bilateral issues such as the maritime boundary dispute, the land boundary dispute, investments in common infrastructure, energy trade for Bangladesh’s benefit and water-sharing arrangements. Worse, the party began to support separatist movements in India’s north-eastern states.
Over the past two decades, the BNP has developed a close political alliance with Jamaat-e-Islami — the party that challenged Bangladesh’s liberation struggle and aided the Pakistan army in its war crimes. The Jamaat also has a strong political allegiance to Pakistan’s interests. The political alliance with the Jamaat has meant that rather than reinventing itself as a centre-right political party, committed to economic liberalisation and good governance, the BNP has been inclined to play the anti-India political card — complemented by its commitment to an Islamic vision for Bangladesh.
In a country with nearly 145 million Muslims and a long history of mistrust of its largest neighbour — engineered largely by religious parties and anti-liberation political elements — the BNP finds banking on anti-India populism both opportunistic and profitable. In the face of the propaganda it faces, PM Sheikh Hasina’s party has found it difficult to sell to the people her long-standing policy of constructive diplomatic engagement and value-based friendship with India.
Yet, over the past eight years, Sheikh Hasina has shown that pragmatic diplomatic engagement with India remains the only rational strategy for Bangladesh. At the heart of her strategy is a commitment to “zero tolerance to terrorism”. This helps India and Bangladesh to collectively counter separatist organisations that found space in Bangladesh, which benefited immensely from this goodwill-generating exercise.
On June 6, 2015, the Indian government led by the BJP ratified the 1974 Land Boundary Agreement resolving the border disputes between the two countries. This included settling matters pertaining to chit mahals (enclaves), adversely possessed land and undemarcated boundaries. The land swap settled the territorial anomaly that dates back to 1947. This milestone was also unprecedented as there was a rare show of bipartisanship with the Indian Parliament unanimously approving the bill operationalising the treaty. The ratification also means that Bangladesh has gained an additional 10,000 acres of land due to the swap.
Hasina’s goodwill-oriented foreign policy has in no way constrained her government’s ability to constructively challenge Bangladesh’s largest neighbour when diplomatic negotiation has failed. This was exemplified by her initiative to settle long-pending maritime disputes between Bangladesh and Myanmar and India through two separate judgements of The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, which allowed Bangladesh to gain sovereign territorial rights over more than 1,30,000 square km of maritime boundary.
The BNP should introspect on its blind anti-India stance. While critical issues, like sharing Teesta waters, are still unresolved, pragmatic diplomatic engagement remains the only viable option for both sides. The BNP must heed the Indian philosopher Chanakya’s words, “learn from the mistakes of others… you can’t live long enough to make them all yourselves”. Unfortunately, the BNP has shown no inclination to learn from the failure of its anti-India policy. Fortunately, the people of Bangladesh are not dependent on the BNP’s failed leadership to address long-standing bilateral issues with India.
Source: indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/bnps-blinkers-sheikh-hasina-india-bangladesh-ties-4609498/
-----
Is Pakistan Close To A Nuclear Deal With The US?
By Sunil Sharan
April 12, 2017
Many signs portend yes. In the waning days of the Obama administration, talk grew in Washington, D.C. of the US offering the same nuclear deal to Pakistan as it had offered India. The White House never seemed to categorically deny those rumours.
India was irked. But nothing has irked Pakistan more since 1971 than the deal that George W. handed India on a platter. Irked is perhaps too mild a word. Pakistan was livid. Here it was the one “helping” the Yanks in Afghanistan, and there it was the eternal enemy reaping the rewards.
Pakistan started clamouring for the same deal. But the world scoffed at it. Wasn’t it one of the biggest non-proliferaters of them all. Wasn’t the AQ Khan network its creation. Actually Pakistan got away lightly with Khan’s activities.
The US has snapped and shared pictures of Pakistani military aircraft downloading fissile material in North Korea and uploading missiles from there. No Khan could have ordered that; only the Pakistani army chief could have. The then-Pakistani army chief was Musharraf. But the canny Musharraf shifted the blame on to Khan, Pakistan’s national hero, and incarcerated him, making it appear that he and his army had nothing to do with proliferation.
To escape Afghanistan, a naive Obama first put his eggs in Pakistan’s basket, then took some out, then put some back in. He vamoosed from Iraq without a trace, leading in part to the growth of ISIS. Afghanistan though could not be allowed to become another Iraq, a happy hunting ground for anti-American jihadis.
Pakistan has always held the keys to Kabul, and has played its cards expertly. The seeming about-face against the Taliban post 9-11; the double game played with the Americans, one foot in their camp, the other planted firmly in the Afghani Talibani; all of this has led to the Taliban coming to the cusp of capturing Kabul, with the Yanks receiving the same hiding that the Russkies and the Pommies haven’t as yet forgotten.
The Yanks are desperate to quit Afghanistan in one piece. They are resigned to the Talibs winning Kabul. What they don’t want is the Talibs nurturing another Bin Laden, worse still a nuclear Bin Laden. Who might have loose nukes in the neighborhood. The Yanks claim to have invested over a hundred million dollars to secure Pakistan’s nukes.
But how can one secure against a security guard who turns turtle. The Yanks must have their own folks in the Strategic Plains Division and other centralized Pakistani nuclear establishments. After all, a hundred million can pay for a lot of outsized American salaries. But the Pakistanis have pulled a fast one with the deployment of their tactical nukes, the little Nasrs.
No Yank can control their use, for the operational control lies with about 300 Pakistani military field commanders. One goes rogue and a dirty bomb could go off in Indianapolis in short order. No wonder Nikki Haley, a key member of Trump’s foreign policy team, is now crying herself hoarse to mediate between Pakistan and India. Her express aim: Islamabad, you ditch your tacticals, India you yours. Washington’s interest must always be protected.
Pakistan is happy with the mediation. But not happy enough. It has left the Americans out of talks with the Afghan Taliban, cozying up instead to the Chinese and the Russkies. What is the Russian interest in Kabul? They are not even contiguous with Afghanistan any more. And the Chinese? Well, wherever the Pakistanis are, can the Chinese be far behind. And not even a leaf can fall anywhere in Asia now without the assent of the Chinese.
America is alarmed. Ever the brinkman, Pakistan is up to its old tricks. One overriding purpose drives it: Treat us as India’s equal. Memo from Islamabad to Washington: We know you are screwed in Afghanistan. We will get you out safely as long as we get the same nuclear deal as India has got.
The Yanks seem to have got the message. Pakistani nuclear delegations visit Washington regularly now. One is there right now meeting with American experts. Nikki Haley was perhaps just the portend of things to come. Any day, you might have an announcement of a nuclear deal for Pakistan.
Poor India. What has it been doing all this while. It has alienated the Russkies so much that they are now selling arms to Islamabad for the first time ever. Has India’s foreign policy establishment been sleeping at the wheel? Or will they be able to pull a rabbit out of their hat? The plot thickens.
-----
DISCLAIMER: Views expressed above are the author's own.
Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com/strategic-insights/is-pakistan-close-to-a-nuclear-deal-with-the-us/
-----
URL: