Mr. Asaduddin Owaisi on The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017

Asaduddin Owaisi:  "He (Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad) may be a normal lawyer, but he is a pathetic and failed law draftsman."

Section 3 contradicts Section 4 of the bill.

Section 3:  Pronouncement of talaq by a person upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal.

Section 4:  Whoever pronounces talaq referred to in section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine.

Note:  There is no divorce happening on issuance of instant triple talaq and so instant triple talaq has no effect.  Then, how can a man be punished for doing/saying something which has no effect?

Asaduddin Owaisi:  "In Section 3 he accepts that triple talaq is void.  Then why are you giving punishment in section 4?"

Section 5 on Allowance.

Section 5:  Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force, a married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced, shall be entitled to receive from her husband such amount of subsistence allowance for her and dependent children as may be determined by the Magistrate.

Note:  Section 5 does not specify 'allowance' or 'custody' regulation and the "determined by the magistrate" phrase simply helps further burden the judicial system.  Given the existing burden on our judicial system (One Judge on more than 4000 cases), it would take the wife exceedingly large amount of time to first prove the issuance of instant triple talaq, then file a case for maintenance and/or custody.

Asaduddin Owaisi:  "He has failed to differentiate between a civil law and a criminal law.  Triple talaq is a verbal and emotional abuse which comes under section 3, subsection 3 of Domestic Violence Act."

Section 6 on Custody.

Section 6:  Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a married Muslim woman shall be entitled to custody of her minor children in the event of pronouncement of talaq by her husband, in such manner as may be determined by the Magistrate.

Note:  Again, the phrase "As may be determined by the Magistrate" states dependency on pre-existing laws and only burdens the judicial system further.  This section like section 5 is more of a suggestion than a law.  The Muslim woman shall be entitled to custody of her minor children "as may be determined by the Magistrate" again undermines the significance of have any such article included in any bill and reduces such articles to be mere recommendations/suggestions.

Asaduddin Owaisi:  Social laws cannot solve problems.  Every hour 3 women are raped, every hour 5 women are assaulted, 3 are abducted, and that is why I saw society has to be reformed.

Section 7 on Instant Triple Talaq Being a Cognizable & a Non-Bailable Offense.

Section 7:  Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable within the meaning of the said Code.

Note:  The "meaning of the said Code" is still unclear.  Section 7 seems to classify utterance of the world 'talaq' as a crime, whereas talaq is simply the translation of the word divorce.  Making such an act punishable up to 3 years, cognizable and non-bailable makes dowry look like a lesser crime.

Asaduddin Owaisi:  "This is not a law to provide justice to Muslim women, but you are giving a handle to Muslim men to do more injustice and to ensure that your dream of having more Muslim men in jail will be realized."

Unacceptable Scenarios:

#1:  The husband does not pronounce instant triple talaq.  The wife goes to the police station.  The police calls the husband.  The husband denies and accuses the wife of lying.  Police asks the wife to prove the issuance of triple talaq.  The wife fails to prove.  She returns home.  The husband decides to issue proper divorce to the wife.

#2:  The husband does not pronounce instant triple talaq.  The wife goes to the police station.  The police calls the husband.  The husband denies and accuses the wife of lying.  Police asks the wife to prove the issuance of triple talaq.  The wife provides two false witnesses.  The husband is arrested.

The Only Acceptable Scenario:

#1:  The husband pronounces instant triple talaq.  The wife goes to the police station.  The police calls the husband.  The husband denies and accuses the wife of lying.  Police asks the wife to prove the issuance of triple talaq.  The wife provides evidence in the form of SMS, WhatsApp text, Email, etc, and witnesses.  The husband is arrested.

Other Quotes by Mr. Asaduddin Owaisi:

Asaduddin Owaisi:  "Take Child Marriage Act for example.  2011 Census says 90 lakh non-Muslim children got married.  You have laws?"

Asaduddin Owaisi:  "You have dowry act.  80% of dowry cases are non-Muslim.  Aren't you concerned about that?"

Asaduddin Owaisi:  "Abandoned women?  2011 Census, out of 23 lakhs, 20 lakhs are Hindu women, 2.8 lakhs are Muslim, 0.8 lakhs are Christians."

Asaduddin Owaisi:  "Look at the discussion which took place over here.  You are trying to demonize the whole Muslim community.  If you have empirical data, please place it on record."

Summary:

All that The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, has done is that it has prevented men from divorcing their wives through SMS, letter, WhatsApp, email, phone, etc. If the husband pronounces instant talaq to his wife, the burden of proof will be on the woman.

There is no clear law on child custody and only if the pronouncement is proved by the wife, the custody of her children will be with the women. Jailing the husband also requires the wife to prove issuance of instant talaq by her husband and puts a question mark on how maintenance will be provided if the husband is jailed.

This bill is merely trying to appease all those who are anti-Muslim for whatever reason they are. It has given Muslim men more reasons to break the bond, and Muslim women are supposed to run after witnesses and proofs.

All the above at the cost of wasting time in parliament and further burdening our judiciary system.

the muslim women (protection of rights on marriage) bill, 2017.pdf

Quran versus Indian Constitution?

I had a conversation on YouTube comments where somebody asked me if I consider Quran over the Indian Constitution.  I gave him the following answer, which I would like to share with you.

Q.  Do I consider Quran superior than the Indian Constitution?

A.  When India got freedom and became to be known as a secular country, the Indian Muslims were informed about the article “Freedom of Religion.”  The choice to stay back or leave for Muslims was made on the basis of whether an Indian Muslim would be allowed to practice Islam with complete freedom or not.  It took a couple of years for the Muslims community to understand that indeed India either has “no religion” or is an incorporation of all religions, and that is why we have Freedom of Religion.  Subsequently, our forefathers began to accept India as their country.  The basic fundamentals in the Indian Constitution have never contradicted the basic principals and fundamentals of Islam, and above all, Hinduism preached Sarv Dharm Samaan and we were told about it.. and so we chose to stay.

India is a country, not a nation, which means we got diversity not only in culture, traditions, religions, etc, but in mindsets as well.  I have a right to disagree with the majority mindset and yet I may be right.  You may hate Pakistan, and I may address the common Pakistani as a brother.  The question is, “how can I hate over 90% of Pakistan’s population who do not hate me or my country?”  I may hate Pakistan’s politics as I may hate the politics of my own country, but a country having bad representation does not make the country bad.  So, “I don’t hate Pakistan.”  And I don’t even care if I have to face an army at my door for that.  I will continue not to hate Pakistan the way I don’t hate Nepal.  We have our political differences, but we can always hope for good.

It is not the land, the rivers, the mountains, the valleys, etc, that form India.. It is the people.  When I say, “Jai Hind,” it is to praise the people first.  My country starts from myself, then my family, then my neighbors, then my relatives, then my security, and only then it extends to the police who protect us, and then to the institutes that develop us as a society, then courts, and only then the leaders.  I love my home more than the parliament.  I respect my society security personnel more than the army.  In short, "my nation starts from my home and not the other way round."

The Indian constitution gives our society the criminal and civil codes.. but the Quran gives me more than that.  It gives me my “MORAL CODE,” which no other constitution on Earth can substitute.  It is my moral ethics that rule the majority of my time on Earth as a human being.  How can there ever be any sort of comparison between the Quran and any other constitution?  The “Right to Religion” in the Indian Constitution is “Not a Favor,” it is a “Right.”  The same right given to a Hindu, where it says you can remain a Hindu and yet be an Indian.  It is not a favor.

The Ram Bhakts who chanted Jai Shree Ram and took down Babri had actually “thrown the Indian Constitution out of the window” at that period of time.  They have violated the Indian Constitution several times in the Ram Mandir issue.  Nobody asks them if the Ram Mandir is greater than the Indian Constitution.

Quran is my constitution and it compasses an article that tells me to follow the laws of the land until these same laws does not violate the teachings of Islam or forces me to abandon my religion.  Come Uniform Civil Code or Hindu Rashtra, at any given time and place, Quran will remain supreme for me in comparison to any other constitution or law.

So, if anybody asks me to compare Quran to the Indian Constitution, then I tell them that my moral codes encompass the majority of my life’s time and I get my moral codes from my religion.  There is no comparison..  that I am a Muslim and if a country does not permit me to remain a Muslim, I will be left with two choices..  leave it if I can.. or fight in all available platforms to bring back my Right to Religion, which my forefathers have brought me after sacrificing their lives for the lands, rivers, mounts, etc, I dwell on.

I am a Muslim first and I own this country as much as any other Indian regardless of his/her belief system.. Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais, etc..  And nothing makes my any less patriotic than any anybody belonging to any of the mentioned belief systems or beyond.

And even if somebody does not get this information through their heads, it doesn’t matter.  For me, no matter what the consequence may be.. Quran remains supreme till the end of my time, and I remaining a true Muslim only helps my country.

Peace