The Modernist Menace To Islam by Daniel Haqiqatjou

Many people don’t understand the issue of triple talaq. Obviously, a husband who issues three talaqs altogether against his wife has committed a stupid and offensive act. And the fact that the divorce is binding and final according to all the madhahib means the husband is the one getting punished, not the wife! The husband loses his mahr and his wife. The wife should feel fortunate to get out of a marriage to a man who is so careless and unhinged that he loses control and utters talaq three times like a petulant child.

So how is it helping Muslim women when the new Indian law, passed by the racist criminal thugs of the Indian Hindu BJP politcal party, bans triple talaq?

Banning triple talaq means that the husband doesn’t get punished for his reckless behavior and the wife has to continue living with such a person. And if she wants to get out of the marriage through khul`, she has to give up her mahr. So it is a lose-lose situation for her.

Muslim feminists celebrating this new law simply don’t know what they’re talking about (as per usual).

Rather than focusing on banning triple talaq, the focus should be on bad cultural attitudes toward divorce that are not a part of Islam. Why should a woman be seen as a persona non grata simply because she is a divorcee? Why should her family or the community shun her or see her in a bad light? This is not right. Divorce happens. It is unfortunate, but that is life and that is why Allah has made it permissible out of His wisdom. Do people think they know better than Allah?

It is not the Islamic tradition and its fiqh that need to be reformed. Yes, triple talaq is an abuse of the husband’s right of talaq, but the fiqh has inbuilt deterrent against it, viz., making the divorce final. But any right given in the Sharia can be abused. For example, a woman’s right to nafaqa (maintenance) can be and is abused by some Muslim women, who basically gouge their husbands financially. The right to mahr can be and is also abused by asking for exorbitant mahr. Does this mean we dissolve a Muslim woman’s right to nafaqa and mahr? Doing so would mean dissolving Islamic marriage itself. Same with reforming or banning the right of talaq for men.

In reality, what needs to be reformed and excised is attitudes towards divorce that have been borrowed from Hinduism and Christianity.

May Allah allow us to be true guardians and protectors of our Muslim mothers, daughters, and sisters by following the Quran, Sunnah, and its scholarly tradition, not by reforming and ignoring those sources of guidance.

NB: I know that a small minority of scholars considered triple talaq at one time as one talaq and I know some contemporary scholars use this position for their fatawa. The above is not trying to argue about the fiqh. Rather the concern is with how traditional fiqh is misunderstood and how that misunderstanding leads to mistaken calls for reform of Islam.