 The rape case and plight of the 28-year-old Indian Muslim woman, Imrana, is slowly turning into a political drama with both Muslims and non-Muslims pitching in their worth. While the fatwa issued by Ulemas of the Deoband and the Muslim Law Board has triggered a hornet's nest, the Hindu fundamentalists BJP turned to their pet peeve by calling for reforms in the personal laws of Islam and to bring these in consonance with the constitutional guarantees.
| Despite my dislike of the BJP, I agree with them. If laws don't apply to all citizens, then each individual citizen can make up his own laws — like they do in Haiti. Customs have to stop at the edge of the community, otherwise they impinge on the surrounding communities, as this case does... |
Imrana was raped by her father-in-law, who is now in judicial custody, and the issue of Imrana's marriage and Muslim personal law has all come under sharp focus, in the predominantly Hindu country. There are 180 million Muslims in India and they were shell-shocked to see on the television screen the victim of rape begging and screaming to be let alone. Fully veiled and in black burqa she was shown on television pleading, "Please leave me alone, please, I'm tired, don't trouble me, don't highlight my case, and to look at this case from the point of view of a woman. I shall abide by the decision of the Shariah court, but I would like that the accused be punished severally. I will do whatever the Shariah asks me to do. If they tell me to leave my husband, then I will. I will follow the fatwa."
| That's a properly submissive attitude for a Muslim woman to have, I suppose. But a more pertinent question, and the one that's being asked, I think, is what the hell right do the Ulemas of the Deoband and the Muslim Law Board have to tell her how to run her burka'd life? And if they have that right, why don't they have the right to tell the Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Jain and what have you neighbors how to run theirs? As we've noticed here, it's a right they claim, even if not always out loud. |
Meanwhile, newspapers too were having a field day by propounding on the issue. In an editorial, Indian Express said that the Ulemas of the Deoband and the Muslim Law Board have made it quite apparent that even in the 21st century, the Ulemas who act under the imprimatur of religion do not understand one simple principle: That a woman is a person in her own right and that Imrana was a victim of a heinous double crime.
| I suppose the process makes sense if a woman's merely a possession. If you're a genuine person, though, you're not going to want to have your entire life disposed of my a bunch of turbans. |
The editorial further added that this is not an isolated case of a [single] Muslim woman, but recently we had seen the case of Gudiya, another Muslim woman, whom the self appointed custodians of religion took it upon themselves to determine whether she would have to live with her first husband, who had been assumed dead but eventually returned from Pakistan, or whether she should continue to live with her current husband.
| To me, with my simple agnostic mind, that's a question for the civil courts. Did a de facto divorce take place when he deserted her? |
Darul Uloom, of Deoband, which issued the controversial fatwa, stood firm before the Shariah court and had in an edict stated that Imrana's marriage stands nullified in light of the alleged rape and she should separate from her husband. Her father-in-law Ali Muhammed raped Imrana Noor Elahi, mother of five children and resident of Charthawal town of Muzaffarnagar district in western state of Uttar Pradesh allegedly on June 4. The Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband has ruled that a woman raped by her father-in-law could not be allowed to live with her husband any longer and issuing a fatwa (decree) that her staying with her husband Noor Elahi has become untenable as per the Islamic law after the rape.
| That's based on the assumption that raping someone gives you a claim on them. Because Pop doinked her, even though it was involuntary on her part, she became his property — which is what a proper Muslim wife is. Therefore she became Hubby's Mom, which'd make any further relations incestuous. |
The All India Muslim Law Board (AIMPLB) also concurred with the Darul Uloom of Deoband fatwa, while the lone woman member of the board Naseem Iqtedar Ali Khan too approved the edict and said that as per the Qur'an, Imrana's conjugal relationship with her husband stands dissolved, since she had been raped by the latter's blood relative. Had she been raped by anyone other than a blood relative, she could have stayed with her husband, but here, a sacred relationship has been violated, the consequences of which has to be borne by Imrana and her husband Noor Elahi and pointed out that the responsibility of the couple's five children would have to be shouldered by Elahi as long as required.
| Why? If she became his Mom, the kids must be Pop's, not his. |
"India is not a Islamic country were a rapist is stoned to death. Here it is the law of the land which prevails in cases of granting relief to a rape victim and punishing the offender" Naseem Khan stated. The state chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav too expressed his support to the fatwa.
| Quite correct. India's not a Moose limb country. It has a perfectly workable set of civil laws. Adding a separate path of contradictory laws subverts that system. If laws don't apply to everybody, there's no logical reason they should apply to anybody. And we won't even go into the fact that in Muslim countries it's usually the rapee that ends up getting stoned, rather than the rapist. |
But the BJP took it as an opportunity to continue its Muslim bashing. It said that the fatwa showed how the Muslims were crumbling all over the world. Joining in the opposition to the fatwa was the All India Shia Personal Law Board, which stated that if a man rapes his daughter-in-law the victim cannot become the mother of the husband.
| Okay. That's three separate paths we've got going. Anybody else want to supervise? |
The National Commission for Women (NCW) that was hearing the plight of Imrana, said that it was also consulting legal experts on how to tackle the clash between criminal justice and Islamic jurisprudence in Imrana's case.
| Easy enough. Don't recognize Islamic jurisprudence in any form. |
Mufti Habib ur Rahman of Darul Uloom, who issued the fatwa, however stated that they had been hustled into doing so after queries were raised on Imrana's marital status. The mufti said that he told the parties that raised the queries that the issue ought to be decided by a Shariah court and added that after repeated queries supported by evidence, he issued the fatwa.
| "Yeah! It ain't our fault! We wuz rushed into it! That's why it don't make no sense!" |
Muslim public opinion too, is questioning the right of the religious seminary to adjudicate on a purely criminal offense.
| You mean even the turban in the street gets it? Wowzers. |
"The Darul Uloom should have kept quiet on this issue as India is not a Islamic country. In fact, the Darul Uloom have no right to issue a fatwa on criminal offense" said Naeem Hamid a member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board. What is the logic behind giving a decision in which one party is penalized when it had no power to punish the culprit?" asked Hamid. Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan Barelvi of the parallel All India Muslim Law Board (jaded) said that a controversy has been created by some vested interests to get the Shariah laws changed, but what is more reprehensible is that some of our brethren have fallen prey to the designs of these vested interests, he added.
| Ahah! I knew it! It's a conspiracy! Prob'ly the Jews or the Americans are behind it all... |
The BJP and other Hindu fundamentalist organizations organized several protest rallies throughout the country demanding justice to Imrana and demanding the federal government to abolish the Muslim personal law and bring the Muslims under the umbrella of the Uniform Civil Code. The Communist Party of India (CPI-M) leader Brinda Karat described Imrana's plight as a "shocking example of how the contractors of religion can bulldoze the constitutional rights of a citizen.
| Cheeze. I agree with commies. I must be wrong someplace in my reasoning... Nope. Can't be. The alternative would be to agree with Islamists. Talk about a rock and a hard place... |
Renowned Islamic scholar and Arab News columnist Adil Salahi reacting to the Imrana case and the fatwa said "Whoever gave this fatwa is ignorant. He tells us that marriage is ivalidated by rape, or adultery, or incest. There are only two ways to end a marriage: Divorce including 'khula', and death. But these people are putting their narrow view ahead of the Qur'an that states clearly that a son's wife is unlawful for her father in law, even after she is divorced or becomes a widow. Now they are saying that rape invalidates her marriage and makes her a mother of her husband. This is ignorance in the extreme. Noted film and drama writer director Mujeeb Khan criticized the edict of the Darul Uloom, and said that a ignorant fatwa has put the Muslims in the hall of shame the world over.
| And Lord knows that wasn't a long trip... |
|