Or Secularism is the new Word for Supporting Rape

At least in Mulayam Singh Yadav’s lexicon.

Amidst a raging debate over the fatwa issued by Darul Uloom Deoband in the Imrana case — that she cannot go back to her husband after being raped by her father-in-law — Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav has expressed his support for what the religious leaders have decided. After some initial hesitation, he said today the decision that Imrana was ‘haraam’ for her husband and that she should not be living with him was taken by religious leaders who are learned people and who must have given it the necessary thought.

A Court at Every Streetcorner

The Shah Bano incident pales into insignificance. Imrana is raped by her father-in-law who according to this report has a penchant for raping his daughters-in-law.

Many privately say this is not the first time Mohammad Ali has sexually assaulted a daughter-in-law. In previous cases, his other sons moved away with their families instead of complaining.

The same report also mentions that Mohammad Ali was arrested by the police. However, the Indian system also allows, nay “respects” personal laws (read: the Islamic Personal Law or the Shariat). Is there any surprise therefore that we have parallel courts where justice is administered by local hoodlums in states like Bihar and UP? If the Shariat is valid as a system of justice, the Ranbir Sena’s courts–or more recently, the Naxal law system–are equally valid. So the justice-minded folks at the panchayat level initially, did this:

.the panchayat dissolved her marriage to her husband Noor.

The head of a local Islamic court, which will hear her case on Friday, has also said that Imrana can never remarry her husband, as she is now symbolically his mother.

And predictably, also said this:

The maulvis also said Imrana must have invited the attack…

We’ve heard this before, maulvi saab. The victim should be punished.

Volte Face

The June 21 edition of Indian Express reported Imrana’s faith in the justice system in these words:

“Main na Shariat ko janti hun, na panchayat ko janti hun. Main to bus itna janti hun ki main apne pati ke sath hi rahungi (I don’t know Shariat nor I know panchayat. I just know that I will live with my husband),” the woman told reporters at a government hospital here yesterday. [...]The victim said that she had full faith in the police and the law and added that her alleged rapist father-in-law should be punished severely.

On June 27, she also expressed her trust in the Shariat.

Reacting to the fatwa, Imrana, who has been staying with her parents at Kukra village near here, said she had full faith in the Shariah.

In the June 28 edition of the same paper, Imrana says this:

“My husband and I are willing to abide by the fatwa if the Darul Uloom Muftis want us to,” Imrana said in Muzaffarnagar.

Pressure applied in the right places…

But the husband turns out to be a strange creature. He cannot confront his father nor stand up for his wife. He seems rather, to be content with his fate/life decided by others.

Her husband Noor Ilahi said he would do as asked by the “fatwa”.

A Fundamentalist Authority

Is what the Darul Uloom Deoband is. Its fundamentalist antecedents are pretty strong.

Institutionalising the legacy of Shah Waliullah, Dar-ul-Ulum of Deoband maintained its influence in the activities of JUH and never allowed it to accept the concept of Indian nationalism. This Deoband school of Islam is also the ideological mentor of Taliban and is therefore a radical Islamist institution, which has been producing hundreds of Ulama and fundamentalist scholars of Islam ever since its inception. Thus, if anyone thinks that JUH was a nationalist organisation during freedom struggle, it is nothing but a myth. In the background of their medieval concept of unchangeable Shariat, the Ulama of JUH viewed the term Indian nationalism synonymous to Hinduism. For all practical purposes, the Pan-Islamism of Maulana Mohammad Ali, Islamic nationalism of Iqbal, two-nation theory of Jinnah and Shariatisation call given by Ulama of JUH have had a common focus on the movement for Muslim separatism.

And so it ruled that Imrana was now haraam (impure) and cannot live with her husband. A female eminence at the AIMPLB says this:

Meanwhile, approving Deoband’s decision, the Board’s lone woman member, Begum Naseem Iqtedar Ali Khan said in Lucknow: “As per the Quran, Imrana’s conjugal relationship with her husband stands dissolved, since she has been raped by the latter’s blood relative”.

Isn’t it interesting how the focus is on “punishing” the victim than on the crime’s perpetrator? And I’m not even commenting on the verdict which is disgusting to say the least.

In a bizarre order, a community panchayat in Muzaffarnagar district has ordered a young married woman to become the “mother” of her own husband by living as a wife with her father-in-law who had raped her a fortnight ago.

A Court at Every Streetcorner Redux

A response in a forum on Freerepublic.com which discusses this incident follows:

To: TFine80
Not Pakistan. The article references Uttar Pradesh which is the state in India in which the Taj is located.
I don’t much about the law in India (actually nothing) but I am surprised that Sharia can supercede the law of the state.
15 posted on 06/15/2005 10:41:22 AM PDT by Dark Skies

A commonsense observation. A tame editorial in the Indian Express in fact, brushes aside the need for a common law aka the uniform civil code.

The question is not simply whether a uniform civil code will achieve justice for women. We need to recognise a far deeper crisis: our inability as a society to allow women their choices.

In other words, we are fine as we are, the Shariat should remain in place but justice should be delivered in spite of that? Why not advocate as learned lawmen in Pakistan and other Islamic countries do: a woman complaining of rape should have at least four male witnesses to the crime? That surely is part of the Islamic law. The “inability to allow women their choices” phrase is as hideous as it is noble-sounding. The said inability is the result of laws and systems like the Shariat, which is deemed valid till eternity. When you accept the status of women under the Islamic law as valid, you also need to accept the consequences it brings forth. If you want justice/free choice for Muslim women, enact Article 44, derecognize the Shariat.

Finally

The general outrage generated is pretty heartening. However, like all issues, this too, shall pass. With time.

Meanwhile, the AIMPLB and the Deoband is in trouble with the Shia Board, which gives us quite a different interpretation of the Shariat.

According to Maulana Syed Mohd Taqi, if a woman was raped by her father-in-law, then she could not be deemed as her husband’s mother because she was not her father-in-law’s wife. The Shia clerics are of the opinion that as per Quranic tenets, the wives of sons after being divorced or becoming widows will remain ‘haraam’ for the prohibited relations. Quoting a ‘hadis’ (saying) of Prophet Mohammad, which says ‘Don’t break belief just on the basis of doubt’, Maulana Taqi said Imrana, before being raped by her father-in-law was ‘halaal’ for her husband, but after her alleged rape, doubts are being raised whether she is still ‘halaal’ for her husband. “In light of the Prophet’s quote — the ‘doubt’ should not be given any significance and she should be considered ‘halaal’ for her husband. Therefore, according to the viewpoint of Shias, Imrana is very much her husband’s wife, they pointed out.

But Secular Mulayam knows which side is buttered. And so, in his eyes, fundamentalist mullahs are learned leaders. But Salman Khursheed, spokesman of the party which pioneered Indian Secularism is even better.

“We don’t have to support Imrana or Deoband. We have to support the law of the land, and what it says about Imrana. The law of the land respects personal law,” said Salman Khursheed, UPCC, President.

Respects=endorses?