You Cannot Defend Triple Talaq As An Alternative To Murder!
It seems like Mr Riyaz Ahmed wants us to realise how virtuous and rightful the practice of instant Triple Talaq really is. And thus, he went to great lengths to hail it as a saviour of philandering women. The SP leader recently came out to defend Triple Talaq, saying that it saves lives of cheating women. Speaking to ANI he said that in case a man ever finds his wife having an extra-marital affair, he would either have to kill her or can get rid of her via Triple Talaq.
In his quest, however, he unwittingly portrayed all Muslim men as incapable of forgiveness and having a murderous mindset. The only way to “save” women from their murderous rage is Triple Talaq. It also singularly puts the blame of a broken marriage on women, using the alternative of homicide as a sorry excuse to misinterpret the practice.
Shariat says Talaq should be given in three stages. Whereas,triple talaq has been kept as an option.For eg.,if you find your wife in a compromising situation with another man,what will you do? You will either kill her or give triple talaq to get rid of her: Riyaz Ahmed, SP leader pic.twitter.com/wHTvJMdtAT
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) July 23, 2018
Triple Talaq is not an alternative to murder
In a society where the blame of a broken marriage is always shouldered on women, even if it is the husband who is at fault, Ahmed’s defence that this practice is an alternative to murder, doesn’t exactly put Triple Talaq in the right light, no matter what he believes.
- SP leader Riyaz Ahmed has hailed Triple Talaq as an alternative to murder.
- He thinks if a man catches his wife in the arms of another man, he must “get rid of her” by either giving her Triple Talaq or by murdering her.
- Ahmed’s misogynist mindset not only defends instant divorce, it establishes that forgiveness and reconciliation are virtues only to be extended towards men.
Besides, what other situations is Riyaz Ahmed referring to here? Should a wife be grateful for being instantly divorced instead of being killed if her rotis aren’t round or she fails to keep the house clean? Must women always live in fear for their lives and submit to any and every practice of oppression, because the alternative is death? Ahmed is using the threat of death to defend Triple Talaq today. Tomorrow people who agree with him would start advocating that women stay home, girls not be sent to school or womankind accept the practice of FGM gratefully, because at least they aren’t being hacked to death.
There is no dearth of violence against women in our country across communities, castes, religion and age group. Ahmed’s statement proves why women and men are still not equals in our society. While a wife is expected to forgive her philandering husband, she deserves a harsh punishment if she ever engages in adultery. She must either face instant divorce or death.
None of these options speak of forgiveness or reconciliation, because virtues are applicable exclusively in cases when men are at fault.
If only Ahmed had asked himself a couple of questions, before making this statement. Are women as empowered as men, to tackle the issue of adultery? Is a woman’s adulterous nature the only reason why many men instantly divorce their wives?
Ahmed only hails an oppressive practice as women’ saviour. He doesn’t want to protect their future or prevent husbands from abusing their rights in the name of a traditional practice. In fact, he is trying to brainwash women into thinking that Triple Talaq saves their lives. They must be grateful that their husbands choose to give them an instant divorce instead of killing them. If this does not uncover his misogynist mindset then what does?
It is sad that even a matter which concerns women, it is the men who get to opine more. Marriage still remains a one-sided relationship, where only a husband gets choices. A wife must be grateful for whatever she gets on her plate. Be it wrongful abandonment.
Yamini Pustake Bhalerao is a writer with the SheThePeople team, in the Opinions section. The views expressed are the author’s own.