Hitting out at Centre over Law Commission’s move relating to triple talaq and Uniform Civil Code, a body representing Sunni Muslims today accused the government of making the move in view of UP elections and warned that the community will give befitting reply if it was implemented.
The All India Tanzeem Ulema-a-Islam (AITUI) also staged protest over the issue here, demanding the government to withdraw the “communal” move.
“The Commission is interfering in the personal laws of the Muslims. This is being done to polarise voters in view of the UP polls at the behest of the RSS. Any move to further the step will be given befitting reply by people during the 2017 polls.
“We want the Commission to withdraw the step,” AITUI president Mufti Mohammed Ashfaq Hussain Qadri, said according to a statement.
The demonstrators also urged members of other minority communities such as Jain, Sikhs, Parsis and Christians to join the protest, saying “their rights too may be trampled upon”.
“The UCC will affect personal laws of not only of Mulsims, but these communities too. So, they should also join us,” Maulana Shahabuddin Rizvi, general secretary of All India Jamat Raza-e Mustafa of Bareilly said.
Making perhaps the first such move, the Law Commission had on October 7 sought feedback from public on whether the practice of triple talaq be abolished and whether a uniform civil code should be optional.
In its affidavit submitted to Supreme Court on the same day, the Centre had also opposed before the apex court the practice of triple talaq, ‘nikah halala’ and polygamy among Muslims.
The government had said that triple talaq cannot be regarded as an essential part of the religion and favoured a relook on grounds like gender equality and secularism.
The Ministry of Law and Justice, in the affidavit, referred to constitutional principles like gender equality, secularism, international covenants, religious practices and marital law prevalent in various Islamic countries to drive home the point that the practice of triple talaq and polygamy needed to be adjudicated upon afresh by the apex court.