Six ‘awesome arguments’ Kapil Sibal has made in the triple talaq case
Senior Congress leader cum lawyer Kapil Sibal, who is famous for his zero loss
theory in the 2G scam, is all set to become famous for more theories.
Currently, the senior advocate is a counsel for the All India Muslim Personal
Law Board (AIMPLB) in the ongoing triple talaq hearing at the Supreme Court.
The following are some of the
arguments the learned Kapil Sibal has made till date while debating the triple talaq issue in the apex court:
1.“Triple talaq is going on since 1400 years, how can you say it is
unconstitutional?”
— yes, if something is going on for centuries, it automatically becomes
a part of the constitution apparently. Some reports suggest that he
said ‘how can you say it is unislamic’. Well, that’s not how it works. Many Islamic experts do consider many
prevalent practices (say orchestra/music) as unislamic.
2.“If Hindus’ faith about Rama’s birth at Ayodhya can’t be questioned, then triple talaq, a matter of faith for Muslims
shouldn’t be.”
— well, Hindus’ faith was questioned by the courts during the Ram Janmbhoomi case, and no, triple talaq is not a matter of faith, but a
matter of practice. Many practices of Hindus from Dahi Handi to Jallikattu have been questioned by the courts.
3. 3. Shariat is personal law and
not subject to fundamental rights.”
●
— Lovely! Tomorrow some crazy
mullah will say armed jihad is part of shariat and thus it is not subject to the
fundamental right of life (of kaafirs/infidels).
4. 4. “Majority community
cannot make laws for the minority unless the reform comes from within the
community.”
●
— so now only Muslim MPs will be
allowed to vote on bills that concern Muslims? True Congress style secularism.
Also read this
OpIndia
article about why ‘reform must come from
within’ is a flawed and dangerous argument.
5. 5. “Just because a
certain section of people was aggrieved by their personal laws, does not
warrant a case to seek reform in the area.”
— hain? First Sibal says that reform must come from within the community, and when
there are some voices from within, he says it doesn’t warrant a case to seek
reform!
6. 6. “Hindu laws of
divorce and succession are more discriminatory than triple talaq.”
— even if it is true, what is the
point? “What about Hindus?” Sibal seems to argue. This is classic whataboutism, which only “trolls” are accused of
indulging in.
We hope to get more gems from Sibal Sir.
Comments