My second meeting was with Mufti Ashfaq, one of the most respected religious figures in Mumbai. I met him at Jama Masjid in Mumbai, the oldest mosque in Mumbai, situated in a Muslim dominated area. The experience itself was absolutely incredible and it was very interesting to see a place with such rich history.
Mufti Ashfaq was extremely helpful and forthcoming in his responses, and our conversation greatly added to my research and knowledge. For each of my interviews, I had made a set of questions that I was to ask the interviewee, which would then help me write my report.
One of the most important questions I had to ask all of my interviewees was “What is your view on the issue of Triple Talaq”. This question was the base for their responses and it was the question that allowed me to better understand their stance on the issue. For Mufti Ashfaq, being a very religious man, he believed that Talaq should be allowed, as it is written in the Quran, but also stated that the situation in India is a misused, incorrect form of Talaq. From this interview, I learned that the correct form of Talaq is to be given in three different periods, rather than three times in a row. By giving Talaq in three different time periods, it allows for the couple to reconsider their decision and gives time for reconciliation, which is what the Quran recommends. This clarification was crucial as it eliminated the false image painted by the media. Mufti Ashfaq went on to state that the reason for this misuse stems from illiteracy and lack of knowledge of what the Quran is truly preaching. Due to this lack of knowledge, people begin misinterpreting what is meant to be. Furthermore, with this misinterpretation, people find loopholes in the law, which adds fuel to the fire on the current situation in India. He also believed that the “power” and “right” to give Talaq should only rest with men because they are the earning members of the family, and “women tend to be more emotional, and hence should not hold the same power”.
When asked about the proposed bill, he believed that it is a way for the government to gain “brownie points” with the public and believed that no real change will be achieved on a societal level. He also stated that the prison sentence of three years is too harsh and will not result in any change. His reason for holding this perspective was that being that the man is the primary source of income for the family, a prison sentence will hinder the family in the future, which is of no benefit to anyone.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PGpuHhktAtoboCn7QlVv-oOh6u08LGyd/view
TEST