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. “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. “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. “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. “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.

This might not be all. Perhaps more to come as the apex court will hear more arguments in coming days. We hope to get more gems from Sibal Sir. Amen.