Serious concerns have emerged regarding the provisions of the proposed law targeting forced religious conversions in Maharashtra. Maulana Mushtaq Malik, president of Tehreek Muslim Shabban, has questioned several clauses in the proposed legislation, raising apprehensions over their potential misuse. He emphasized that religious conversion is strictly a matter of an individual's personal belief, conscience, and thought process, where forced external interference should have no place. Furthermore, he strongly opposed categorizing marriages or conversions between individuals of different faiths under the label of 'Love Jihad'.
Objections to Inheritance Clauses and Sharia Conflict
Maulana Mushtaq Malik pointed out that similar legislation has been introduced in various formats across different BJP-ruled states. He raised specific objections to clauses concerning the religious identity of children born following a conversion and their inheritance rights over property. According to him, if forced conversion is proven in a particular case and a child is born, granting custody of the child to the mother is not objectionable in itself. However, if the legislation mandates making such a child an heir to property belonging to both parents' families, it directly conflicts with Islamic inheritance laws established under Sharia.
Legal Ambiguity and the Risk of Misuse
Elaborating on fundamental religious principles, the Maulana stated that a person's faith is deeply rooted in their internal convictions and personal choices. No individual can be compelled to adopt a specific religious faith against their will. He highlighted that Islam itself strictly forbids forced religious conversions. Warning against vague wording in the legislation, he stated that any ambiguity within the law could be exploited to pressure individuals and target people unfairly. Decisions related to personal preference and religious belief should never be converted into criminal offenses based merely on suspicion or social pressure.
Judicial Precedents and Constitutional Protections
To substantiate his position, Maulana Malik cited a past ruling by the Allahabad High Court involving two adult sisters who had converted and married out of their own free will. He noted that the court had prioritized their legal adulthood and reaffirmed their constitutional right to make independent personal choices, even penalizing the opposing parties in that case. Expressing strong objection to the term 'Love Jihad', he stated that love and jihad are two entirely distinct concepts, making it inappropriate to label every interfaith marriage on religious grounds alone. When two consenting adults choose to marry, the matter should be viewed strictly through the lens of their constitutional rights rather than being turned into a political issue. He concluded that politicizing sensitive social topics like religious conversion and interfaith marriage damages the broader fabric of society.
