On Tuesday, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) told the Supreme Court (SC) that triple talaq was a matter of faith that was almost 1,400 years old, and asked who were we to say that it was un-Islamic.

"If I have faith that Lord Rama was born at Ayodhya, then it's a matter of faith and there is no question of constitutional morality," Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the AIMPLB, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar.

Sibal was the first from the pro-triple talaq contingent to present his argument. "We are not saying that it (triple talaq) is good and should continue permanently. We are aware that we need to change, though we do not want others to interfere and force the change on us," he said.

Also read Law Commission to go slow on report on uniform civil code; await SC verdict on triple talaq

The AIMPLB had, on several occasions, admitted that triple talaq is sinful. However, they contend that no matter how undesirable the practice, it is still lawful.

Sibal contended that all three forms of talaq -- Ahasn, Hasn, and Talaq-e-Biddat (triple talaq) -- do not find mention in the Quran or the Hadiths. He confessed that the procedure to be followed was not laid down in the Quran. However, Sibal added that though the "Hadiths declare that talaq is not a good practice, it recognises the factum of talaq."

Sibal argued that the Quran was a matter of interpretation. "All that is in the Quran, that was said and practised by the Prophet [Mohammad], was recorded and memorised in the Hadiths by his companions."

"These teachings, in turn, were interpreted by the scholars and communicated down the line," he said. All this has now become part of the religious faith of various Islamic denominations. All of this constitutes the Sharia law, Sibal said.

On Day 4, Sibal took the entire day to place his arguments on record before the multi-faith, all-male Bench.

Sibal is expected to continue on Day 5, and will be followed by senior advocates Raju Ramchandran and VV Giri, who represent the Jamiat-ul-Hind.

On Monday, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the Centre considered all forms of Muslim divorce "unilateral, extrajudicial, and unequal." The Union would enact a new divorce law for Muslim men, if the SC struck down the existing practices, he had said. Rohatgi further contended that the apex court was not an ecclesiastical court and suggested that it was not the place to interpret the Quran.

On Friday, the SC had observed that triple talaq, though legal, was the "worst and undesirable form for dissolution of marriages among Muslims." The CJI had compared the controversial practice to capital punishment.

The SC is hearing a batch of petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of triple talaq and 'nikah halala'. However, due to paucity of time, the SC Bench ruled that a discussion on 'nikah halala' and polygamy would be referred to another Bench.