Hijrat is the duty of a Muslim to emigrate from a land where it is not possible to practice Islam properly. It can be wajib (obligatory), mustahab (recommended) or mubah (permitted).
Failure to do something which is wajib is sinful but does not lead to being classed as a kaffir. The Constitution of India can't be used to save a person from sin. People have the freedom to do things which their religion consider sinful but which are legal. The Constitution can protect the freedom to profess a religion. It can't violate any freedom to promote a particular Religion's notion of what is or isn't sinful.
All India Muslim Personal Board says hijab is wajib. Yet there are Muslim women in India who are not wearing hijab. Indeed, they are the majority. All India Muslim Personal Board is not saying marriage with non-Hijab wearing Muslim should be dissolved. Thus the Board is either lying or it is stupid. Hijab may be mustabah, in some circumstances, but it is not wajib. However, if the Board really believes the thing is wajib, then it is clear that Muslim mothers in India are not able to properly practice their Faith because they are so sunk in ignorance and so infected by the bad example of the infidels that they are not wearing hijab. Thus Islam is in danger in India. Hijrat is wajib save for the very old and infirm. On the other hand, maybe if Muslim women accept Hijab and purdah- i.e. vacate educational and employment spaces- and remain confined to their homes, then Islam won't be in danger. The Indian Constitution should be used against women. The Supreme Court should say Hijab is mandatory for Muslim women. The next step would be that 'religious freedom' would require the Govt. to adopt Taliban policies towards Muslim women in India.
This is the logic of the All India Muslim Personal Board.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has moved the Supreme Court challenging the March 15 order of the Karnataka High Court upholding the ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions, stating that it “deprives the constitutional rights of Muslim girls to practice Hijab along with the school uniform” and “curtails religious freedom and constitutional rights of Muslim women/girls”.
Who is saying Muslim women must wear Hijab? It is the AIMPB. Supreme Court is not forcing them to wear anything. It has upheld the superior right of the School to stipulate dress code. AIMPB is welcome to set up schools or colleges of its own where its own uniform code is applied.
Hindus too have constitutional rights. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The majority will get to affirm their religion and culture and when this ends in violence, it is the majority which will have ethnically cleansed the minority.
“The ground reality is that the petitioners are compelled to remove their hijab to avail the right of education,
the right is unimpaired even if some venues have a superior right to annul it. It is sufficient that another might provide the required service.
at the cost of self-respect and dignity”, said the petition filed by the Board and two “practising Muslim women” – Munisa Bushra Abedi
who went to a Muslim's girl school without hijab. The girls pictured below could be of any community. Are they bad Muslims?
SHE is also Facebook friends with another female Muslim Professor who doesn't wear any hijab at all. These educated and successful women don't need to wear any special dress to have self-respect as Muslim women. They are accepted as of high character and exemplary piety by all members of their community.
and Jaleesa Sultana Yaseen
an advocate who says 'Islam is a religion based on justice not equality.' Sadly, non-Muslims don't like the injustices and atrocities which Muslims may wish to practice on them. On the other hand, we can now understand why this lady thinks Muslim women should have much more onerous religious obligations than Muslim men She does not accept men and women are equal..
– “who themselves wear hijab in public spaces in exercise of their Constitutional rights”.
Or because that is what increases their own power and wealth or bolsters the ego of their menfolk. Interestingly, no photo of any woman member of the Board is given on their website. Lots of beards though.
The plea said that the contention raised by the petitioners before the high court “was that they should be allowed to wear a headscarf/hijab of the same colour of the uniform so that they may remain consistent with their fundamental right of conscience and expression…whether the petitioners are entitled, on the doctrine of proportionality and as a matter reasonable accommodation to wear hijab”.
In which case Hindu girls should have an equal right to make a display of their attachment to their religion. One solution- make all school uniforms saffron colored. Then the saffron hijab would be the same color as the Hindu headscarf.
The high court, it added, had however framed “totally erroneous questions which have distracted itself from the real issues arising out of the record before” with the result that “the discussions on diverse constitutional principles have resulted into conceptual overlapping leading to indirect discrimination”.
If hijab is wajib then direct discrimination is permissible. Any woman with a Muslim name can automatically be taken to be a hijab wearer and disqualified from all sorts of educational and employment opportunities on the basis of proportionality. A teacher needs to be able to see the faces of the students so as to know which kids are struggling and need help. Employers and customers too get a lot of information from facial expressions.
Furthermore, if hijab is wajib, what else is? Jihad? Hijrat? Incessantly bringing nuisance law suits?
The core question raised before the high court was that while determining the claim of the petitioners of asserting the fundamental right of conscience under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, it is not necessary for them to justify the same on the ground that their assertion is part of essential religious practice, it said.
Then why did they do so? The problem with the 'conscience' plea is that each individual will have to show that their conscience had been exercised in a similar way in every other field of their life. It is enough for one photo on the internet showing the girl without hijab for the case to collapse.
The high court had also “laid too much emphasis on propositions which results into discrimination, exclusion and overall deprivation of a class from the mainstream public education system apart from the fact it seriously encroaches upon an individual’s sacrosanct religious belief”, the petition argued.
The fact that Hindus exist may encroach upon the sacrosanct religious beliefs of the Board. But so may their own existence for those who hate and revile them.
It is also a “case of direct discrimination against Muslim girls” and “also ignores the doctrine of reasonable accommodation”, the plea contended.
Hindus are the vast majority. They will get reasonable and unreasonable accommodation. The World has turned against Muslim nutters. Even Saudi Arabia seems to have decided that it is a matter of choice whether niqab should be worn. Still, best be cautious in that country.
It said the issues decided by the high court “widely impacts socio-religious ethos of the Muslim community” and “has widely opened the door of interference with the religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution”.
The way those freedoms are exercised may prevent the exercise of other freedoms. Why? Because other people have rights too.
The plea contended that the high court judgment “presents an erroneous understanding of the Islamic texts particularly the primary and highest source of Islamic law i.e., the Holy Quran”.
This is irrelevant. God alone knows the correct understanding. However, it is prima facie absurd to say that you have to wear Hijab in a classroom in a girls college. In Saudi Arabia, women must take off hijab in female only areas so everybody can be sure no men have snuck in.
It added that “as far as interpretation of scriptures in the Holy Quran are concerned there is a consensus amongst religious scholars of all schools of thought namely, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafai and Hambli that practice of Hijab is ‘wajib’ (mandatory), a set of obligations, which if not followed, he/she will commit “sin” or become a “sinner”.
The Court is not under any obligation to keep people from 'sin'. Fard (duty) is higher than wajib (obligation). Violating or denying fard may make one a kaffir. This is not the case for wajib. People may incur ritual impurity or 'sin' in connection with their job or attendance at Court etc. However this can be expiated. It does not exclude you from your religion.
Wajib has been kept in the “First Degree” of obedience”.
What about jihad and hijrat?
On March 15, a full bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Muslim girls studying in pre-university colleges in Udupi seeking the right to wear hijabs in classrooms. The court ruled that wearing the hijab “does not make up an essential religious practice in the Islamic faith” and freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions.
We all commit sins according to our Religion in the course of going about our business in a secular society. But Religion has created ways to expiate such sins and to restore our ritual purity. Thus if you make a mistake in your prayer or omit them because of some exigency, you can do 'tawbah'. Religion encourages us to seek repentance for both the sins we know we committed as well as those we may have unconsciously or accidentally done. There is no need for the Supreme Court to get involved in this. We are free to practice our Religion even if during the course of our day, some sins are committed. The remedy is repentance. It is not the case that the State must intervene to prevent sin. That is a Taliban ideology. But it is the ideology of this bunch of beardies. Why do they not embrace hijrat? Is it because no other country wants them?
No comments:
Post a Comment