What's new

Wearing Hijab Not An Essential Religious Practice, Says Karnataka High Court

jamahir

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 9, 2014
27,034
2
23,699
Country
India
Location
India
The turban is emphatically not an essential practice of the Sikh religion.

You mentioned the Panj Piara ceremony of Guru Gobind Singh. In an open assembly, he called for volunteers to sacrifice their lives for the faith. When the first volunteer stood up, the Guru took him behind a curtain, and returned with a blood-smeared sword. He repeated this call four times more.

At the end, he went behind the curtain and led back the five, all alive; goats had been sacrificed in their place. He made them mix sugar and water, stir it with a dagger, and drink this in common, breaking their caste restrictions. He then ordained that Sikhs should display (wear, actually; not all could be displayed in decency) the five K's of the Sikh - Kesh (hair), Kanga (the comb, worn in their hair), Kara (the iron band around their wrists), Kirpan (a dagger, usually a small four inch piece sealed into the scabbard, worn only symbolically) and Kachha (drawers).

These are the essential signs of a Gursikh.

The turban is a convenience.

So now I know who a Gursikh is. Thank you for the history. And then there are other Sikhs. The below handsome chap, Vikram Chatwal, is a Sikh businessman in USA who has been a model and also acted in an Indian film and he does not usually wear a turban as he does not keep long hair ( though he has let himself go now physically it seems from his current photos ) but I don't think he has stopped being a Sikh :
vikram-chatwal-5f6aba90-e5d9-44f1-b13d-146f660102d-resize-750.jpeg


@terry5, please note the variations in turban-wearing.

And Joe, I always feed sad when animals are sacrificed for religious reasons. :( What do they have to do with human religions ?
 
Last edited:

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
26,758
162
43,958
Country
India
Location
India
Start with banning these naked babas/Sadhus, in front of women too, how convoluted and crooked it can get in India, more explicit pics are not posted.
If these naked sadhus are challenged, the court will come to a conclusion; without such a challenge, this will continue.

If challenged, the court will then ascertain if this is an essential practice of their religion. If it is, it will pass the challenge. If it is not, the challenge will be upheld. Enforcing that order will be the reponsibility of the administration, not the judiciary.

In case you are wondering, there have been many such challenges, and a short list is reproduced elsewhere.

Beleiving in allah is also not mandataory practice
Indian supreme court
Where did you get this from?
 

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
26,758
162
43,958
Country
India
Location
India
This is mostly mental gymnastics by some Indians regarding the hijab and mandatory Islamic ruling

I think it is important to distinguish between:

-Individual choice (personal conscious decision)

AND

-Religious choice (according to religious ruling)
I am sorry; there is some major misunderstanding.

The courts DO NOT rule on Islam; they rule on the constitution and to its adherence.

In this case, they adjudicated a dispute between a college and its students. The college insisted that its uniform be worn. The students insisted that the college uniform would force them to do something forbidden.

Please read both the judgement - I have reproduced it, as well as some other representative cases.

So now I know who a Gursikh is. Thank you for the history. And then there are other Sikhs. The below handsome chap, Vikram Chatwal, is a Sikh businessman in USA who has been a model and also acted in an Indian film and he does not usually wear a turban as he does not keep long hair ( though he has let himself go now physically it seems from his current photos ) but I don't think he has stopped being a Sikh :
vikram-chatwal-5f6aba90-e5d9-44f1-b13d-146f660102d-resize-750.jpeg


@terry5, please note the variations in turban-wearing.

And Joe, I always feed sad when animals are sacrificed for religious reasons. :( What do they have to do with human religions ?
He may follow the Guru, freely and without bar, and bow before the Granth Sahib, help at the langar, or donate to it, and go and serve humanity at times of crisis. All are Sikh hallmarks, open to Sikhs and any who wish to join them in doing these.

But to be a Gursikh, he must display/ adhere to the five K's, and forsake caste by going through the Pahul ceremony. Caste is not permitted to a Sikh, under any circumstances.

I always feed sad when animals are sacrificed for religious reasons. :( What do they have to do with human religions
I find it disgusting.

I stopped going to the Kali Temple in Kolkata because they continue to sacrifice goats.
 

terry5

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 16, 2014
3,289
-11
5,074
Country
Palestinian Territory, Occupied
Location
Jamaica
You mean madrassas don't educate its students , they have all the subjects along with teaching of Islam.
WTF u on about
We talking about hijab ban ie scarf on head being obstacle for a child to get educated in Indian state schools
 

El Sidd

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 5, 2017
64,205
1
51,389
Country
Pakistan
Location
Germany
Please read post# 182 to see the judgement's context.

Why don't you post the said articles?

I am interested in provisions in the Indian constitution that let state interpret religion for her subjects.

The fascination of seculars to interpret religion for others baffles me.
 

Rollno21

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 27, 2017
4,344
-48
3,109
Country
India
Location
India
WTF u on about
We talking about hijab ban ie scarf on head being obstacle for a child to get educated in Indian state schools
They provide uniforms too in state schools. Head scarf can be challenged in higher courts and they can show to higher courts that its a compulsion in religion and the courts will allow it.

But the controversy started because the girls started coming to school in burkha and not hijab and they were not allowed into school because of that.

There is no obstacle for these girls to get education if they insist ,they can join a madrasa and continue their education.
 

Vapnope

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 11, 2015
6,204
15
10,916
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
There is so much misunderstanding of the Indian courts rulings on Essential Practices of Religion that in a private forum, I had reproduced examples of their rulings, to allow people to get some context.
Joe, my contention here is not about intervention of Indian court my issue here is that the basis on which verdict is issued, cleary makes Hijab a religious practice.
 

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
26,758
162
43,958
Country
India
Location
India
Joe, my contention here is not about intervention of Indian court my issue here is that the basis on which verdict is issued, cleary makes Hijab a religious practice.
That was not the point. The point is that the court found that it was a practice, however we define it, that did not have protection under the constitution guaranteeing protection to the practice of religion, subject to considerations of public order, health and morality.

As for the definition, the court found that it was a social practice that had acquired the force it does due to centuries of observance.

I hope you have had time to read the judgement in its entirety.

Let me summarise its finding - Muslims are free to use the hijab, provided they observe the rules of the institution that they choose to attend. As an alternative, they are free to attend an institution that permits this practice.

What they are NOT free to do is to attend an institution and say that they will not observe its rules because in part, those rules go against their interpretation of the requirements of their religion.

Finally, those who wish to appeal against this decision and its reasoning can do so, as this is open to them to challenge.
 

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
26,758
162
43,958
Country
India
Location
India
So your saying, courts should decide about Muslims practices and not ulema who studied Islam for generations?
Not at all. That means you were listening with your ears - and your mind - shut tight.

It means that the courts have to decide if what has been brought to their attention is covered under Art. 25 or Art. 26 of the Indian Constitution.

I'll take this further, once you have grasped this.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Indian courts do not even consider consulting ulema of Deoband while many Indian Muslims are Deobandi.
That is because the ulema of Deoband cannot discuss what fits or doesn't fit into the cover of those two articles of the constitution.

I repeat again, get your mind off the religious aspect, and try to understand that the courts, and ONLY the courts, decide on constitutional matters.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Indian courts do not even consider consulting ulema of Deoband while many Indian Muslims are Deobandi.
That is because the ulema of Deoband cannot discuss what fits or doesn't fit into the cover of those two articles of the constitution.

I repeat again, get your mind off the religious aspect, and try to understand that the courts, and ONLY the courts, decide on constitutional matters.
So essentially Deobandi Muslims have 0 rights in India since their view isn’t even heard in court while others decide their fate.
They have every right in India that is guaranteed to them under the Indian constitution.

It is sad, but you have not even tried to understand the difference between deciding on a question of religion, and deciding on whether a particular observance deserves the protection of the constitution or not.

You cannot “interpret” the evidence you have because Indian courts are not ulema of Islam and each school of fiqh and aqeedah have their own way to interpret things.
Again, I repeat, the interpretation is to the extent that the Indian constitution allows protection.

This is the exact reason why Muslims around the world are calling out Indian for its injustice against Muslims. Y’all only listen to views of a minority and “interpret” your false interpretations and impose it on the majority.
If you shut your eyes, stick your fingers into your ears, and decide to scream loudly, it won't change things around.

How does this change what I said? It is easy to slip up but how does it make a difference or effect anything I said?
Simple.

The courts didn't decide what a Sikh can or cannot do. It decides what part of being a Sikh is protected.

And my point was to inform those who wanted to know why issues like these can’t be solved in courts and neither should be brought to courts especially when those courts are led by non Muslim and the panel discussing the issue doesn’t even include ulema of the leading aqeedahs of Muslims in India.
If you are saying that constitutional matters can be decided outside our courts, that is wrong, as far as India is concerned.

If you didn't know earlier, you should know now, the law is radically different in Pakistan.

India is “secular” right? Why is the state interfering with one’s religion? Why is the state saying what a Muslim woman can and cannot wear? How is india “secular” if courts interfere on the matter if Muslims?
How will it be decided what is protected and what is not? By whom?

If ways continue like this, the Quran and Hadith tells us Muslims what to do when outsiders interfere in our religion and try to change it and ban some stuff (P.S. when Muslims go for this option, it always ended bad for the opponent side).
It will always be like this, as long as we have a constitution, particularly one that offers protection to the practice of religion, and one that refuses to take sides for one religion and against another.

(P.S. when Muslims go for this option, it always ended bad for the opponent side).
NO Muslim will go for any 'option' because Muslims who think and read and discuss these understand what courts are deciding.

This is where the issue comes in. Indian courts hold no right to decide what’s essential part of Islam or not. Instead of doing their own “interpretations” and “investigations” they should have called leading ulema of all schools of fiqh on Islam and asked them if hijab isn’t essential part of Islam or not. Even if 1 ulema says it is, it should have been considered as such and be protected.
This is indeed where the issue comes in.

There is no provision in the Indian constitution for alternative systems to the courts of law.

In Pakistan, that is explicitly embodied. No court will take the opinion of any but what it determines, to its own satisfaction and not in the opinion of others, what is the core of a religion, and what constitutes its essential religious practices.

Again, I repeat, you are applying the customs and practices of Pakistan to India; we have no Federal Shariat Court, for example. There is no provision for taking into account either the fatwas issued by a religious authority, or the rulings of a panchayat, or the rulings of a khap panchayat. Those are all considered the same; their rulings are not binding in law.

No court will take the opinion of the leading ulema, or of one alim or of anybody outside the court system at all. That applies to all religions.

Indian courts made their own “interpretation” of the “evidence” but Indian courts hold no right to interpret any Islamic matter and as “evidence” they used Quran and Hadith whereas I posted the verses of Quran and a Hadith which interprets to why hijab is mandatory. So Indian courts came up with a wrong interpretation and based off that wrong interpretation decided hijab is not mandatory thus making it not protected and allowing it to be banned if places want to.
Unfortunately for your argument, in India, the courts have all the right and exclusive rights to decide these. If they consult what they consider authentic definitions of the faith, and conclude that x, or y, or z is or is not essential, the only authority that can contradict them is either a higher court or parliament, by passing a law that specifically has the effect of contradicting the court's ruling, provided that in making such a law it does not violate the basic structure of the constitution.

That means that there is nothing higher in authority on all matters than the courts. Nothing.

During the notorious Shah Bano case, where the lady was represented by Jinnah's associate, Daniyal Latifi, no less than three separate, self-appointed, self-certified Muslim Personal Law Boards sought to be heard. None of them was heard. The judgement went against what they had proposed should be held to be the law, and it was only by act of Parliament that the judgement was reversed. That it was interpreted by the law courts in their own way is another matter altogether.

I posted the verses of Quran and a Hadith which interprets to why hijab is mandatory. So Indian courts came up with a wrong interpretation and based off that wrong interpretation decided hijab is not mandatory thus making it not protected and allowing it to be banned if places want to.
I understand what you believe is important for you. It is still very unlikely that the Indian law courts will agree with you, or with any other opinion, other than what it thinks is correct after its own investigation.

There is not much point in your suggesting that your evidence has value, or that the opinions of the ulema have value. Those opinions are not considered.That is the reality.

So Indian courts tryna do their whole investigation on their own and decide if Hijab is essential part of Islam or not (while many scholars over generations already came up with the answer and have it), have cans up with a conclusion that would make woman expose their awrah which is against Islam.
That is how it is, that the interpretation is the exclusive territory of the courts of law.

You call leading scholars of all schools of fiqh in Islam in India. You decide based on consensus. If there even is one school if fiqh which says it’s essential part of Islam, then since india is a “secular” country, hijab must be protected due to at least 1 school of fiqh believing it is essential part of Islam.
Then should the khap panchayats also be summoned on matters relating to the Jats? Or Deoband's fatwa that a daughter should not massage her father's legs be considered binding in law?

Only the courts can decide.
 
Last edited:

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
26,758
162
43,958
Country
India
Location
India
If the ulema Muslims follow believe hijab is mandatory and essential part of Islam, then who are Indian courts to do their own interpretations of the Quran and Hadith ti decide?
They are the courts of law, that even parliament cannot upset in certain areas, forget about theologians of any religion.

Are you even aware that the system in Pakistan in earlier years was identical, and that it was changed long after Pakistan gained independence? And by whom?

Muslims think and read and discuss and understand BUT when doing all this fails to convince the issue to be solved peacefully, there’s only one option left. The Islamic conditions outlined in Quran and Hadith that need to be met for that option to be used are basically almost met in india. From every Muslim, understanding the Quran, reading the Quran and discussing with ulema on Quranic matters is above all.
Therefore, well educated Muslims will be the first ones to exercise that option because they see and understand the Islamic conditions outlined and see it be met.
What do you consider will be the 'option'?

You are aware, of course, that in the Shah Bano case, the ulema were disregarded, and nothing happened?
 

manpk77

FULL MEMBER
Mar 14, 2022
167
0
116
Country
Pakistan
Location
Luxembourg
Don't know about India but to tease India all movies in Pakistan should be released with actresses wearing abaya from now on.
Jitny dramy hai tv pe wahan sari janania hijaab pehne :D
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom