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

[hussain0216]

Educational institutions should be secular in nature and they should be kept that way. There should not be any problem if someone wants to wear a head scarf but burka should be kept miles away from schools.The controversy started when some girls wanted to enter the school wearing burkha and they were sent back ,all these 6 girls were coming to the school with out burkha until December and their Facebook photos they posted you can see them wearing jeans and no posts with burkha. But suddenly they got the enlightening and wanted to come to school in burkha.

Yes they have choice and govt has provided them with the choice,govt has allows Muslims to run their own schools as per their religious beliefs and teach Islam. They can always get admission their and continue studies if they offer the courses the students wants and if they don't have it then it's up to Muslims to reform or change courses or subjects with changing times and requirements.


You can dream on ,from where you come it might be hard to comprehend how can two faiths live together.

Yeah but educational institutions are not secular are they, their is a new enforced hindutva poison being spread everywhere in India

So idols and weird mantras in the morning is fine but Indian Muslims can't have hijab, Sikhs can have turbans but Muslim scarves are banned

This is not living together, this is the fruition of Jinnah's warning

Thus Jinnah's solution is the only option

 

[Rollno21]

Yeah but educational institutions are not secular are they, their is a new enforced hindutva poison being spread everywhere in India

So idols and weird mantras in the morning is fine but Indian Muslims can't have hijab, Sikhs can have turbans but Muslim scarves are banned

This is not living together, this is the fruition of Jinnah's warning

Thus Jinnah's solution is the only option

India doesn't allow separate schools for hindus ,but allows separate schools for Muslims to follow as per their belief and they can follow their practices in those schools.
It's like there are two routes A and B to reach a destination. One wants to go via route A but boards a vehicle going via B.

 

[hussain0216]

India doesn't allow separate schools for hindus ,but allows separate schools for Muslims to follow as per their belief and they can follow their practices in those schools.
It's like there are two routes A and B to reach a destination. One wants to go via route A but boards a vehicle going via B.

Yes but government schools are not secular, they allow all manner of Hindu obscenities whilst specifically targeting Indian Muslims

 

[CriticalThinker02]

How can you claim yourself to be a secularist state and still impose your will on others?, stop being a coward and openly declare yourself to be a hindu rashtra, stop hiding behind the secularist flag brown nazi bhagts.

 

[RescueRanger]

Sad state of affairs when the law of the land is gainsaid into a political pawn to intervene “private lives and practices of consciousness” of its law abiding citizenry.

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.” - Fredrick Douglass.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

The nation who voluntarily gives away its freedom deserves to be treated as slaves - Mustafa Kemal Pasha

I can live without food, but never without freedom - Ustad Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (RA)

 

[Maula Jatt]

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

when I went to Pak barely anyone wore burqa, nowadays it's not really part of the culture anymore, you can notice it in this scene for example when the actress wearing a burqa/abaya actually stood out from the crowd

Hindutavas are making this non-issue an issue for no reason - all it would do is get a reaction and in the end, I am sure people will do it more- I have seen it happen
more you repress, stop you get an opposite/hardcore reaction in return- when cats feel entrapped even they fight back forget humans
but if you allow free will people naturally assimilate into larger traditions, just look at west

 

[Rollno21]

Yes but government schools are not secular, they allow all manner of Hindu obscenities whilst specifically targeting Indian Muslims

Have you studied in a Indian school you talk as if you see.

 

[manpk77]

Hindutavas are making this non-issue an issue for no reason - all it would do is get a reaction and in the end, I am sure people will do it more- I have seen it happen
more you repress, stop you get an opposite/hardcore reaction in return- when cats feel entrapped even they fight back forget humans
but if you allow free will people naturally assimilate into larger traditions, just look at west

It's due to vote bank politics there. The opposition wants to appease the muslims and hence they will never let them get assimilate with the larger folk.
Hindutva people see it as an ecosystem there and hence they bring such issues.

 

[Sayfullah]

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.


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.


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.

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.


Again, I repeat, the interpretation is to the extent that the Indian constitution allows protection.


If you shut your eyes, stick your fingers into your ears, and decide to scream loudly, it won't change things around.

• esterday at 11:02 PM
• Add bookmark
• #2,447

Simple.

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


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.


How will it be decided what is protected and what is not? By whom?


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.


NO Muslim will go for any 'option' because Muslims who think and read and discuss these understand what courts are deciding.

• 2 minutes ago
• Add bookmark
• #2,451

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.

• minutes ago
• Add bookmark
• #2,451

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 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.


That is how it is, that the interpretation is the exclusive territory of the courts of law.


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.

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?

I understand Indian courts operate as courts as per Indian constitution but you are not understanding what I’m saying.

Let me give you an example to help you better understand:

A Muslim woman following Shafi fiqh (many South Indian follow it) wears Hijab outside because it is her belief that is it against Islam for a woman to expose her awrah. She believes exposing her awrah (which hair is part of) is a grave sin and she doesn’t want to earn such sin. She studies at X university in India. She goes to school in Hijab because she wants to protect her awrah (private parts as per Islamwhich include hair) from stares of non mahram (not close family). The university she attends decided to ban Hijab. This case went to Indian courts and Indian courts decided Hijab is not an essential part of Islam (which is against the view of the majority including the female university student) thus allowing the university to ban Hijab. The university student is now stuck between making a decision. Option 1) continue going to university, build a career and get education BUT, earn grave sins by not practicing Hijab (as per her views) and sacrifice the deen aspect for this worldly aspect OR option 2) quit university and don’t get an education and build a career BUT, don’t earn any sins and sacrifice the worldly aspect for the next world.

So essentially pushing many Muslims who follow interpretations stating Hijab is a major essential part of Islam to choose between societal benefits or religious benefits.

My issue is in a country which claims to be “secular”, shouldn’t a citizen of that country not be put in that position where they have to choose between religion and society?

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?

Yes Pakistani laws after independence were very similar to Indian ones and colonial ones.
Religious parties in Pakistan struggled to gets changes done to make Pakistan more religious. I’m aware of the change’s Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Zia Ul Haq made to make Pakistan more Islamic.
You can’t compare Pakistans previous condition to the situation in India right now because that was the past and has been changed.
Nothing happens overnight. The first part of our struggle was an independent state for Muslims then once that was achieved the second part was making it Islamic. Stuff happens in steps.

What do you consider will be the 'option'?

Jihad leading to another partition of India.

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

I’m not aware if that case.
However, disregarding ulema creates division in society. It makes Muslims see Indian courts and government in a more negative way.
Nothing happened then and nothing will happen overnight for any case BUT constant events like this have a big impact on Muslim community. The anger builds into the society. One day their anger will be too much to hold in. The day that happens, only Allah can save india.

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.


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.


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.

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.


Again, I repeat, the interpretation is to the extent that the Indian constitution allows protection.


If you shut your eyes, stick your fingers into your ears, and decide to scream loudly, it won't change things around.

• esterday at 11:02 PM
• Add bookmark
• #2,447

Simple.

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


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.


How will it be decided what is protected and what is not? By whom?


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.


NO Muslim will go for any 'option' because Muslims who think and read and discuss these understand what courts are deciding.

• 2 minutes ago
• Add bookmark
• #2,451

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.

• minutes ago
• Add bookmark
• #2,451

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 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.


That is how it is, that the interpretation is the exclusive territory of the courts of law.


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.

Your only focusing, understanding and saying stuff in the courts point of view. For someone to better understand the situation, they must see both sides point of view.
Indian courts as well are disregarding the ulema in their decisions. This undoubtedly builds anger, hate and distrust in Muslims against India. You might not see it’s consequences now but a point will come where things will get very messy because of the decades of anger, hate and distrust being built up.
Partition didn’t happen overnight either. It was sequence of events which made the society Muslim vs non Muslim which lead to partition. Disregarding ulema is such critical decisions is following the same footsteps and will have the same outcome

 

[El Sidd]

Article 26 in The Constitution Of India 1949
26. Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly

Article 26 in The Constitution Of India 1949
26. Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly

@jamahir

 

[Joe Shearer]

I understand Indian courts operate as courts as per Indian constitution but you are not understanding what I’m saying.

Let me give you an example to help you better understand:

A Muslim woman following Shafi fiqh (many South Indian follow it) wears Hijab outside because it is her belief that is it against Islam for a woman to expose her awrah. She believes exposing her awrah (which hair is part of) is a grave sin and she doesn’t want to earn such sin. She studies at X university in India. She goes to school in Hijab because she wants to protect her awrah (private parts as per Islamwhich include hair) from stares of non mahram (not close family). The university she attends decided to ban Hijab. This case went to Indian courts and Indian courts decided Hijab is not an essential part of Islam (which is against the view of the majority including the female university student) thus allowing the university to ban Hijab. The university student is now stuck between making a decision. Option 1) continue going to university, build a career and get education BUT, earn grave sins by not practicing Hijab (as per her views) and sacrifice the deen aspect for this worldly aspect OR option 2) quit university and don’t get an education and build a career BUT, don’t earn any sins and sacrifice the worldly aspect for the next world.

So essentially pushing many Muslims who follow interpretations stating Hijab is a major essential part of Islam to choose between societal benefits or religious benefits.

My issue is in a country which claims to be “secular”, shouldn’t a citizen of that country not be put in that position where they have to choose between religion and society?

I am glad to read this, because it is clear that we are on the same page, in the sense that our understanding of the situation is the same.

I accept that there is a dilemma, not at all a theoretical one, in this instance, and that there should be considerable thought put into this.

I also want to direct your attention to that part of the actual judgement where the three member bench addressed secularism and what it meant to the bench in the context of this judgement. That is not to say that it will satisfy you, only to underline that the secular ideal was in the minds of the judges, while they were adjudicating the issue.

Your only focusing, understanding and saying stuff in the courts point of view. For someone to better understand the situation, they must see both sides point of view.
Indian courts as well are disregarding the ulema in their decisions. This undoubtedly builds anger, hate and distrust in Muslims against India. You might not see it’s consequences now but a point will come where things will get very messy because of the decades of anger, hate and distrust being built up.
Partition didn’t happen overnight either. It was sequence of events which made the society Muslim vs non Muslim which lead to partition. Disregarding ulema is such critical decisions is following the same footsteps and will have the same outcome

There are several observations that arise from this passage that you wrote.

First, my point is merely this - in India, as matters stand today, the courts decide. I am not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing; I am saying that this is the thing, this is what happens today, and we need to understand that the court takes interpretation of religious points as integral to its functioning as well.

The second point is that the Ulema were for the Congress during the freedom struggle, and stoutly opposed Pakistan, and the partition. I am referring particularly to Deoband.

The third point is that there is an increasing tendency among an increasingly larger section of Muslims to disregard the Mullahs; I will not go further, as, again, I do not wish to comment on a community of faith not my own.

 

[surge]

Let them female chose, you cannot force any one dress selection, particularly if she wear modes dress



View attachment 824270

Hi,

This for muslims not to force religion on non-muslims as you can guess from the second part of the ayaat. For muslims, Islam is full of rules and its enforcement on every step and moment of their lives.

 

[Sayfullah]

I also want to direct your attention to that part of the actual judgement where the three member bench addressed secularism and what it meant to the bench in the context of this judgement. That is not to say that it will satisfy you, only to underline that the secular ideal was in the minds of the judges, while they were adjudicating the issue.

I understand but IMO, this decision goes against Indias secularism because it puts some people in religion vs society sort of situation. True secularism IMO would mean total religious freedom and separate from state. In a religiously diverse society like India, to achieve true secularism, banning any religious thing whether essential or not should be banned because what one considers non essential to a religion might be essential to others and in a very religiously diverse society, things get messy real quick when state starts deciding what’s essential part of a religion or not even if it’s to protect that.

The second point is that the Ulema were for the Congress during the freedom struggle, and stoutly opposed Pakistan, and the partition. I am referring particularly to Deoband.

Their reasoning for such was because creating Pakistan would mean giving up all of India at that time for country the size of Pakistan. Before British came, india was ruled by many Muslim empires. In a way (this view is the view of some ppl opposed to Pakistan) it could be said that all of Hind (india) is Muslim lands because it was under many Muslim empires mostly before British came and occupied it. Creating Pakistan, a Muslim country in the land that is all suppose to be Muslim, means your reversing the gains of those many Muslim empires who conquered the subcontinent. It’s means your giving away a bulk of Hind to non Muslims who you conquered it from and settling for something little like Pakistan.
We have to remember that Muslims of Hind after Ottomans lost WW1 started the Khilafat Movement in support to create a Khilafat. A Khilafat would mean all of Hind (India) including Pakistan and Bangladesh would be part of it. Khilafat Movement had support of all schools of fiqh and united every Muslim in Hind and, majority if not all Muslims supported it. However Jinnah and Muslim league pushed for Pakistan which was a small chunk of Hind (Hind suppose to be all Muslim land) so giving up on the vision for a Khilafat and giving up all the land that had once been conquered by Muslim empires. Many because of this reason thought of Jinnah to be a British agent because he would settle for Pakistan and not all of India. Congress played it smart too by allying with Khilafat Movement which both opposed partition for their own opposing reasons. One wanted shariah and a Caliphate the other wanted a secular republic.
But since Khilafat Movement started dying down because of world events and the idea of Pakistan getting more popular, many started supporting Jinnah and Muslim league for their idea of Pakistan.
Ulema of Deoband and who like deobandi movement in general especially are staunch supporters of a caliphate and made up a good portion of Khilafat Movement. Because the leading scholars of Deobandi movement remained believers in a caliphate till the end they opposed partition. However, many deobandi scholars and deobandis supported Pakistan. It was divided too but majority of their leadership was anti partition and pro shariah in all of India.
Also Muslim league had many Ismailis, Shias and Qadiyani supporters as well. Ulema of Deobandi don’t see them as Muslim even. Muslim league also was made up of many barelvis with barelvi leadership supporting Pakistan. Deobandis see barelvis as innovators who aren’t following ‘true’ Islam. Deobandi in many ways is similar to salafis. For these reasons as well, deobandis hated Muslim league because it didn’t even see a lot of them as Muslims.

The third point is that there is an increasing tendency among an increasingly larger section of Muslims to disregard the Mullahs

I agree there is. It’s because there’s many ‘Mullahs’ nowadays who use Islam for their personal gains. We have a very big mullah in Pakistan who uses Islam for his personal gains. People call him Mullah Diesel even our pm calls him that.
However, the best gift you can give these ignorant Mullahs (ignorant cuz they go against Islamic principles for their personal gains) is if you alienate Muslims more in society. Muslims who face hate and discrimination are more likely to be exploited by Mullahs.
ISIS or Al Qaeda got so powerful because they used desperate Muslims or Muslims facing discrimination and/or oppression and exploited this to make them do what they believe is “jihad”. This could very well happen in india too if communal violence gets out of hand and Muslim vs rss situation get worse.

 

[Indos]

Hi,

This for muslims not to force religion on non-muslims as you can guess from the second part of the ayaat. For muslims, Islam is full of rules and its enforcement on every step and moment of their lives.

Do you want to be punish by Islamic government by not praying 5 times a day ????

In Shariah Islam, only for public matters where government can intervene like in relation with marriage, divorce, banking, Halal certificate, Imposing Halal to all products, punishing criminal action. etc

In private matter, praying, wear hijab, etc government doesnt have such right. Our God is Allah, not our ruler. This is why there are no punishment on Earth ever stated by Quran and Hadith on Muslim who dont pray, Muslim women who dont wear hijab, Muslim who dont fast during Ramadhan, Muslim who dont pay Zakat etc

This private thing is only between God and His servants

Even for Zakat, government doesnt intervene

----------------------

A Muslim person (surge) want to enforce Shariah law even on private one like imposing Hijab to all Muslim women, etc but he himself live in Non Muslim country ???