Full details of today’s Judgment in Karnataka High Court are not known to me but there appear to be several positions that need to be challenged in Supreme Court.
First, the position taken by the HC that Hijab is not an essential part of Islam appears to be based on the opinion of some liberal “Islamic” scholars or some “Muslim” figures in big positions who in their quest for recognition in certain quarters, tend to introduce “liberal” elements in Islamic teachings. The Court needs to be told that in India (like any other Muslim country), the overwhelming majority of the people belong to certain schools of thought and they are guided in their views by the positions taken by these schools. In India, for example, the overwhelming percentage of Muslims belongs to one of these three categories: Sunni Hanfi (Deobandi and Bareilvi) dominant in most parts of the country, Sunni Shafei dominant in Southern India and Shia. Ahle Hadith are also there in significant numbers. All these schools of thought are unanimous in their view that Hijab includes covering of Head, bosom and other parts of the body though they may differ about covering the face. The Court should have given consideration to their view rather than that of the minuscule majority. Ultimately, it is the personal ideology of the individuals who want to wear Hijab which is important.
Second, often the argument of “Hijab or Kitab” is being used as if both are opposite to each other. Why not both together? It is like saying: you can do only one or two good things and not many. There are numerable women who have achieved big educational successes in their education. In South India specifically, most of the Muslim women either wear Burqa or cover their heads. In my Yenepoya University, which is primarily a medical university, majority of Muslim girls doing MBBS, MD, MS or other allied courses wear Hijab.
Third, what is to be understood is that Islamic Hijab has three parts: (1) What is prohibited (Haram or Mamnu) (2) What is Obligatory (Fardh) and (3) What is Desirable even if not obligatory (Mustahab).
See the following verse:
“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect their private parts and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent , and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms).” [al-Nur 24:31]
In these verses “not to show off their adornment” mainly covers the Prohibited Part and “to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna” covers the Obligatory part. While indulging in a Haram acts as well as not performing obligatory acts are sins in Islam, indulging in Haram part often invites worldly punishment as well. One may not be punished in the world for not offering prayers or fasting but one will be punished for indulging in illicit relationships or drinking alcohol.
Now see the following part”
“And as for women past childbearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment. But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.” [al-Nur 24:60]
“But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them” represents Desirable (Mustahab) but not an obligatory act.
Also see the following verse:
“O Prophet, enjoin your wives and your daughters and the believing women, to draw a part of their outer coverings around them. It is likelier that they will be recognised and not molested. Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful..” [al-Ahzab 33:59]
There may be different views in different Islamic sects regarding the covering of face (which is obligatory near some and Desirable near others) but there are no two views regarding the covering of Head and the rest of the body.
It will be too much to expect from modern day courts that they will consider modesty and ban on all forms of nakedness as an important element in creating a safe and secure society. But in a country like India, where Secularism does not mean negation of religion but equal respect to all religions, not allowing girls students to cover their heads in the name of uniformity cannot be a good commentary on India’s secular credentials. In that case, turban, kirapn, tilak and teekas should also be banned. WE need to practice equality, not uniformity.
Unfortunately, Indian intellectual classes are now bowing in increasing number to Western concepts of “Freedom of Choice”. It has already decriminalized adultery and homosexually, and in near future marriage before 18 can also be officially banned. While marriage before that age will become illegal, sex will remain illegal, while having another wife is already illegal except in Muslims, relations outside marriage have become legal. No amount of statistics showing the hugely disastrous effects of all these practices on health and life will convince the “Modern” intellectuals that religious morality is far more health and life protective than the so-called Modern Morality.
The judgment can also adversely affect the educational level in a community, especially girl education.
What looks ominous is that the days ahead appear to be truly full of turmoil for the safety of India’s brand of secularism.
Hijab comes in the way of constitutional secularism which permits nudity in the streets and offices and regularly on Facebook. When husband files a case in court against wife sleeping with others and having live-in relationship, Court upholds constitutional morality in secularism giving judgement that wife a major and knows what is best for her and that her freedom of choice must not be violated
Schools must be secular like France.
Is there freedom of choice in arab countries
I agree with you. Charlie HEBDO.
JE SUIS Charlie