Muslims in Mombasa have reacted angrily to the banning of hijabs at a secondary school in Nairobi by a judge.
The Council of Imams and Preachers of Kenya and Supkem yesterday said banning the hijab "is tantamount to violating the rights of the Kenya High School's Muslim students".
Hijab, a headgear traditionally worn by Muslim women to preserve their modesty, covers the head, neck and ears and only leaves the face exposed.
Anisa Bashir, a parent, filed a case in court on behalf of her daughter and the 48 Muslim students at the school seeking to have Muslim girls be allowed to wear the hijab.
Kenya High is a girls' public national school in Nairobi's Kileleshwa area. It has been on the news several times over the controversy surrounding the hijab.
The school has strongly argued against allowing the girls to wear the hijab, saying it is against the principle of promoting school uniform for equality.
The Education ministry in January wrote a letter to all heads of public schools saying Muslim students should be allowed to wear the hijab.
"Hijab is an Islamic garment and the constitution allows people to practise their own religions. The judge has wronged all Muslims in making the decision," said CIPK organizing secretary Sheikh Mohamed Khalifa.
Supkem Coast chair Sheikh Muhdhar Khitamy said the decision to ban the hijab at Kenya High smacks of jungle law instead of the constitution.
"We can't afford to have our courts operate like this. We don't have any hope as Muslims in this country with regards to the constitution if decisions like this will continue to be made," said Shekih Khitamy.
Sheikh Ahmed Musallam, a Mufti (scholar who is an interpreter or expounder of Islamic law), said banning the hijab is like forcing people to commit sin.
"It is against the Islamic religion. All holy books have placed the hijab on women. Any woman not wearing the hijab is against her religion," said Sheikh Musallam.
I think they take the wrong approach here. They should argue that there is no valid reason to forbid people from wearing headgear. If there is no such valid reason then it should not be forbidden, regardless of any tie to any religion. If I can wear a baseball cap then she should be able to wear a hajib, and if she is told she can't wear a hajib and she really wants to, then maybe it is time to re-examine any rules that forbid me from wearing a baseball cap int he first place.
I think they take the wrong approach here. They should argue that there is no valid reason to forbid people from wearing headgear. If there is no such valid reason then it should not be forbidden, regardless of any tie to any religion. If I can wear a baseball cap then she should be able to wear a hajib, and if she is told she can't wear a hajib and she really wants to, then maybe it is time to re-examine any rules that forbid me from wearing a baseball cap int he first place.
i disagree
i think significance plays a huge part in this and the baseball cap due to the far lower sense of attachment and devotion doesnt merit the same amount of alarm.
-
My tears testify that i have a heart
yet i feel me and shaytan never part
-
i think significance plays a huge part in this and the baseball cap due to the far lower sense of attachment and devotion doesnt merit the same amount of alarm.
Once you open the door to special rights based on religious belief, you wedge open something that I think could become very problematic. What is to stop us from breaking any law at that point and claiming any special privilege? I could declare that it is against my religion to pay taxes and that my religion requires me to smoke cigarettes despite no smoking signs.
I say no special rights based on religious belief. We should all have to follow the rules. If the rules are unfair or irrational then change them. I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to wear hajib or any other head covering (unless we are talking about security sensitive areas).
Once you open the door to special rights based on religious belief, you wedge open something that I think could become very problematic. What is to stop us from breaking any law at that point and claiming any special privilege? I could declare that it is against my religion to pay taxes and that my religion requires me to smoke cigarettes despite no smoking signs.
what does your dress have anything to do with the law? If the law states all men are to report to work in their underwear or else, you'd concede to that as to not wedge the door open? It becomes a 'special privilege' to ask for extra clothes, and what if you had a hypothalamic problem and needed to dress a certain way for medical reasons?
If you decide that you live in both a 'civilized' and 'free' society then you'll realize what is wrong with your statement. Which should by virtue of its definition be more inclusive than all the more restrictive- don't you agree?
I think deep down inside you already knew that, but descending down to word play can make criminals out of saints, and outlaws out of the most abiding citizens!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
what does your dress have anything to do with the law? If the law states all men are to report to work in their underwear or else, you'd concede to that as to not wedge the door open? It becomes a 'special privilege' to ask for extra clothes
I would object to being forced to report in your underwear for sanitary reasons for one. I wourld also object to denying people wearing head coverings, because I see no justifiable reason to deny it. My only point is that there should not be special rights for religious people that the rest of us don't get. If she can wear her hajib, I'm cool with that, I just want to have the same right to cover my head she does and have a baseball cap or whatever should I want to.
When a rule is unjust it should be challenged and done away with. It should not be forced upon most of us with special exception made for those who really really want to do it. Special rules should not exist for people holding particular ideologies, religious views, or political beliefs. And we should all benefit when rules without merit are challenged.
I would object to being forced to report in your underwear for sanitary reasons for one. I wourld also object to denying people wearing head coverings, because I see no justifiable reason to deny it. My only point is that there should not be special rights for religious people that the rest of us don't get. If she can wear her hajib, I'm cool with that, I just want to have the same right to cover my head she does and have a baseball cap or whatever should I want to.
When a rule is unjust it should be challenged and done away with. It should not be forced upon most of us with special exception made for those who really really want to do it. Special rules should not exist for people holding particular ideologies, religious views, or political beliefs. And we should all benefit when rules without merit are challenged.
In this case, they're being denied a right that no one should have had the ability to take away from them to begin with. It isn't being forced on you or anyone else it never was, and since the inception of Islam, surely you are aware that when Umar Ibn Ilkhtaab was stabbed by the Zoroastrian it took place in Medina, on his death bed he said, ''Thanks to Allah that I was killed by a man who has never bowed his head in prayer that he'd challenge me with it on the day of judgement' If Muslims were forcing people to pray or cover up etc etc. It would have been implemented at the time when Islam was the supreme law of the land, but as it stands and always stood, there's NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION, but seems however there's plenty of compulsion in secularism.. folks are being forced to do without what they desire and choose for themselves even that when there's absolutely no sound reason to deny them their due rights or due respect.. and that I find hypocritical especially for a society that professes to be free, just and all the other crap.. of course I don't know how free and just Kenya is, probably wants to jump on the kiss a$$ with the west be like them band wagon than have it be a decision or law passed out of reason and sound judgement.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
In this case, they're being denied a right that no one should have had the ability to take away from them to begin with.
This I completely agree with. And I think the law was specifically designed to attack muslims, which I find very wrong. If they want to ban head coverings they should have good and valid reasons for doing so, and it should have nothing to do with targetting muslims or any other group of decent law abiding people.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
جوري liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks