What's new

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

This is the same society whose elected MP said "Women get raped because of their clothing" ......

the same freaks who chase boys and girls in parks and dating points ....

the same scumbags who cry love jihad and file legal cases against married men and women ....

So is it that difficult to understand what they are doing here? Had it been Hindu girls the whole thing would have been totally different.

Their courts have hanged not guilty people before because of the public pressure ............ and these courts have succumbed in front of those saffron flags and shawls or whatever they are. This decision is not about uniforms or any technical legal points ....... it is because these intolerant bunch are on a Muslim hating yudh.

Hate filed intolerant hypocrites.
 
.
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.

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.

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.
Not in response to your thought-provoking post above, but totally disconnected (I will try and reply as appropriate after 2, about three hours from now).

I had reproduced the judgements of various courts on the Essential Religious Practice test on 'insaniyat', and quite unexpectedly, got this comment from a member of the group: I offer it without comment - it is beyond my pay scale to comment on that person's views on this area (the bold-face is mine, not in the original comment):

"
[11:11, 3/17/2022] Usman: This is a misguided and misleading depiction of the nature of the issue as far as islamic tradition is concerned. Triple talaq is considered to be (obviously) unlawful - against God's law - by both classical and contemporary islamic jurists and theologians. The disagreement is and has been about its legal effect, if any, on the marriage, not its illegality.

An analogy might be about how the law might treat proceeds of crime: Confiscate them? Leave them alone? Tax them? The debate is not about the crime being a crime and the criminal being sent to jail.

Ahmed bin Hanbal (d. 245AH, i.e. 868 CE or thereabouts) writes in the preface of his hadith collection: "[Any]one who says there is consensus [amongst scholars] about some point in religion is a liar." The Hanbali school, one of four Sunni schools that became mainstream centuries after him, is named after him. It's the school, or fiqh, that the ahl al hadith tend to follow.

The state, islamic or secular, or any other, has the prerogative to decide on these matters though, as did the Indian SC.

Under Hanafi law, by the way, using coercion to obtain a divorce is unlawful. However, "talaq" uttered under duress is, nevertheless, effective.

[11:14, 3/17/2022] Usman: I don't think talaq obtained under duress ruling will sit right with ordinary adherents of the Hanafi school. They've become accustomed to triple talaq though.
 
.
Last edited:
.
Muslim groups enforce a Bandh in Karnataka today.

@jamahir hope you participate.


If I was living in Karnataka I would never have participated. I invite those misinformed and misguided burqa-adoring school and college girls and their community elders to this actually important thread of mine :
 
.
If I was living in Karnataka I would never have participated. I invite those misinformed and misguided burqa-adoring school and college girls and their community elders to this actually important thread of mine :
Don't be so heartless.


 
.
  • Sadly, you are now where the discussion with @Jf-17 block 3 began.

    No, the ruling does not say that a particular type of clothing cannot be worn.

    The ruling says that a particular type of clothing is not critical to the exercise of the freedom to practise that religion, and does not over-ride the stipulation by the institution that a particular sort of uniform be worn.

    If it were to rule on blue clothing, it would rule that blue clothing was not to be worn as a right, to override any stipulation to the contrary.

    There is a difference.
    Click to expand...
  • @TheDarkKnight
  • So parda is not essential or critical part of Islam? Is an Indian court going to define what is Islam and what is not? The Quran and Sunnah define religion for Muslims. Now Muslims all over the world may be following faith to a varying degree, but that doesnt mean the religion is now what the people do. To make it simple, if doing something or not doing something is a sin for Muslim, it is obligatory to follow the commandment. So yes Shahdah is the basic pillar, and so is prayer. But covering your body as Quran has clearly defined is a commandment that needs to be followed, for Muslim he/she is trying to avoid the hellfire in the next life. In Islam you dont just say Kalima and become Muslim, you have to demonstrate faith by following the commandments to your best ability - and clothing, facial hair etc are all part of the package. Its practice is documented in history and the details are available in Islamic scripture and literature. This is such a hypocritical lame excuse to take Muslim women’s freedom away - our house holds already have a conservative approach to women education, and on top of that the so called liberal and free world is penalizing some Muslim women who are just trying to get education. What is next, clothing is not critical for faith, so why not have them take their pants off as well? Do humans not have the right to wear clothes of their own choice in this century? Whats the interest in someones face - I mean due to covid even men covered their faces and the world ran perfectly fine.

So parda is not essential or critical part of Islam? Is an Indian court going to define what is Islam and what is not? The Quran and Sunnah define religion for Muslims. Now Muslims all over the world may be following faith to a varying degree, but that doesnt mean the religion is now what the people do. To make it simple, if doing something or not doing something is a sin for Muslim, it is obligatory to follow the commandment. So yes Shahdah is the basic pillar, and so is prayer. But covering your body as Quran has clearly defined is a commandment that needs to be followed, for Muslim he/she is trying to avoid the hellfire in the next life. This is such a hypothetical lame excuse to take Muslim women’s freedom away - our house holds already have a conservative approach to women education and on too of that the so called liber and free world is penalizing some Muslim women who are just trying to get education. What is next, clothing is not critical for faith, so why not have them take their pants off as well? Does a human not have the right to wear clothes of their own choice in this century? Whats the interest in someones face - I mean due to covid even men covered their faces and the world ran perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
Did you fail to read all the earlier posts, or did you simply feel those to be irrelevant?

Did you fail to grasp that Indian courts do not decide what is Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Islam, or Christianity, but simply decide which parts of any religion are protected by the Indian constitution?

Perhaps you brushed it aside as of no consequence in front of fervour and passion?
 
.

I am not heartless. I am quite an empathetic person but not to those who are bereft of intellect and try to impose wrong ideas in society. Like I said in preceding posts, these girls, their parents and wrongly-self-appointed community elders are misinformed and misguided about Islam. Why do they want to wear or impose the burqa when such a garment is not only anti-human but also is not part of Islam ? Will these girls, their parents and the "elders" answer me on that ? These irrational people have been going around pasting banners that say "Pehle hijab, phir kitaab". Are they part of the same Muslim community who first proponent said that Muslims should seek knowledge even if they have to go as far as China ?
 
.
Did you fail to read all the earlier posts, or did you simply feel those to be irrelevant?
There are 166 pages. But sure if there is something relevant please do provide a reference.

Did you fail to grasp that Indian courts do not decide what is Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Islam, or Christianity, but simply decide which parts of any religion are protected by the Indian constitution?
Well if the decision is being made based on what is critical part and not, then yes you have indirectly defined religion here - or maybe your choice of words is wrong. I haven’t read the judgment myself so cannot comment on that.

Perhaps you brushed it aside as of no consequence in front of fervour and passion?
And you seem to have only read the few emotional sentences and brushed the rest aside where I explained how Muslims follow Islam and the obligation to follow commandments from Quran and Sunnah? If secular Indian courts, a country of 200 million Muslims, cannot protect parda done by Muslim women - fine. But to say its not critical is wrong. The obligation of hijab, for men and women, is as obligatory as turban for Sikhs.
 
. .
@Joe Shearer, your posts are quoting yourself.
Unfortunately, I had to copy them out of another thread as is where is, so these things happened. Only the Moderators can transfer large blocks of messages to another thread, and I was feeling very embarrassed at the repeated requests to @LeGenD for help; it was getting to be a nuisance, I'm sure, from his point of view.
 
.
I think no one found the decision as a shock to the system. We knew from the beginning that a country brimmed with Islamophobia, hate speech and Neo Nazi Hindus can never let the minorities flourish specifically Muslims.

I mean next do let me know "Democratic India" ill put forward a 3 man judicial team consisting of an Atheist, Hindu, and a Christian. But the catch will be that they know the meaning of democracy. Then We will see if they ban the Hijab or not.

Democratic values are taught. Not enforced that's the whole point of a democracy.
 
Last edited:
.
@TheDarkKnight, to add my bit to @Joe Shearer's posts to you in the other thread and seeing that you are misinformed on some things regarding Islamic behavior please follow my posts on this thread from post# 11.
 
.
@TheDarkKnight, to add my bit to @Joe Shearer's posts to you in the other thread and seeing that you are misinformed on some things regarding Islamic behavior please follow my posts on this thread from post# 11.
So you are an expert on Islamic behavior? One mistake you and some in the West are making is that you are comparing Hijab and the Burqa and keep saying Hijab is regressive and a new thing. Yes, it is relatively new thing in certain parts of the Muslim world but it allows Muslim Women to get out of their homes and be part of the mainstream, while maintaining their sense of modesty. In the West, Middle East, Pakistan and South East Asia, the Hijab has allowed Muslim women to get higher education, get jobs, work in factories, be in the military, fly fast jets and compete with men shoulder to shoulder. Nobody in my family wears a hijab but I support those who do. Except for a couple of countries in Europe and India, no one has issues with Hijab.

Any one who opposes Hijab is not only Islamophobic but also anti feminist and regressive and wants to deny the opportunities to Muslim women that have been opened by the Hijab.
 
Last edited:
. .
It is not about girls wearing hijab and going to school.
It is about "whose" religious and cultural sensibilities will define the public spaces.
If you understand this, you will understand the problem and Hindutva.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom