BENGALURU: While delivering its verdict in a string of petitions over the hijab controversy on Tuesday, a full bench of the Karnataka high court held that the holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women.
The judges quoted the Prophet where he says in sura (ii) verse 256 in the holy book: ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion…’ The bench also drew attention to a footnote in the commentary of Indian jurist Abdullah Yusuf Ali where he reasons that “compulsion is incompatible with religion because religion depends on faith and will, and these would be meaningless if induced by force. . .
”Tackling the question on whether the hijab is Islam-specific, the court said the hijab is a veil ordinarily worn by Muslim women is true. “. . .The hijab hidesmarks the difference, protects, and arguably affirms the religious identity of Muslim women. ” However, the court observed it cannot be disputed that the word hijab is not employed in the Quran, although commentators may have employed it.
The court said there is enough material within the scripture to support the view that wearing a hijab is only recommendatory, if at all. “Whatever is stated in suras, we say, is only directory, because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wear- ing hijab,” it added. “It can be reasonably assumed that the practice of wearing hijab had a thick nexus to the socio-cultural conditions then prevalent in the region. The veil was a safe means for women to leave the confines of their homes… What is not religiously made obligatory, therefore, cannot be made a quintessential aspect of the religion through public agitations or by passionate arguments in courts. ”
The court said: “Given the kind of life conditions in the region concerned then, wearing hijab was recommended as a measure of social security for women and to facilitate their safe access to public domain. At most, the practice of wearing this apparel may have something to do with culture but certainly not with religion. ” The court pointed out that the history of mankind is replete with instances of abuse and oppression of women. “The Quran shows concern for cases of ‘molestation of innocent women’ and, therefore, it recommended wearing of this and other apparel as a measure of social security. ”
It later adds: “That per se does not render the practice predominantly religious and much less essential to the Islamic faith. ”
The judges quoted the Prophet where he says in sura (ii) verse 256 in the holy book: ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion…’ The bench also drew attention to a footnote in the commentary of Indian jurist Abdullah Yusuf Ali where he reasons that “compulsion is incompatible with religion because religion depends on faith and will, and these would be meaningless if induced by force. . .
”Tackling the question on whether the hijab is Islam-specific, the court said the hijab is a veil ordinarily worn by Muslim women is true. “. . .The hijab hidesmarks the difference, protects, and arguably affirms the religious identity of Muslim women. ” However, the court observed it cannot be disputed that the word hijab is not employed in the Quran, although commentators may have employed it.
The court said there is enough material within the scripture to support the view that wearing a hijab is only recommendatory, if at all. “Whatever is stated in suras, we say, is only directory, because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wear- ing hijab,” it added. “It can be reasonably assumed that the practice of wearing hijab had a thick nexus to the socio-cultural conditions then prevalent in the region. The veil was a safe means for women to leave the confines of their homes… What is not religiously made obligatory, therefore, cannot be made a quintessential aspect of the religion through public agitations or by passionate arguments in courts. ”
The court said: “Given the kind of life conditions in the region concerned then, wearing hijab was recommended as a measure of social security for women and to facilitate their safe access to public domain. At most, the practice of wearing this apparel may have something to do with culture but certainly not with religion. ” The court pointed out that the history of mankind is replete with instances of abuse and oppression of women. “The Quran shows concern for cases of ‘molestation of innocent women’ and, therefore, it recommended wearing of this and other apparel as a measure of social security. ”
It later adds: “That per se does not render the practice predominantly religious and much less essential to the Islamic faith. ”