"Wearing Hijab Is Indiscipline": Karnataka Minister On Students' Protest

[Stewie]

Two nation theory and pakistanis still want islamic laws in India and poke their nose in Indian issues that doesn't concern them.

Otoh Bangladesh showed you how religion cannot unite people.

We can attach anything to our name, do we need permission from someone?

Lol.. I don’t know if you are playing ignorant or truly are.i don’t speak for all Pakistanis but let me take a stab at your pearls of wisdom here:

1. Pakistanis don’t want any Islamic laws in India.
2. Pakistanis don’t even have Islamic laws (Shariah laws) in Pakistan in full capacity.
3. Allowing someone to practice their belief is a universal democratic secular constant, has nothing to do with Islamic law.

Hope you can put 1, 2 and 3 together.

I can call myself the king of the world but if I go strutting around with a smug face and tell people that and in turn they throw garbage at me, I guess would you blame the people?

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Not to mention, the Hindus are still trying to compare India with Pakistan over these issues.

Pakistan never claims to be secular. Pakistan was not even democratic for decades. If India is trying to follow our example, then sure we would not point fingers. But if you attach the word secular to yourselves and toot your horn everyday about it, of course you are going to hear about it.

And, I say this again, once again this proves the TWO NATION THEORY which is perhaps the most important conclusion from this discussion so far.

There are many threads in this forum "we will show how to treat minorities to Indian government" - IK...Bla bla and you saying Pakistan never claimed.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lol.. I don’t know if you are playing ignorant or truly are.i don’t speak for all Pakistanis but let me take a stab at your pearls of wisdom here:

1. Pakistanis don’t want any Islamic laws in India.
2. Pakistanis don’t even have Islamic laws (Shariah laws) in Pakistan in full capacity.
3. Allowing someone to practice their belief is a universal democratic secular constant, has nothing to do with Islamic law.

Hope you can put 1, 2 and 3 together.

I can call myself the king of the world but if I go strutting around with a smug face and tell people that and in turn they throw garbage at me, I guess would you blame the people?

1. This thread and countless others like this project differently.

2. Thats pakistan's issue.

3. One can practice their religion. But their are places for religious activities.

You are a man bound by laws of where you live. A sovereign nation and its constitution are not bound by the opinion of foreigners.

 

[Lego20]

Don’t worry there will be more variations of the same topic again and again. Ironic that in a country where Hindu and Christian minor girls are being abducted and converted the biggest pain point is ban on a non-mandatory religious garment in a neighboring non-Muslim country

Same types who have no problem in a country that starts it’s breakfast with pork and ends it’s evenings in alcohol but they want laws from the 10th century in Afghanistan.

Make whatever of that. That’s a truth probably that will not go down well.

Hypocrisy, selective outrage and amnesia, cross border interference in the name of religion - thats the common theme.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Is Hijab mandatory for a practicing Muslim women?

Turban is mandatory for a practicing Sikh man.

When that exception was made that was the case at least.

At least in India before 2001 hijab wasn’t common.

I don’t see women on Pakistan TV wear Hijab. Surprising to see so many non-Islamic Muslim women in an Islamic republic like Pakistan.

You are not a Sikh, you are a hindu, you are in no position to say what is mandatory for Sikhs. Are you saying all Sikhs without turbans in India are automatically regarded as having left the faith? Can you provide some proof from a Sikh source which confirms this?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

1. This thread and countless others like this project differently.

2. Thats pakistan's issue.

3. One can practice their religion. But their are places for religious activities.

You are a man bound by laws of where you live. A sovereign nation and its constitution are not bound by the opinion of foreigners.

It's not Pakistan's issue, this topic is about India. You are so dismissive of foreign opinions, but of course you are the one with the opinion of a foreigner on this forum. Thus we must disregard your foreign opinion on this forum by your own standards.

 

[Stewie]

1. This thread and countless others like this project differently.

2. Thats pakistan's issue.

3. One can practice their religion. But their are places for religious activities.

You are a man bound by laws of where you live. A sovereign nation and its constitution are not bound by the opinion of foreigners.

Which is fine, so you should not feel obligated to defend yourself against our (Pakistani or other non-Hindu) opinion that you and other Hindus defending this policy are basically Hindu bigots and the country itself is heading down the path of Hindu bigotry.
AND, If you feel your Muslim countrymen are what matter and they will understand and follow the rule of this law, well… I am sure you will get that answer soon too.
Let’s just leave it at that!

 

[Salma_T]

We also have a law that allows muslims to practice polygamy and triple talaq etc as per islamic beliefs. The tax payers funded haj pilgrimage of muslims till 2014. Infact we have a minorities ministry funded by taxpayers to look after just the minorities.

Secondly cow is holy to sikhs, jains and Buddhists as well. Sri Lanka and Myanmar have complete ban on cow slaughter and far harsher punishment.

Mahatma Gandhi himself advocated cow protection.

I think you just answered your own argument....if you have so many rules specific to a faith which isn't Hinduism in this case Islam then why not the Hijab. Would a duppata be acceptable as it is native to India and Hijab style covering is an "arab" import?

 

[James]

Guys I have just had to remove a few posts which have been commenting on moderation decisions by our team, please don’t have these conversations on the public forums. Thanks

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

A small non issue like Hijab is being discussed in court and there are peaceful protests.Even for Ram Mandir the Hindus waited for 40 years for a verdict while the Muslims got a fair compensation.

On the other hand does anyone have the guts to challenge clear discriminatory laws like blasphemy law or the fact that no minority can become PM in Pakistan?

That’s the difference. You are going by optics of a few odd women in Hijab protesting. I wish these sisters come out in full garb for other burning social issues that still exist for women but that’s a debate for another day. On topic secularism is absolutely fine. Now sure there will be communal issues and skirmishes but unfortunately it is what it is.

You can have the last word because I am exhausted with this topic so suit yourself.

Is this topic about Pakistan? Don't you have enough confidence about India to discuss what India is actually about rather than keep bouncing back to whataboutism?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Which is fine, so you should not feel obligated to defend yourself against our (Pakistani or other non-Hindu) opinion that you and other Hindus defending this policy are basically Hindu bigots and the country itself is heading down the path of Hindu bigotry.
AND, If you feel your Muslim countrymen are what matter and they will understand and follow the rule of this law, well… I am sure you will get that answer soon too.
Let’s just leave it at that!

Who is defending? This is merely a discussion. Your opinion isn't going to affect the situation.

Theocratic republic people should hardly tell anyone whether the other side choose to be secular or not. Its laughable. You guys were supporting Erdogan for making Hagia Sophia a mosque. When in majority, you want yiur religious laws. When in minority its about democracy and secularism.

They will follow the rule of law and the views of those who try to incite them and the platforms which give these views a transmission medium will face the brunt of the law.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Who is defending? This is merely a discussion. Your opinion isn't going to affect the situation.

Theocratic republic people should hardly tell anyone whether the other side choose to be secular or not. Its laughable. You guys were supporting Erdogan for making Hagia Sophia a mosque. When in majority, you want yiur religious laws. When in minority its about democracy and secularism.

They will follow the rule of law and the views of those who try to incite them and the platforms which give these views a transmission medium will face the brunt of the law.

Since when was [MENTION=17315]Stewie[/MENTION] a theocratic republic? Is this how you hold discussions? No wonder there is little faith in Indian courts if you are representative of thought process over there.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Since when was [MENTION=17315]Stewie[/MENTION] a theocratic republic? Is this how you hold discussions? No wonder there is little faith in Indian courts if you are representative of thought process over there.

Whether you have faith in Indian courts or not its doesn't really come into discussion. Our courts dont adjudicate in the matters of brit pakistanis.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Whether you have faith in Indian courts or not its doesn't really come into discussion. Our courts dont adjudicate in the matters of brit pakistanis.

No one suggested they did. What a pointless comment. Are they qualified to adjudicate on religious garb in public schools though, given they allowed Sikhs to circumvent the rules by openly displaying their faith against local district stipulations?

 

[cricketjoshila]

No one suggested they did. What a pointless comment. Are they qualified to adjudicate on religious garb in public schools though, given they allowed Sikhs to circumvent the rules by openly displaying their faith against local district stipulations?

They are qualified to adjudicate in any dispute in India. Sikhs Hindus Muslims Christians Buddhists Jains all have approached the courts.

Muslims have to prove in the court that their rights under article 25 has been curtailed. Sikhs did it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They are qualified to adjudicate in any dispute in India. Sikhs Hindus Muslims Christians Buddhists Jains all have approached the courts.

Muslims have to prove in the court that their rights under article 25 has been curtailed. Sikhs did it.

That just proves my point. Sikhs managed to argue that turbans were an article of faith despite many Sikhs in India proudly proclaiming themselves as Sikh despite choosing not to wear a turban, including celebrities and film actors. Why would Muslims trust Indian courts when they have shown they can display open bias towards some faiths to flout their own rules, but may change their mind when Muslims apply for the same exemption?

 

[LaLoco]

You can beleive and confirm to whatever traditions you want. I don’t think that is a problem.

When something not considered mandatory is not allowed. It is not allowed. Period

You can do any verbal gymnastics you want saying the same stale stuff multiple times but that is the protocol and the decision is fair. Nothing else to discuss.

If proven as mandatory garment for the religion than court will allow it.

Read it how many times you want. That’s about it.

Lol at verbal gymnastics, but since you decided to put that in you comment, can you please tell us the difference between dress code and religious attire and any established that has banned any religious attire in the US -should I hold my breath?

Stale stuff? I don’t have the patience to not call it what it is, bigotry against Muslims of India.

Other on this thread may continue to counter with ease any excuse to promote bigotry by Indian majority without calling out what it is but don’t confuse that with what most and anyone think of it.

But debating and discussion is a waste of time with any Hindutva.

But since you’ve brought the US in this discussing can you please highlight which establishment? Thank you!!

 

[cricketjoshila]

That just proves my point. Sikhs managed to argue that turbans were an article of faith despite many Sikhs in India proudly proclaiming themselves as Sikh despite choosing not to wear a turban, including celebrities and film actors. Why would Muslims trust Indian courts when they have shown they can display open bias towards some faiths to flout their own rules, but may change their mind when Muslims apply for the same exemption?

Sikh head cover is a essential and obligatory religious practice to be part of the khalsa sikh.

All Punjabi speakers are not sikhs.

 

[Stewie]

That just proves my point. Sikhs managed to argue that turbans were an article of faith despite many Sikhs in India proudly proclaiming themselves as Sikh despite choosing not to wear a turban, including celebrities and film actors. Why would Muslims trust Indian courts when they have shown they can display open bias towards some faiths to flout their own rules, but may change their mind when Muslims apply for the same exemption?

Basically it boils down to this:
Muslims have to prove in court that hijab for women is part of their faith. That they need hijab for spiritual reasons and not otherwise. Apparently Sikhs had to do it as well. Fine, I understand the process.

But to what length or what level did the Sikhs have to do it?, will the Muslims have to do the same? Will the courts be consistent with that process, is what matters.

I understand the Hindu posters here do not represent the Indian courts. But the Hindu posters here have displayed a very unique and distinctive style of bigotry so far…. by starting to question “if” hijab is necessary for Muslim faith. If the Indian courts follow that logic, I say the whole argument or premise is flawed then. Technically, they should simply judge on whether to allow this provision under freedom of religion or not.

Courts should not debate what is an essential article of one’s faith because there are so many interpretations of it.

 

[Stewie]

Because if they start debating what’s essential or not, then they are being hypocrites.


If a Sikh gets a haircut or shaves his beard… is he not a Sikh anymore?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Sikh head cover is a essential and obligatory religious practice to be part of the khalsa sikh.

All Punjabi speakers are not sikhs.

Are you a Sikh? I'm just asking as you are representing when I'm not sure you are in a position to make such declarations.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Because if they start debating what’s essential or not, then they are being hypocrites.


If a Sikh gets a haircut or shaves his beard… is he not a Sikh anymore?

Note the hindu poster who is representing for Sikhs has not answered the question whether celebrities or actors who claim Sikh religion in India are no longer Sikhs if they shave their hair. I wonder why?

 

[Stewie]

I wonder how the GOI, if they have to, classify such people? If someone wants to file asylum in India using the CAA act in which they have to define their religion, and let’s suppose a Sikh or Hindu from Afghanistan/ Pakistan/bangladesh applies, is their application rejected if they write sikh and yet do not wear a turban? Or if they write hindu and are caught eating a nice juice steak? What happens then? Does the morality/religiosity police of India jump in and say “screw you, you can’t do that, pay a certain certain fine”?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Because if they start debating what’s essential or not, then they are being hypocrites.


If a Sikh gets a haircut or shaves his beard… is he not a Sikh anymore?

Only what is essential is protected by article 25. Not every religious practice is protected by article 25.

Yes he ceases to be a Khalsa.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Are you a Sikh? I'm just asking as you are representing when I'm not sure you are in a position to make such declarations.

Its taught in most history books in India, rise of the sikh religion, its tenets etc. So are Hinduism Buddhism Jainism Islam etc.

Kesh and covering is one of the five Ks of Khalsa.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I wonder how the GOI, if they have to, classify such people? If someone wants to file asylum in India using the CAA act in which they have to define their religion, and let’s suppose a Sikh or Hindu from Afghanistan/ Pakistan/bangladesh applies, is their application rejected if they write sikh and yet do not wear a turban? Or if they write hindu and are caught eating a nice juice steak? What happens then? Does the morality/religiosity police of India jump in and say “screw you, you can’t do that, pay a certain certain fine”?

As long as one is not a muslim, he can apply for asylum under the CAA. That includes atheists or non practising people of any religion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Only what is essential is protected by article 25. Not every religious practice is protected by article 25.

Yes he ceases to be a Khalsa.

Does he cease to be a Sikh? Answer the question please, stop with the dodging.

 

[Stewie]

Article 25 and the Essentials of a Faith!!

Haha seriously, that’s written somewhere in the Indian law books? Really?
Thats absolutely hilarious. Go ask a non-Pakistani or Non-Hindu about this. Ask them how they feel about this whole concept. And if that whole idea is in line with a democratic state that is supposed to uphold the ideals of secularism.

 

[Itachi]

Article 25 and the Essentials of a Faith!!

Haha seriously, that’s written somewhere in the Indian law books? Really?
Thats absolutely hilarious. Go ask a non-Pakistani or Non-Hindu about this. Ask them how they feel about this whole concept. And if that whole idea is in line with a democratic state that is supposed to uphold the ideals of secularism.

UK also made amendments regarding the subject and allowing the same with regards to the clauses in article 25.

So I think atleast UK are in same perspective as India in this regard as of now.

 

[Stewie]

UK also made amendments regarding the subject and allowing the same with regards to the clauses in article 25.

So I think atleast UK are in same perspective as India in this regard as of now.

I would like to see some reference to that, can you please cite them for us? Are you talking about colonial UK or the present day supposedly democratic UK?

 

[Itachi]

I would like to see some reference to that, can you please cite them for us? Are you talking about colonial UK or the present day supposedly democratic UK?

UK offensive weapons act 2019, section 47.

 

[Stewie]

UK offensive weapons act 2019, section 47.

I think you have provided us with a very good example of how it should be done.

So basically this is an example of how governments can make accommodations for religious beliefs in their laws and constitution. UK laws, I am assuming, are very strict about possessing weapons, guns, knives, etc unlike here in the US where every grandma and grandpa are running around with rifles and handguns tucked in their under garments. lol

But karpan or curved knife, is an essential article of faith and is frequently gifted within Sikhs. Very good so far? Lets move forward:

So the laws included this part as a defense for possession of such a knife in their laws if a person happens to be Sikh. GREAT! Wonderful.

And I cite:
(5)In this paragraph—
“curved sword” means a weapon to which section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies by virtue of paragraph 1(r);
“Sikh” means a follower of the Sikh religion.”

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/17/section/47


What is extremely pertinent and important to note here, in the light or the spirit of our discussion: that the British have basically recognized there is a need for this reservation for the Sikhs. They took it and accepted it. Nowhere in this document, does it describe how they evaluated whether possession of a knife is an essential article of faith for Sikhism. They did not deliberate that part, they did not pass judgment on whether it is necessary or not. In fact, it is rather dangerous to possess a weapon and yet they took it for the face value AND made reservations for it.

and that is my point. Courts can make such accommodations in laws, but its not their job to deliberate whether a certain religion really needs a certain "article of faith". Now if you believe (@itachi) that is not true and the UK courts actually conducted a deliberation in which they pondered whether the non possession of a knife, make a Sikh a non-Sikh, I would welcome you to share your evidence to back your point.

 

[Itachi]

I think you have provided us with a very good example of how it should be done.

So basically this is an example of how governments can make accommodations for religious beliefs in their laws and constitution. UK laws, I am assuming, are very strict about possessing weapons, guns, knives, etc unlike here in the US where every grandma and grandpa are running around with rifles and handguns tucked in their under garments. lol

But karpan or curved knife, is an essential article of faith and is frequently gifted within Sikhs. Very good so far? Lets move forward:

So the laws included this part as a defense for possession of such a knife in their laws if a person happens to be Sikh. GREAT! Wonderful.

And I cite:
(5)In this paragraph—
“curved sword” means a weapon to which section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies by virtue of paragraph 1(r);
“Sikh” means a follower of the Sikh religion.”

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/17/section/47


What is extremely pertinent and important to note here, in the light or the spirit of our discussion: that the British have basically recognized there is a need for this reservation for the Sikhs. They took it and accepted it. Nowhere in this document, does it describe how they evaluated whether possession of a knife is an essential article of faith for Sikhism. They did not deliberate that part, they did not pass judgment on whether it is necessary or not. In fact, it is rather dangerous to possess a weapon and yet they took it for the face value AND made reservations for it.

and that is my point. Courts can make such accommodations in laws, but its not their job to deliberate whether a certain religion really needs a certain "article of faith". Now if you believe (@itachi) that is not true and the UK courts actually conducted a deliberation in which they pondered whether the non possession of a knife, make a Sikh a non-Sikh, I would welcome you to share your evidence to back your point.

From your link:

the person was a Sikh at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed and possessed the sword for the purpose only of presenting it to another person at a religious ceremony or other ceremonial event, or

the sword was presented to the person by a Sikh at a religious ceremony or other ceremonial event.

In short, the religious event takes the pivotal role in holding a kirpan.

On the other hand, article 25 of indian constitution states:

The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

Here, no where does the constitution states that not holding a kirpan makes one non sikh. It is rather inculsive but does not exclude one if one doesn't carry so. It simply states it is allowed under the faith of sikh religion which is more or less, in the same line with what UK have done.

Perhaps you have misunderstood from the above discussions but the constitution itself doesn't decide the faith based upon carrying kirpan. It was a misinformation that was running through out the thread.

 

[Stewie]

From your link:





In short, the religious event takes the pivotal role in holding a kirpan.

On the other hand, article 25 of indian constitution states:



Here, no where does the constitution states that not holding a kirpan makes one non sikh. It is rather inculsive but does not exclude one if one doesn't carry so. It simply states it is allowed under the faith of sikh religion which is more or less, in the same line with what UK have done.

Perhaps you have misunderstood from the above discussions but the constitution itself doesn't decide the faith based upon carrying kirpan. It was a misinformation that was running through out the thread.

I am sorry but I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

My post was in response to the insinuations made here by some of your fellow Hindus that the court can decide what is "essential" in one's religion. That the court can deliberate if hijab is necessary for Muslim women. The point I am trying to make here is that courts do not and should not get to decide that.

I hope that makes sense. Apart from that, I am really not getting what you are trying to say here and where and what did I misunderstand.

I am not familiar with your article 25, and I do not presume to be an expert in such matters. But I do fully understand what are the limitations of the government and the justice system when it comes to personal freedoms and the matters of religions.

 

[Itachi]

My post was in response to the insinuations made here by some of your fellow Hindus that the court can decide what is "essential" in one's religion. That the court can deliberate if hijab is necessary for Muslim women. The point I am trying to make here is that courts do not and should not get to decide that.

I am not sure I agree with your understanding. Article 25 states that kirpan falls under domain of sikh religion but it does not state whether it is "essential" or not.

It is simialr to someone stating, namaz falls under domain of islam. But this statement does not conclude whether namaz is essential for being a muslim or not. It can be or it may not be. But the statement itself does not make any conclusion.

 

[Stewie]

I am not sure I agree with your understanding. Article 25 states that kirpan falls under domain of sikh religion but it does not state whether it is "essential" or not.

It is simialr to someone stating, namaz falls under domain of islam. But this statement does not conclude whether namaz is essential for being a muslim or not. It can be or it may not be. But the statement itself does not make any conclusion.

Obviously there is a lot of disconnect here between the two of us and the general zeitgeist of this thread. Perhaps you should read through it.

Then you can answer my question below, just for clarity's sake:
Your fellow Hindus have insinuated that the court gets to decide what is essential in Islam or not. If Hijab is absolutely necessary. If they deem it is NOT, then Muslim girls dont get to obersve Hijab in school.
Would you agree with them?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Article 25 and the Essentials of a Faith!!

Haha seriously, that’s written somewhere in the Indian law books? Really?
Thats absolutely hilarious. Go ask a non-Pakistani or Non-Hindu about this. Ask them how they feel about this whole concept. And if that whole idea is in line with a democratic state that is supposed to uphold the ideals of secularism.

Why should i go and ask anyone? I just need to see what's happening in the courts.

Muslims have approached the court citing article 25 and that Hijab is essential to their faith and submitted arguments in this regard.

We are not in the business of getting certificates on our democracy and secularism from anyone.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Does he cease to be a Sikh? Answer the question please, stop with the dodging.

Thats not for the court to decide. Thats for the Akal Takht authority to decide.

The court held that the sikh hair and head covering is essential to their faith. Hence allowed.

 

[Stewie]

Why should i go and ask anyone? I just need to see what's happening in the courts.

Muslims have approached the court citing article 25 and that Hijab is essential to their faith and submitted arguments in this regard.

We are not in the business of getting certificates on our democracy and secularism from anyone.

Thats wonderful, I think we all already knew it. Its a self proclaimed secularism and democracy, which others really dont believe so much, was my point. Glad we are on the same page.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Thats not for the court to decide. Thats for the Akal Takht authority to decide.

The court held that the sikh hair and head covering is essential to their faith. Hence allowed.

But it's clearly not essential to their faith, many Sikhs in India are clean shaven. You are right, it's not up to the courts to decide this, they should either have implemented a no exception rule for head coverings and shown their secular credentials, or they should drop all restrictions immediately and allow both Sikhs to wear turbans, and Muslim women to wear hijab if they wish to do so.

 

[Stewie]

But it's clearly not essential to their faith, many Sikhs in India are clean shaven. You are right, it's not up to the courts to decide this, they should either have implemented a no exception rule for head coverings and shown their secular credentials, or they should drop all restrictions immediately and allow both Sikhs to wear turbans, and Muslim women to wear hijab if they wish to do so.

We have caught them red handed here and I think thats why they are beating around the bush. Looking back a few posts, most of them were trying to question us if hijab is essential to being Muslims. Now they are saying its not for the court to decide. Its funny how most of them are flip flopping now all of a sudden.

But now at least CricketJoshila is admitting that courts should not be deciding that. The next step should be acceptance that all Sikh dudes are allowed turbans and therefore, the same logic should be applied towards Muslim women.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

We have caught them red handed here and I think thats why they are beating around the bush. Looking back a few posts, most of them were trying to question us if hijab is essential to being Muslims. Now they are saying its not for the court to decide. Its funny how most of them are flip flopping now all of a sudden.

But now at least CricketJoshila is admitting that courts should not be deciding that. The next step should be acceptance that all Sikh dudes are allowed turbans and therefore, the same logic should be applied towards Muslim women.

It's such a stupid law to enact in the first place if you have Sikhs wanting to wear turbans. We are talking about India, a place where religion is a very big part of the culture. It's not France, so why try to copy them?

 

[Stewie]

It's such a stupid law to enact in the first place if you have Sikhs wanting to wear turbans. We are talking about India, a place where religion is a very big part of the culture. It's not France, so why try to copy them?

And then they claim that "We are not in the business of getting certificates on our democracy and secularism from anyone."

LOL!

 

[Itachi]

Obviously there is a lot of disconnect here between the two of us and the general zeitgeist of this thread. Perhaps you should read through it.

Then you can answer my question below, just for clarity's sake:
Your fellow Hindus have insinuated that the court gets to decide what is essential in Islam or not. If Hijab is absolutely necessary. If they deem it is NOT, then Muslim girls dont get to obersve Hijab in school.
Would you agree with them?

I don't share what others have presented here. I have my own understanding of the issue which may or may not fall in line with others.

From my understanding, Court does not have to decide what is "essential" for islam rather it will only deal with whether banning is against part III of indian constitution which deals with prevention of discirimination based upon religion/race/sex etc.

But the complexity grows bigger when article 25 comes in to action where the state can regulate/restrict any religious practice which it may deem necessary to maintain equality. So in the hijab case, the state does have the power to enforce it.

But to add more complexity, article 28 (which may kick in) of indian constitution according to which, a person is not required to go through religious instructions (as per my understanding).

So in the end, the court has to deicde which clause will take the most precedence and then give the verdict accordingly. As I see it, it has nothing to do with "essential" elements for faith rather it is interpretation of existing clauses which does occur time to time in cases like these.

 

[Stewie]

I don't share what others have presented here. I have my own understanding of the issue which may or may not fall in line with others.

From my understanding, Court does not have to decide what is "essential" for islam rather it will only deal with whether banning is against part III of indian constitution which deals with prevention of discirimination based upon religion/race/sex etc.

But the complexity grows bigger when article 25 comes in to action where the state can regulate/restrict any religious practice which it may deem necessary to maintain equality. So in the hijab case, the state does have the power to enforce it.


But to add more complexity, article 28 (which may kick in) of indian constitution according to which, a person is not required to go through religious instructions (as per my understanding).

So in the end, the court has to deicde which clause will take the most precedence and then give the verdict accordingly. As I see it, it has nothing to do with "essential" elements for faith rather it is interpretation of existing clauses which does occur time to time in cases like these.

In that case, due apologies, for lumping you in with some of the other Hindu posters here who were advocating for the courts to determine whats permissible in Islam and what is not (or any other faith for that matter)

Your views are more moderate and reasonable.
However, I will argue that how does Hijab violate even article 25 (equality) as long as it is not imposing the practice on other religions and only is limited to Muslims? If a Muslim female wears a hijab, shouldnt that fall under freely practicing one's religion? It does not impose it on others to follow suit.

My Body my Marzi, as most would say. It is the same as the issue with the turban for SIKHS.

I can see how that article can affect the whole cow slaughter thing, yes. Because cow is sacred to Hindus and it hurts their sentiment (supposedly, although I am not convinced because my study of Hinduism so far has yielded no conclusive evidence that killing a cow is absolutely a sin), but once again I wont get into that because if a Hindu says it goes against their religious sentimentality, I wont force it, just take their word for it. But such conflicts, were one religious ideolody is in direct conflict with the other is where the courts are forced to come in.

The hijab case sounds like the system is targeting a specific community.

 

[kumjsr]

My Body my Marzi, as most would say.

Your body, your marzi is still the case.

People are free to wear anything they want.

Although the propaganda is that it has changed.

 

[cricketjoshila]

But it's clearly not essential to their faith, many Sikhs in India are clean shaven. You are right, it's not up to the courts to decide this, they should either have implemented a no exception rule for head coverings and shown their secular credentials, or they should drop all restrictions immediately and allow both Sikhs to wear turbans, and Muslim women to wear hijab if they wish to do so.

Many Muslims dont pray 5 times a day or go for hajj or give zakat. Are these not essential to islam?

 

[cricketjoshila]

We have caught them red handed here and I think thats why they are beating around the bush. Looking back a few posts, most of them were trying to question us if hijab is essential to being Muslims. Now they are saying its not for the court to decide. Its funny how most of them are flip flopping now all of a sudden.

But now at least CricketJoshila is admitting that courts should not be deciding that. The next step should be acceptance that all Sikh dudes are allowed turbans and therefore, the same logic should be applied towards Muslim women.

A court will decide if a practice is essential to a religion and hence under article 25 no institution can restrict it. Thats that.

If XYZ isnt practising that essential act, whether or not he or she remains in the religion is a matter to be decide by people of authority of that faith.

 

[Stewie]

A court will decide if a practice is essential to a religion and hence under article 25 no institution can restrict it. Thats that.

If XYZ isnt practising that essential act, whether or not he or she remains in the religion is a matter to be decide by people of authority of that faith.

Wow, that sounded pretty authoritative, almost sounded like a Nazi explaining how law and order should be maintained. Thats excellent, India is going down a very meaningful path right now. More power to you guys, lol!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Many Muslims dont pray 5 times a day or go for hajj or give zakat. Are these not essential to islam?

You don't become a non-Muslim if you don't observe those rituals. I'm not really sure how it is a comparison. Certainly you would not expect to apply to a majority Hindu court to make a verdict on it.

 

[Stewie]

Hindus talking in absolutes when their own religion is anything but absolute, has varying degrees of adherence and whatnot!

 

[liam26]

Karnataka hijab row live updates: HC says hijab non-essential part of Islam, dismisses all petitions

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...-congress-march-15-2022/liveblog/90209409.cms

So no Hijabs in school will be allowed. Everyone will follow the same Uniform code .

 

[kumjsr]

Karnataka hijab row live updates: HC says hijab non-essential part of Islam, dismisses all petitions

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...-congress-march-15-2022/liveblog/90209409.cms

So no Hijabs in school will be allowed. Everyone will follow the same Uniform code .

Not exactly.

If school allows hijab, then it will be allowed.

Earlier it was allowed in school, not allowed in classrooms. It wasn't banned from schools before this issue.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

The right of any Muslim girl or woman to wear the hijab is not taken away, as long as this is done outside class, where the laws of the institution hold precedence. The hijab can also be worn in institutions which allow them. This is why the High Court saw no reason to debar secular institutions from enforcing their own uniform code within their premises.

 

[Itachi]

It just simply points that, whenever there is conflict of hijab in educational institutions and institutional uniform guidelines; it'll be the uniform guidelines that will take precedence.

Its as simple as that.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The right of any Muslim girl or woman to wear the hijab is not taken away, as long as this is done outside class, where the laws of the institution hold precedence.

Please explain this to your Sikh citizens who have insisted on the right to wear turbans in class and for some reason were accomodated by your courts. I'm sorry but your own biased legal system has shown your logic is flawed.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

#Hijab is not needed in educational institutions:

Bombay High Court - 2003
Madras High Court - 2007
Kerala High Court - 2018
Karnataka High Court - 2022

 

[LaLoco]

]The right of any Muslim girl or woman to wear the hijab is not taken away, as long as this is done outside class,[/B] where the laws of the institution hold precedence. The hijab can also be worn in institutions which allow them. This is why the High Court saw no reason to debar secular institutions from enforcing their own uniform code within their premises.

What?

Hindustani logic is always out of this world.

Right is not taken away as long as this is done outside? how are you going to stop anyone from wearing Hijab outside? - you believe population except Hindutva is that stooooopid? lol

 

[LaLoco]

It just simply points that, whenever there is conflict of hijab in educational institutions and institutional uniform guidelines; it'll be the uniform guidelines that will take precedence.

Its as simple as that.

Of course unless that garment is Sikh's turban on male gender head. gotcha

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

Of course unless that garment is Sikh's turban on male gender head. gotcha

India is not a tolerant country like Pak where people can wear anything they want to school and college.

 

[Clueless]

Please explain this to your Sikh citizens who have insisted on the right to wear turbans in class and for some reason were accomodated by your courts. I'm sorry but your own biased legal system has shown your logic is flawed.

simple thing, Turban is part of the basic tenants of Sikhism while Hijab is not.

 

[LaLoco]

India is not a tolerant country like Pak where people can wear anything they want to school and college.

Pakistan is far from being totally tolerant but the difference is Pakistani on this forum aren't making excuse to defend bigotry toward a particular religion.

No one with straight face can deny it has nothing to do with Muslims of Indi, and most Indians can't that is why they come up with ridiculous comments.

This isn't about Pakistan vs India either. This is about India only.

But the ridiculous comments by resident Indian origin is just that, ridiculous.

 

[LaLoco]

simple thing, Turban is part of the basic tenants of Sikhism while Hijab is not.

Y'all still running with that, lol

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

#Hijab is not needed in educational institutions:

Bombay High Court - 2003
Madras High Court - 2007
Kerala High Court - 2018
Karnataka High Court - 2022

That's not for your high courts presided over by Hindu judges to decide.

 

[JaDed]

Disastrous, just seems political, benefits all parties but not the girls that want to study.

Time for Supreme Court to make a decision, hopefully allowing it!

 

[Itachi]

Of course unless that garment is Sikh's turban on male gender head. gotcha

gotcha?

When did I claim otherwise so that you "gotcha" me?

it seems like now a days people here want to argue for sake of arguing/winning rather than gathering knowledge.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That's not for your high courts presided over by Hindu judges to decide.

In India courts decide. Not our neighborhood countries.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Disastrous, just seems political, benefits all parties but not the girls that want to study.

Time for Supreme Court to make a decision, hopefully allowing it!

On what basis? Should secular institutions run on Islamic principles?

4 high courts have ruled against this. For SC to overturn this will be a big ask.

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

That's not for your high courts presided over by Hindu judges to decide.

You seem to be confusing Indian High courts with Pak High courts... all court benches that make landmark judgements have a mix of ppl from diff backgrounds including religions. For eg. the current 3 judge Karnataka bench included J.M. Khazi - a Muslim.

 

[IMMY69]

On what basis? Should secular institutions run on Islamic principles?

4 high courts have ruled against this. For SC to overturn this will be a big ask.

But they're ok to run on Sikh principals?

 

[IMMY69]

In India courts decide. Not our neighborhood countries.

I'm not sitting in a neighbouring country. But I do find it interesting watching a country heading towards full on extremism.

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

But they're ok to run on Sikh principals?

Yes. Because the Sikhs were able to establish that the turban is an essential part of their religion by law.

 

[IMMY69]

Yes. Because the Sikhs were able to establish that the turban is an essential part of their religion by law.

I see.
you mean just like Scientology is a religion?

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

I see.
you mean just like Scientology is a religion?

I don't know. I'm not a Sikh - ask your fellow countrymen Sikhs whether their religion is a cult. I'm sure you will get an interesting response.

 

[IMMY69]

I don't know. I'm not a Sikh - ask your fellow countrymen Sikhs whether their religion is a cult. I'm sure you will get an interesting response.

I think you missed my point.
A court can declare Scientology a religion and yet a court in another country can declare that a hijab is not part of religion?

But lets just be honest for a moment. Doesn't this rule, now backed up by law, sound ridiculously petty?

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

I think you missed my point.
A court can declare Scientology a religion and yet a court in another country can declare that a hijab is not part of religion?

But lets just be honest for a moment. Doesn't this rule, now backed up by law, sound ridiculously petty?

Different countries have different laws? Sounds kosher to me. I guess France, Denmark, Austria also have similar laws that differ from the UK?

 

[IMMY69]

Different countries have different laws? Sounds kosher to me. I guess France, Denmark, Austria also have similar laws that differ from the UK?

but they don't have a minority of 200 million people practicing the same religion.

 

[JaDed]

On what basis? Should secular institutions run on Islamic principles?

4 high courts have ruled against this. For SC to overturn this will be a big ask.

Same principle that beef(cow’s meat) is not available in most states?

What are the basis for those?

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

but they don't have a minority of 200 million people practicing the same religion.

Law is law - regardless of the number. How does it matter how many ppl practice?

That said, out of 100M (assuming 50% females) how many actively wear hijab? I have rarely seen Muslim girls wear it during school time in India. I have studied in a convent, a national CBSE school and an international one.

 

[IMMY69]

Law is law - regardless of the number. How does it matter how many ppl practice?

That said, out of 100M (assuming 50% females) how many actively wear hijab? I have rarely seen Muslim girls wear it during school time in India. I have studied in a convent, a national CBSE school and an international one.

If the courts suddenly made a law that all men should be castrated... what then?
The law is the law when it's a fair law not when it's petty and born out of discrimination.