Stubbornness of hijab, lie of inertia, truth of justice!

- Spectrometer-Jay Vasavada

- Education ends only when religion becomes a matter of personal faith and public display, but dress code is mandatory for women in Islam, right?

JMM is a 12th grade topper of the state of Kashmir (naturally now almost everywhere) a girl. Her name is: Arusa Parvez. Where Zahira Wasim, who has become a devout Muslim after being slammed by the film industry, lives, pictures of Arusha from the same state have been trolled by religious fanatics for being open-headed (naturally, again!). Arusha replied to the revolutionary mood of a young age: 'I don't need hijab to prove myself a good Muslim. Neither hijab nor such rituals define one's faith in any religion. I can be a Muslim by heart, but not by hijab. ' Bravo. The dialogue of the film 'Khuda Ke Liye' comes to mind: Deen mein dadhi hai, dadhimein deen nahi hai. Remember Junaid Jamshed, a friend of director Shoaib Mansoor and a bearded haired Maulana from Popsinger who was an inspiration in the story of By the Way, Khuda Ke Liye? He once said, "How can it be that other people have fled from where Muslims come to live? This is how it should be for Allah or the servant, to live in the jinn or the neighborhood, to feel goodness, comfort and help! ”

But the reality is that in the controversy over hijab (hijab is also written or spoken) in Karnataka, three judges, Chief Justice Rituraj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit and Justice J.M. Khazi's bench ruled in favor of the school administration that they had received death threats! The government had to provide Y category protection. If this feeling is dubbed in the radicals all over the world, the disease of fighting has started to be spread among the radical jihadists. I don't like the fact that it doesn't suit my faith, so I have to become a judge myself and just talk about cutting off my head (and even actual moves!). That is why Taslima Nasri tweeted that Kashmir Files was made with courage on the pain of Pandits, but despite being a bestseller for three decades, I do not dare to make a film based on my novel 'Lajja'! Because, in this, how a Muslim woman is 'persecuted' by Muslim men is a tragedy of misery.

The uproar immediately erupts in the name of religion. Advising Hindus in the name of environment, modernity and harmony on why they should celebrate traditional festivals, Saddle secularists and liars cannot tell Muslims to give up their orthodoxy by eating khonkhar. Simply pressing like 'Loving mango stick killed Ram Sita'. That is why Saudi Arabia seems to be holding a film festival by banning the Tablighi Jamaat and the loudspeakers on the issue of Azan, but in Salim Khan's sarcasm here, if you say this to the 'half wise' Muslims, they will call for secularism. After independence, Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Hindu Code Bill, and Hindu women were freed from the shackles of oppression. But Purushottam Agarwal, a Nehru-loving scholar who worked at JNU, says there was no bill to amend the Muslim Personal Law. After the partition, instead of the constitution, they started living in India and being handed over to other communities.

Interestingly, in the name of equality, those who promote Chandla, Mangalsutra, Sikh turbans, Jains' infant baptism, etc., forget that it is designed as a 'duty' in all religions and has been proved in court cases. Abroad. Institutions have to leave where those rules do not work. And it is not obligatory for Hindus to worship daily except for certain castes and sects. Many Hindus without Sentha-Mangalsutra or Tilak / Chandla will appear. The uproar over the hijab originated with the CFI (Campus Front of India). It is alleged that the ambassador provided the information to Hussein. But hijab is not new for women in India. Many also wear it for appearance, because of the heat or because of the hobby. The veil of shame has gone out in the progressive society, but many continue to wear the veil of respect.

So the hijab is not a veil covering the mouth. Mandatory head covering. And if you count it as a choice, then there is no difference in India, whether it is a market or a multiplex, women are always moving around at will. The issue is, of course, the religious dress code at the Educational Institute. Or any dress code. Personally, many of them do not like even the most modest uniforms, but if you take admission, you have to abide by the rules of the premises.

In the Vatican of the Pope, who can be considered the most liberal in practice today, a model named Vieira (or Huhu? Ask Spanish well) did not get entry to the St. Peter's Basilica in February 208. Because, according to the dress code, the skirt should not be above the knee, the top low neckline should not be sleeveless. Now if you don't like this you can sit on the steps without going inside like Amitabh on the wall, but you can't change the rules of any place! There is no need to give knowledge in Gujarati about free and colorful Thailand, but if you are going to the king's palace in Bangkok today, if you are wearing 'sarong' clothes, you have to wrap it for dispensation. Yes, tourists can get it there for free, which is a different matter to give back. Many clubs even have shoes and jackets for compulsory dress code for dinner.

So the short touch is that an educational institution or an institution can make a rule that suits itself. Yes, if it seems unjust or violates the basic tenets of the constitution or humanity, it can be a legal challenge. (For example, the entry of women in Haji Ali and Sabarimala.) It is the spirit of the Constitution for a court to give a verdict, but it is up to the institutions to enforce it, where there is a predominance of religiosity. But instead of rules, religion has infiltrated our 'subjects' in such a way that it does not bind the court. For instance, in the case of the hijab, Muslims who immediately disguised psychological traditionalism in the name of modernity said that this justice was wrong. Hey, you just don't like it. The High Court Judgment which framed the four questions that have been read before and answered them in 12 parts? There is a very tidy stand in it!

The first question raised by the court is that according to the right to practice religion which is advocated for the validity of hijab by referring to Article 7, is it a religious practice of Islam? Can school uniforms be challenged if fundamental rights are granted under Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 21? Can the order of observance of dress code in the educational institution of Karnataka government be considered as a violation of Article 16 and 19? A case of misconduct inquiry against a college authority?

Understandably, this is a legal matter discussion in the High Court. If a woman goes to school in a Muslim dress, wearing a saffron scarf and shouting slogans in the name of Ramji, there is no such thing as harassment. Such brainwashed sheep Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews have all grown up in the sins of social media in all religions, who do not care about the number of yards but are ruining their own education by becoming someone's handle or folder in Dharmaznoon. If there is no discussion with them, we become illiterate. By literally serving such flag-bearing sloganeering trolleys, just as the zombies are crushed in Evilded, the empty skulls of those who have to be raised from the blockbuster must be knocked out!

But the court did not pass judgment just to please the authorities according to the prevailing misconception. Sometimes there is a judgment which is criticized. But this is a well-studied judgment.

The court said that the right to religion is a right but no right is absolute, subject to condition i.e. subject to certain conditions. (Otherwise it will be chaos. Just think if you have a car at your own expense, you have the right to go to your favorite place. What is important? Or is it a matter of personal preference rather than a preference or a later added or religious order?

To find the answer, the court cited Abdullah Yusuf Ali's revised book of the Qur'an, which is considered the standard by the Supreme Court over the years, in a judgment including a triple divorce from several translations of the Qur'an. In which Alisaheb clearly (years ago) writes in footnote 30 of 9th import that 'there is no mandatory mention of hijab, niqab, veil for Muslim women. It is enough to cover the private parts called shamgah and to wear proper clothes. In another footnote, Alisaheb states, "In the kind of chaos that existed in Medina at that time, some things are suggested to protect women. There is no question of imposing restrictions on women's freedom. A custom veil (not a veil, a veil covering the mouth, but a thin, semi-transparent veil) was a practice in other cultures for older people with respect before Islam.

This is what Zeenat Shaukat Ali had said in an English article on February 9, before the court judgment. In Mesopotamia, Byzantium, Assyria, and in Greco-Persia, the upper class often wore a veil that made women look thinner, not a religion but a status. Fashion can be seen in belly dancing today. (Videos of Lebanese-Moroccan dancers will be available soon.) But there are no commands in the Quran such as burqa, abaya, niqab. The word hijab means not only clothing but also part, border. Nowhere is there a question of dress code. The same thing has been said by the learned Governor of Kerala, Arif Mohammad Khan, who resigned from the then Rajiv Gandhi government in protest of appeasement on the issue of Shahba.

Zeenat Shaukat writes in technical terms that there is no such command of female dress code in Islam. Scholars such as al-Fabar al-Razi and al-Zamashkari leave the matter to local culture in time. The dress code is neither fard al ayan (individual responsibility) nor fard al kifaya (collective responsibility) because there is no written rule (nas) that makes it binding as obligatory. Zeenat goes on to say that in sixteen countries, the hijab, which is considered natural, is forbidden for us to cover our heads. The veil. In countries such as Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it is mandatory in public offices, but in Turkey it has been banned until now. Egypt also banned Syria in 2010 and 2014. Prohibited in Kosovo, Azerbaijan, Tunisia. Not mandatory in Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Burney, Maldives, Somalia, UAE and all these are Muslim majority countries! It is prohibited in France.

But these arguments are not to be taken lightly. They want all rights in India in the name of equality, but many Muslim countries do not grant equal citizenship to those who work outside. There is no stand to take. India has not only tolerance, but also love for other cultures. It is celebrated freely. Gujaratis write, read and listen to more ghazals than Urdu, from sherwani to samosas and handkerchiefs to the story of Arabian Nights. But here Islam has to hold on to the old identity but not to give a minority in the countries ruled by Islam! Aligarh Muslim University does not give rights to students of other religions who have to beg in Karnataka. If she does lipstick or bikini shoot, then Muslim heroines have to be trolled for blasphemy by calling a kafir characterless. Bangladesh wants to attack Hindu temples in Pakistan. So the countries that follow Islam should not be liberal, nor should they believe in a democratic constitution - but in India they should call for the same democratic constitution - not to study or to be modern, but to be more conservative obviously!

This is not a double standard. Terrorism also arises from this 'separation'. First it is asserted that we are the best, then the point is made that everything else is wrong. If the knot is tied then it is considered as an act of God to kill him and bring him to the right path!

The more different the appearance, the more the harmony decreases. In the name of Choice, religious beliefs are conditioned from childhood onwards, and then the price of a home-cooked meal changes. Most of the time in the world, it is always eaten at home. But where there is a home, there is a habit of that. Which is not the home of another. But it does not work in a public institution. If there is a conflict between the two laws in Islam, it is a matter of respect for the law.

The Karnataka court has upheld the state law in the federal structure and rejected the Kendriya Vidyalaya argument. According to Article 21 (a), mental science should be promoted in the school environment instead of religious dress. The ultimate freedom-loving man in the dress code schools in America has talked about treating the masked youth as equals in school dress. From the 18th Human Rights Declaration, the 18th UN has spoken of the rights of the child. Dr. Citing a book published by Ambedkar on partition and Pakistan in 1917, the framer of the constitution also said that a Muslim woman cannot go to the mosque freely except her close relatives and wear a burqa. Sikh turbans are considered a part of religious duty. (Personally, it should be a must.) But the burqa or hijab is not obligatory in Islam, he said.

Well, but who listens to the truth and justice except the primitive clergy ?!

Fast forward

A Pakistani asked Osho Rajneesh why Islam seems to be the oldest despite being relatively new. Osho said: "Because it does not allow discussion or review that criticizes religion."

(From Neeraj Badhwar's video)