Politics
The Quran Translation Cited By Devadatt Kamat In Support Of Hijab Contains Hate Verses Against Idol-Worshippers, Polytheists, Non-Muslims
- Kamat cited the website Quran.com and translator Abdul Haleem as his source in Karnataka High Court.
Devadatt Kamat.
On 8 February, the Karnataka High Court commenced hearing on a petition filed by two Muslim women students challenging a December 2021 directive by Udipi Women’s Pre-University College prohibiting the wearing of Islamic veil inside the premises.
The petitioners, Aishat Shifa and Thairin Begum, were represented by lawyer Devadatt Kamat.
The lawyer argued in the court that wearing of hijab is an “essential religious practice” prescribed in the Quran and hence, the state government has no regulatory power as wearing the hijab is protected under the right to freedom of religion in Article 25 of the Constitution.
Kamat said his source for the interpretation of the two verses is a website named ‘Quran.com’ and cited a translator named ‘Abdul Haleem’ (note that @LawBeatInd’s tweet, in a typo, wrote Haleem as Kaleem).
Verse number 24.31 as mentioned on Quran.com by Abdul Haleem states,
“And tell believing women that they should lower their glances, guard their private parts, and not display their charms beyond what [it is acceptable] to reveal; they should let their headscarves fall to cover their necklines and not reveal their charms except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their womenfolk, their slaves, such men as attend them who have no sexual desire, or children who are not yet aware of women’s nakedness; they should not stamp their feet so as to draw attention to any hidden charms. Believers, all of you, turn to God so that you may prosper.”
Verse number 24.33 as mentioned on Quran.com by the same translator states,
Yesterday (10 February), a three-member bench of the high court said it would resume the hearing on Monday.
Kamat’s Source Is Problematic
To justify a different dress code for a few Muslim girls (only eight out of 70 Muslim students at the Udipi school demanded they be allowed to wear the veil when protests began in December), the lawyer has chosen to show it as an essential religious practice and quote interpretations of Quran published on an anonymous website.
This is disturbing on several counts:
In a secular state, if 75 years after Independence, school dresses are modified as per demands by a small group, it opens a Pandora’s box and begets these questions:
Why was no such demand ever made seriously in the last 75 years in government or private schools across India?
Why is that the ongoing demands have begun in sync with recent markers such as World Hijab Day, and other proactive hijab-promoting activities being pushed across the world over the last few years?
If hijab is now allowed in government schools to adhere to fancies of a very small group, how far will the state have to go in accommodating the diverse religious and cultural practices of other groups – be in five-time namaz, three-time sandhya, two-time hawan or, for that matter, bhagwa shawls being sported by Hindu students of the same Udipi school?
If a court rules that hijab is indeed an essential practice in Islam, would this not imply that crores of Muslim women who don’t wear it (including crores who have never worn it) are being declared violators of Islamic practices by a court of law?
Does this not make them vulnerable to Taliban-like forces? Rayana R Khasi, a 23-year-old Muslim woman from Kerala, was forced to seek police protection because fundamentalists in her community wanted her to wear hijab. Is this what Kamat wishes for vulnerable Muslim women by his demand that high court declares hijab an essential practice of Islam?
2. The same website and the same translator quoted by Kamat have made some very direct and disturbing attacks on non-Muslims including members of religious minorities of India.
The content declares “idolators” (such as Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Christians) worst of creatures. The content says that disbelievers (those who do not believe in authority of Islam’s founder Muhammad as the only true messenger of god, or simply, non-Muslims) must be dealt with violence. The content says that through the mere act of worshipping idols, people deserve being burnt in fire forever and have their skin peeled.
Verse number 9.5:
“When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post; but if they turn [to God], maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for God is most forgiving and merciful.”
Verse number 98.6:
Verse number 9.28:
To be sure that ‘believer’ in the above verse refers to a person who believes in Muhammad’s authority as god’s messenger and ‘disbeliever’ refers to a person who does not believe in Muhammad’s authority as god’s messenger, following are interpretations of verses number 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 as mentioned on Quran.com, translated by Abdul Haleem.
“Those who believe in the revelation sent down to you [Muhammad], and in what was sent before you, those who have firm faith in the Hereafter. Such people are following their Lord’s guidance and it is they who will prosper. As for those who disbelieve, it makes no difference whether you warn them or not: they will not believe.”
Verse number 9.29:
Verse number 8.55
Verse number 48.29
Verse number 9.123
Verse number 66.9
Verse number 47.4
Verse number 8.12
Verses number 69.30 to 69.33
“Take him, put a collar on him,
and [bind him] in a chain seventy metres long:
he would not believe in Almighty God.”
Verse number 9.111
Verse number 9.30
Verse number 21.98
Verses number 21.99 and 21.100
Verses number 6.22 and 6.23:
Verses number 22.19 and 22.20:
A reading of these interpretations begets the following questions:
In a pluralistic secular country where people co-exist with diverse religious beliefs, cultures and languages, is this not hate-speech? In fact, what the lawyer has quoted from, seems to be a manual for indoctrinating jihadis.
Should the interpretation of verses about violence against idolators, polytheists and disbelievers of Islam be also considered “essential practices” of Islam because they come from the same source as quoted by the lawyer for hijab?
If however it is argued that these verses are subject to wider interpretation and are not to be taken literally, why is the lawyer insisting on taking the first two verses literally? This, when the Indian Muslim community is overwhelmingly filled with women who don’t wear hijab and some of them even get photographed in bikinis?
The content says that husbands have right to beat their wives if they don’t obey them. The content justifies slavery. The content says that testimony of one man equals that of two women. The content says that if a woman commits a lewd act, she should be confined to home. The content also says that witnesses are not needed to punish a woman suspected of adultery by her husband.
Following are interpretations of some such verses from Quran as mentioned on Quran.com, where the translator is Abdul Haleem:
Verse number 4.34
“Husbands should take good care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in their husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them: God is most high and great.”
Verse number 4.3
Verse number 2.282
Verse number 4.15
Verse number 24.6
“As for those who accuse their own wives of adultery, but have no other witnesses, let each one four times call God to witness that he is telling the truth.”
The hijab petition being heard in Karnataka High Court has opened a Pandora’a box. The source cited by the lawyer has disturbing views on idol-worshippers, polytheists, non-Muslims and women, and taking it as authentic source of Islamic religion can lead to Talibanisation of a pluralistic country.
