Islam Is Not About Turban And Beard, Says Federal Court
As I am not a lawyer and have absolutely no knowledge of Islamic Jurisprudence, I post this Bernama report in its entirety without comment.
Islam is not about turban and beard, said the Federal Court in dismissing the appeal of three pupils who were expelled from school for refusing to take off their 'serban' nine years ago. The panel of three judges led by Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abdul Malek Ahmad was unanimous in their decision that not everything that the Prophet Muhammad did or the way he did it is legally or religiously binding on Muslims, or even preferable and should be followed.
Justice Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamed, in his written judgment, said that the practice of wearing a turban was of little significance from Islam's point of view, what more in relation to under-age boys." As far as I can ascertain, the Al-Quran makes no mention about the wearing of turban. I accept that the Prophet wore a turban. But he also rode a camel, built his house and mosque with clay walls and roof of leaves of date palms and brushed his teeth with the twig of a plant." Does that make riding a camel a more pious deed than travelling in an aeroplane? Is it preferable to build houses and mosques using the same materials used by the Prophet and the same architecture adopted by him during his time?" said Abdul Hamid in the judgment delivered by Federal Court Deputy Registrar Kamaruddin Kamsun.
"The question is whether the wearing of turban by boys of the age of the appellants is a practice of the religion of Islam. Islam is not about turban and beard. The pagan Arabs, including Abu Jahl, wore turbans and kept beards. It was quite natural for the Prophet, born into the community and grew up in it, to do the same." Abdul Hamid said that turbans were, and are not only worn by Arabs. Other people living in the desert or semi-desert areas like the Afghans and Persians wore or wear them too." Indeed, anybody who goes to Mecca will immediately realise that a piece of cloth, by whatever name it is called, to cover his head and face from the heat, the dryness and the dust, is most useful."
Nowadays, the turbans, distinguished by their designs and the way they are tied or worn, symbolise the nationality of the persons wearing them, for example whether they are Saudis, Sudanese, Afghans, Omanis etc. The turban has become part of the national dress of these countries. "It is interesting to note that, even now, very few of our muftis and hardly any Syariah Court judges wear the turban," he said.
The three pupils -- Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak, 11, and brothers Syed Abdullah Khaliq Aslamy Syed Ahmad Johari and Syed Ahmad Syakur, aged 11, 9 and 8 at the material time -- were expelled from Sekolah Kebangsaan Felda Serting in Negeri Sembilan on Nov 10 1997 for refusing to take off their serban. They filed a summons through their guardian and father, Syed Ahmad Johari Syed Mohamed, naming the headmistress, Fatimah Sihi, the Secretary-General of the Education Ministry and the government as respondents.
Seremban High Court judge Datuk Mohamed Noor Abdullah on Aug 6 1999 nullified the expulsion order after ruling that the headmistress did not have the authority to expel them but the ruling was set aside with costs by the Court of Appeal Nov 22, 2004. They then appealed against this decision to the Federal Court.
Justice Abdul Hamid, in his judgment, said that the issue before the court was whether or not the School Regulations 1997, which prohibit the wearing of the turban as part of the school uniform during school hours, violate Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. "I'm of the view that whether a practice is or is not an integral part of a religion is not the only factor that should be considered,". The court should also consider the importance of the practice in relation to the religion and if the practice was of a compulsory nature or an integral part of the religion, it should be given more weight, he said.
"Prohibition of a practice which is "wajib" (mandatory) should definitely be viewed more seriously than the prohibition of what is sunat (commendable). Even if we were to accept the view that wearing turban is commendable, it certainly does not rank on the same level as "sunat prayers", as the learned counsel for appellants had tried to convince the court when the question was put to him by me," he said.
Abdul Hamid said the second factor considered by the court was the extent of the prohibition imposed by the regulations. "The students are not allowed to wear the turban as part of the school uniform. They are not prevented from wearing the turban at other times. Even in school they would not be prevented from wearing the turban when they perform, say, their "zohor" prayer in the prayer room. "Should they be allowed to wear the "jubah" (robe) when playing football because it was the practice of the Prophet to wear the jubah? Certainly, there is a place for everything," he said.
Furthermore, he said, there was nothing to prevent the appellants from changing school, for example to a 'pondok' school that would allow them to wear the turban. "We cannot ignore the educational system that had helped to mould the minds of Malaysian boys and girls to grow up as Malaysians. Our educationists should be given some respect and credit when they formulate some regulations applicable in their schools for the general good of all the students, the society and the nation.
"Look at these three appellants. During their formative years, when they should be observing school discipline, respecting their teachers, they were made to spend those years being different from other students, disregard the school regulations, disobey the teachers, rebel against the authorities, just because Syed Ahmad, described by the learned trial judge as "angkuh" (arrogant) wanted the three appellants to wear the turban to school because the turban is his family's emblem.
"Considering all these factors, in my judgment, the School Regulations 1997 do not contravene the provision of Article 11(1) of the Constitution and therefore is not unconstitutional," Abdul Hamid said. Justice Abdul Malek Ahmad and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim who sat with Abdul Hamid, concurred with the decision. The appellants were represented by counsel Mohamed Hanipa Maidin and Muhammad Firdaus Zakaria while senior federal counsel Datuk Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid and Azizah Nawawi represented the respondents.
Islam is not about turban and beard, said the Federal Court in dismissing the appeal of three pupils who were expelled from school for refusing to take off their 'serban' nine years ago. The panel of three judges led by Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abdul Malek Ahmad was unanimous in their decision that not everything that the Prophet Muhammad did or the way he did it is legally or religiously binding on Muslims, or even preferable and should be followed.
Justice Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamed, in his written judgment, said that the practice of wearing a turban was of little significance from Islam's point of view, what more in relation to under-age boys." As far as I can ascertain, the Al-Quran makes no mention about the wearing of turban. I accept that the Prophet wore a turban. But he also rode a camel, built his house and mosque with clay walls and roof of leaves of date palms and brushed his teeth with the twig of a plant." Does that make riding a camel a more pious deed than travelling in an aeroplane? Is it preferable to build houses and mosques using the same materials used by the Prophet and the same architecture adopted by him during his time?" said Abdul Hamid in the judgment delivered by Federal Court Deputy Registrar Kamaruddin Kamsun.
"The question is whether the wearing of turban by boys of the age of the appellants is a practice of the religion of Islam. Islam is not about turban and beard. The pagan Arabs, including Abu Jahl, wore turbans and kept beards. It was quite natural for the Prophet, born into the community and grew up in it, to do the same." Abdul Hamid said that turbans were, and are not only worn by Arabs. Other people living in the desert or semi-desert areas like the Afghans and Persians wore or wear them too." Indeed, anybody who goes to Mecca will immediately realise that a piece of cloth, by whatever name it is called, to cover his head and face from the heat, the dryness and the dust, is most useful."
Nowadays, the turbans, distinguished by their designs and the way they are tied or worn, symbolise the nationality of the persons wearing them, for example whether they are Saudis, Sudanese, Afghans, Omanis etc. The turban has become part of the national dress of these countries. "It is interesting to note that, even now, very few of our muftis and hardly any Syariah Court judges wear the turban," he said.
The three pupils -- Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak, 11, and brothers Syed Abdullah Khaliq Aslamy Syed Ahmad Johari and Syed Ahmad Syakur, aged 11, 9 and 8 at the material time -- were expelled from Sekolah Kebangsaan Felda Serting in Negeri Sembilan on Nov 10 1997 for refusing to take off their serban. They filed a summons through their guardian and father, Syed Ahmad Johari Syed Mohamed, naming the headmistress, Fatimah Sihi, the Secretary-General of the Education Ministry and the government as respondents.
Seremban High Court judge Datuk Mohamed Noor Abdullah on Aug 6 1999 nullified the expulsion order after ruling that the headmistress did not have the authority to expel them but the ruling was set aside with costs by the Court of Appeal Nov 22, 2004. They then appealed against this decision to the Federal Court.
Justice Abdul Hamid, in his judgment, said that the issue before the court was whether or not the School Regulations 1997, which prohibit the wearing of the turban as part of the school uniform during school hours, violate Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. "I'm of the view that whether a practice is or is not an integral part of a religion is not the only factor that should be considered,". The court should also consider the importance of the practice in relation to the religion and if the practice was of a compulsory nature or an integral part of the religion, it should be given more weight, he said.
"Prohibition of a practice which is "wajib" (mandatory) should definitely be viewed more seriously than the prohibition of what is sunat (commendable). Even if we were to accept the view that wearing turban is commendable, it certainly does not rank on the same level as "sunat prayers", as the learned counsel for appellants had tried to convince the court when the question was put to him by me," he said.
Abdul Hamid said the second factor considered by the court was the extent of the prohibition imposed by the regulations. "The students are not allowed to wear the turban as part of the school uniform. They are not prevented from wearing the turban at other times. Even in school they would not be prevented from wearing the turban when they perform, say, their "zohor" prayer in the prayer room. "Should they be allowed to wear the "jubah" (robe) when playing football because it was the practice of the Prophet to wear the jubah? Certainly, there is a place for everything," he said.
Furthermore, he said, there was nothing to prevent the appellants from changing school, for example to a 'pondok' school that would allow them to wear the turban. "We cannot ignore the educational system that had helped to mould the minds of Malaysian boys and girls to grow up as Malaysians. Our educationists should be given some respect and credit when they formulate some regulations applicable in their schools for the general good of all the students, the society and the nation.
"Look at these three appellants. During their formative years, when they should be observing school discipline, respecting their teachers, they were made to spend those years being different from other students, disregard the school regulations, disobey the teachers, rebel against the authorities, just because Syed Ahmad, described by the learned trial judge as "angkuh" (arrogant) wanted the three appellants to wear the turban to school because the turban is his family's emblem.
"Considering all these factors, in my judgment, the School Regulations 1997 do not contravene the provision of Article 11(1) of the Constitution and therefore is not unconstitutional," Abdul Hamid said. Justice Abdul Malek Ahmad and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim who sat with Abdul Hamid, concurred with the decision. The appellants were represented by counsel Mohamed Hanipa Maidin and Muhammad Firdaus Zakaria while senior federal counsel Datuk Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid and Azizah Nawawi represented the respondents.
posted by The Malaysian. at 7/12/2006 05:57:00 PM
1 Comments:
They took nine bloody years to figure that out?
Post a Comment
<< Home