Is Everything Stated In Quran Inviolable Injunction And Essential Practice? Karnataka HC Asks During Hijab Case Hearing
The three-judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court hearing the hijab cases on its second day of hearing asked the Counsel for Petitioners in one of the cases whether everything said in the Holy Quran is to be treated as essential religious practices and whether all injections in the book are to be treated as inviolable.
During the hearing yesterday, Justice Krishna S Dixit asked Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, "Whether what all is stated in Quran is essential religious practice?"
Kamat replied, "No, I am not saying that My Lord. For the purpose of this case, that larger question will not arise."
The Bench probed further, "The Holy Quran is considered to be the first source of Islamic law by all...and you have quoted the verses from Quran. Another question, we want to know, what all is stated in the Holy Quran, is it to be treated as inviolable injunction?"
Kamat replied by saying that, "I would not like to comment on the larger issue of whether every tenet of what is prescribed in the Quran is an essential practice because that really doesn't arise for the consideration of Your Lordships. Your Lordships have time and again respected this tradition of judicial review that what doesn't arise for consideration, Your Lordships will not get into that area."
It had been reported that the source cited by Kamat before the High Court to argue religious essentiality of Hijab also calls for violence against disbelievers, idol worshipers and women. (read report)
During the first day of hearing before the larger bench of the Karnataka High Court, Devadatt Kamat had told the Bench that 'Quran.com' is an authentic source of the Holy Quran and that Abdul Haleem's translation of the Holy Quran can be treated as authentic.
It had subsequently come out that the translation of the Holy Quran relied upon by the Kamat also calls for killing idolaters, fighting Jews and Christians until they pay the tax and agree to submit, striking disbelievers in the neck in battle, being harsh towards disbelievers, beating wives and keeping women at home until death as punishment.
Incidentally, a demand was made yesterday on behalf of one of the petitioners that the hearing of the case should be postponed till voting in the last phase of the ongoing state elections is over. However, the Court declined to do so, stating that it will consider the same if an application is made by the Election Commission or any such authority.
Devadatt Kamat is expected to continue arguing today, to be followed by other counsel representing other petitioners and intervenors supporting the petitioners.