In the Indian state of Karnataka, a Muslim girl named Muskan Khan raised her voice in support of the right to wear the hijab. On February 8, 2022, a group of students insisted that she remove her hijab, citing the college dress code as the basis. She courageously and bravely refused to succumb to this pressure. In response to the crowd’s slogans at that moment, she raised her voice with cries of “Allahu Akbar.” This was a clear expression of her commitment to Islam. This incident gained worldwide attention. There was a mixed reaction from people. Most viewed it through a religious lens and declared support or opposition to the girl’s action based on their religious perspectives. Some people condemned it by regarding it as a violation of discipline and order. Others described it as a struggle for freedom of expression, expressing strong support for it. Esteemed teacher Javed Ahmed Ghamidi was also questioned on this matter. In response, he gave an in depth discussion, the summary of some key points of which is presented below for public benefit.
God Almighty has created human beings free. In their personal affairs and private sphere, they are autonomous. If a person recognizes the Lord as their deity, believes in the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), and accepts Islam, it is a personal and voluntary decision. Conversely, if they choose otherwise, they have the right to do so. In the same manner, decisions about what attire to wear, which language to speak, what education to pursue, what profession to choose, which society to live in, what ideology to support, and which religion to adopt are all personal matters. In these, the person has full authority, and no one else has the right to interfere—not an individual, society, government, politicians, or religious leaders. This freedom is the voice of one’s nature and is based on the law of trial that God Almighty has established in this world.
The modern state’s foundational purpose is to protect citizens’ rights from being violated, safeguard them against injustice towards their lives, property, and dignity, and prevent the chaos and disorder that arise from the misuse of human will and choice that leads to the usurpation of other people’s rights. It is for this necessity that governments are established. Consequently, it is imperative for a government to remain confined to fulfilling this need. Beyond this, it does not have the right to interfere in personal matters. These matters lie outside its jurisdiction. Therefore, whether it is a monarchy, papacy, dictatorship, democracy, the government of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, or Muslims, it is not permissible for any government to intervene in people’s personal affairs. If it does so, it would mean that it is itself committing the injustice and violations it was supposed to prevent.
The choice of clothing and appearance is a natural right of individuals. It is a purely personal matter. No parliament has the right to interfere in it, neither does any government nor any court. A woman who wishes to cover her face has the right to do so, and one who wishes to reveal it also has the right to do so. Thus, for example, the government of France does not have the right to legislate against scarves, nor does the government or Supreme Court of India have any such right. Similarly, the governments of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan do not have the authority to mandate hijab or any specific clothing for women. There is no justification for such interference in Turkey or Iran, nor in Europe or America.
There is no doubt that Islam has provided clear guidance regarding clothing and appearance, but its address is to the individual, not the government or the state. This is similar to how matters of faith and worship are related to the individual. For this purpose, religion has directly addressed the individual and has not employed the mediation of the state. Therefore, it is the requirement of religion itself that even if a government of Muslims is established, it should also refrain from interfering in these matters.
Furthermore, since religious injunctions are subjects of contemplation, differences in interpretation and elucidation as a result of scholarly reflection are an undeniable reality. This cannot be denied.
Thus, it is an individual matter for each person which religion they choose to accept and which interpretation or explanation they consider correct or incorrect. Furthermore, based on what they perceive as correct, they choose which commands to follow and towards which they adopt a negligent attitude. In this matter, the individual is not accountable to society or the state but is directly accountable to their Creator. Their afterlife depends on this accountability. Therefore, no secular government, religious government, monarchy, papacy, or democracy has the right to interfere in this accountability.
The argument against personal rights regarding dress and appearance in favor of discipline and dress code is not valid. Systems and discipline are established for the needs and convenience of humans and should be limited to this extent. If they become ends in themselves and cause discomfort instead of convenience, then their harm outweighs their benefits. Such systems or discipline are eventually rejected by the collective conscience of humanity. The systems that are beneficial, effective, and sustainable for humans are those that allow flexibility and change, enabling people to benefit from them without sacrificing their rights. An example of this is the discipline of the British army before the partition of India. Sikhs were permitted to avoid cutting their hair according to their religion and could wear turbans. Governments and institutions should promote such measures within their respective spheres. For instance, Muslims around the world should have the facility to perform prayers during working hours conveniently. Similarly, in offices, factories, and educational institutions, the respect for their religious symbols should be observed. Muslims should adopt the same approach for non-Muslims within their states and institutions.
Muskan Khan’s raising her voice for her hijab is highly commendable. With remarkable courage and bravery, she has protected her personal right and demonstrated through her action that no one has the right to interfere in her choice of dress or religious beliefs. She has set an example of how to protest when any system, institution, society, government, or court dares to intervene in a person’s personal thoughts and actions. At this moment, her cry of “Allahu Akbar” is an expression of her personal commitment to her religion. It is a clear declaration that she considers God the greatest and trusts in Him. She accomplished this alone, despite being a young girl, and against a crowd of men. This is further evidence of her determination and courage. Individuals who stand up for their beliefs, their rights, and their freedom are the guardians and protectors of humanity. We should join our voices with theirs and salute their bravery.
Our admiration and support should not be limited only to the girl who raised the slogan in favor of the hijab in India. It should also extend to those girls who, standing within Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, refuse to accept the imposition of the hijab. On both sides, the principle is the same: religion, the interpretation of religion, and the acceptance or rejection of it is a personal matter for the individual, and another person or authority cannot impose their opinion in this regard.
The Muslims of India have decided to take this issue to the Supreme Court. This step is appropriate for the protection of their rights, but it is essential in this matter that they base their stance on sound and acceptable reasoning. That is, instead of presenting religious arguments based on a specific interpretation, they should ground their case on the premise of being wronged. As a result, their case will be both legitimate and have the potential for success. However, if they choose to adopt religious reasoning for it, the issue will become confused and result in no outcome.
The reason for this is that the same principle, the same law, the same reasoning can form the basis of a decision, which is mutually acceptable among the plaintiff, the defendant, and the court. Clearly, neither Islam holds this position in the collectivity of India, nor is any specific juristic interpretation of it accepted among all Muslims. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to take the books of jurists to the court and try to persuade it based on them about the rulings on veiling. Determining the rulings on veiling is not the court’s responsibility. This is a personal matter that Muskan or other women have to decide for themselves. They make this determination based on their own research, feelings, societal customs, or the opinion of an Islamic scholar—whatever the basis may be, in every situation, it is their right. Our dignity and support should be based on this very right of theirs.