The ‘crime’ of hijab -By Ismail Misbahu

It’s, according to Islam, the right dress code for a Muslim woman. Wearing it pays no cost to, and does not violate the right of, any non-Muslim since it is not meant to bring anything any harm to any culture or civilisation. While wearing hijab has been considered the identity of Muslim women, this practice has no exclusion to any ‘individual’ desiring to dress it up.

Although a particular religious faith or cultural belief may discourage wearing hijab, individuals with interest to dress up in hijab may hardly be seen as profaning any religious sanctity. Guarding a woman’s chastity is a practice recommendable not only in Islam but in Christianity as well. Where there may be any difference, such may be seen in the manner by which it’s interpreted where for instance, Islam may consider a Muslim woman wearing no hijab as simply ‘naked’, Christianity on the other hand, may consider it as just ‘abnormal’. That’s the modesty of religion. It’s indeed doubtful whether Christianity recommends female Christians to go by the styles of dress they resort to attract their randy pastors in Churches today!

While being the Islamic recommended dress code, wearing hijab does not guarantee sainthood to any female Muslimah—it does not imply that a Muslim woman is a God-fearing nor does it implicate the imaan of a Muslim woman who seldom wear or does not wear it at all. Wearing hijab dies not prevent a Muslim woman from being a guilty of crime, it does not prevent her from punishment in school, it does not prevent her from being guilty of examination malpractice, it does not prevent her from being exposed to stealing in the market, it couldn’t and shouldn’t have given any God-fearing Muslim woman the stamp of approval to proceed with zinah (adultery and fornication).

By proper understanding, this means that contrary to the ideal of hijab, which is to guard the chastity of a Muslim woman, wearing it does not mean a woman’s chastity is always guarded as there’s today, a number of women abusing the hijab, going under-naked and let no such chances of zinah go with hindrances. Much as one could imagine, chances of rape, flirt wordings and other unintended mundanes couldn’t miss their invitation.

Four-legs under hijab, have you ever witnessed?! Of course yes and it’s been one of the many scenes exemplifying the crime of hijab in school campuses, market places, offices and Churches. In other parts of the World especially in Middle-eastern countries like Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan, hijab is used to hide bombs and terrorise communities. Similar scenario occurs with Boko Haram kidnapping women and forcing them to do the same. While these are the crimes of hijab today, these acts are not necessarily to the exclusion of Muslims since wearing hijab is employed to serve different purposes and much more, the abuse of it is geared to no other purpose than against Islamic civilisation and modesty. This is irrespective of whether the hijab is worn by a Muslim woman or none.

The likes of Malcolm Emokiniovo could not stop creating dramas. To them, hijab, at all cost, cannot be worn by school Muslim females more so when Nigeria is a ‘secular state’ and that wearing it in public schools would amount to adopting a ‘state religion’ and ‘Islamisation’ of other non Muslim population! This has been for almost a decade the ‘crime of hijab’ on the eyes of CAN and its anti-Islam advocates. Way back to 2016, former governor of Osun state, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, was the first Muslim governor to have faced all sort of gratuitous attacks, first as he dared to declare the first day in the Islamic calendar a public holiday in his state whose Muslim population is probably the majority.

Second, because of the ruling on June 3 by an Osun State High Court in Osogbo, under justice Jide Falola allowing female Muslim students to wear hijab in all public primary and secondary schools in the state. Critics and castigations from CAN branch of the state and from its headquarter at Lagos had it that the Governor interfered with the activities of the legislator to the extent of ‘instructing’ them to adopt Islam as a ‘state religion’! This had baffled the Governor to have responded that:

“Is it a crime that I am a Muslim, is it because I struggle to be a good Muslim that everything I do is being misunderstood? I think I don’t deserve all these lies against me.”He said this while challenging anyone with evidence that he ordered the wearing of hijab to bring it. Not a single one of those calling him names has done so. Two years before ‘Aregbesola-hijab ruling’, i.e. in October 2014, Justice Modupe Onyeabor dismissed a similar suit filed in May 2013 against the Lagos State Government’s ban on hijab. The plaintiffs who filed the suit contended that the ban violated Sections 38 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution which have given them the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

While this was so the case, Justice Modupe desired to oppose that the right they sought violated Section 10 of the Constitution which said “the Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.”How on earth could a judge be just having interpretation such as this. While this is cited from Section 10, it cannot serve the basis for justifying the rejection of a religious rite. The Section only emphasises that none of the two religions (Islam or Christianity) could be adopted in the state.

Many would also believe that contrary to this view, the Constitution never said Nigeria is a secular state. ‘Secular’as defined in Oxford Languages online dictionary, means “…that which is not connected with religious or spiritual matters.” The very opening words of our Constitution say we are “…a Sovereign Nation under God.” This clearly does not suggest a rejection of a religious belief or practice.

In what became like an attestation to the fact that Christianity does not encourage women to dress half-naked while going to Church on Sundays, the chairman of the Osun state chapter of CAN, Elisha Ogundiya, said in a statement on the court ruling,”Christian students in all public schools founded by Christians with the toil and sweat of our forefathers in the faith (will) have no choice but to start wearing garments and vestments as part of their school uniform for the propagation of our faith, given that Justice Saka Oyedije Falola declared the right of female Muslim students to do same, as what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as well.”

Elisha’s view clearly knocked the bottom of the unjust mockery dramatised by the likes of Malcolms, jibing hard to change the wind for all what it takes to mean a hijab as simply a female Muslim code of dress.

Indeed what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. Christians could also wear their garments and go to school. No hurt!

Ismail Misbahu could be reached via
ismailmusbahu15@gmail.com.