Here is a brilliant article on the subject of Hijab and the law school I read on premium times. I don't necessarily agree with all the views expressed in this article, but I agree with the crux of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


A law student in Nigeria, Firdaus Amasa Abdulsalam fulfilled all academic requirements to practice the legal profession but was barred from the call to bar ceremony by the Law School’s Body of Benchers in Abuja on December 12, 2017. The reason for her being barred was because she wore, along with her professional habiliments, her hijab neatly tucked under the barristers’ wig.

Apparently, there’s another case that is not yet as publicised as that of Firdaus. Another graduating law student, Aisha Zubair was harassed at the same call to bar ceremony – she was not only forced to remove her hijab but had it trampled on, and had her certificate seized by obviously uncouth Law School personnel.

Since the show of shame occurred, there have been arguments for and against the matter. The matter has taken a polemical life of its own and sides have been taken – some disappointingly extreme at that!

Personally, I find it appalling that the wearing of hijab by a professional is being debated in this day and age – 2017! Some of my friends and colleagues in the West are quite shocked by the development and wonder when Nigeria will get on with the times. Considering that the Western world has adopted the hijab in almost every professional sphere, it is rather peculiar that the Nigerian Law School has chosen to be the antithesis of modernity.

In the legal profession, the international community has embraced diversity, but locally some of the advocates are hinged on colonialist traditions imposed upon subject colonies. Ironically, the West has, to a large extent, abandoned the donning of the barristers’ wigs in court and generally accepted the wearing of hijab by female Muslim lawyers.

For instance, a US Judge, Carolyn Walker-Diallo was sworn in with a Quran in New York and she donned her head-dress proudly. So it is rather strange that oaths can be taken by Muslim lawyers with a Quran, but female Muslims cannot wear their hijab to a call to bar ceremony in Nigeria. A quagmire has emanated from an inherent loophole – an avoidable contretemps nonetheless.

The president of the Nigerian Bar Association, A.B Mahmoud stated that the association would embrace diversity and tolerance, and address the matter. He further shared a picture of his daughter wearing the hijab during her call to the New York Bar.

The situation can simply be rectified by the country’s legal institutions deliberating on the matter and seeking redress to an anomaly that has tainted the Nigerian Law School since its creation in 1963. This is an obvious contradiction that needn’t exist.

Surely, a suggested dress code convention and many other inherited colonial practices ought to have evolved with the times.

A few arguments have been raised against the hijab, and I cannot overemphasise the otiosity of some of these arguments, but for the purpose of fairness, these arguments must be addressed. I have identified seven arguments that address the issue:

(1) Imposition; (2) Comply and Complain; (3) Temporary Inconvenience; (4) Other Religious Requests; (5) Foreign Culture; (6) State Secularity, and (7) Legality and Constitution.

1. Imposition

I posit that the hijab is not an imposition if the wearer has not imposed it on anyone else. I wonder how a piece of cloth on someone’s head threatens the existence of others.

In reality, it is the Law School that has imposed its intolerance on some Muslim women for decades – the paradox for a noble profession meant to uphold the law and custodianship of human rights.

Some of the Muslim women who previously fell to the sword of the Law School’s unconstitutional imposition have started feeling oppressed and naked without their hijabs, but they admitted to not being courageous enough to challenge the injustice meted out to them for various personal reasons.

The stance of Firdaus that fateful day has brought to the fore the sufferings of many women and would hopefully bring an end to this modern day absurdity.

Women who have freely chosen to wear the hijab state, unequivocally, that they feel liberated in it and anything contrary to wearing the hijab is humiliation – that is their choice and people must learn to respect this choice. So it is quite ludicrous to speak on behalf of people who wear the hijab without their reasoning or opinion.

2. Comply and Complain {I believe this point addresses my back and forth with Tintingz}

Some have argued that Firdaus should have ‘obeyed before complaint’.

For the sake of argument, assuming that Firdaus obeyed, what will be the basis of her complaint? She will be accused of hypocrisy. Some of those castigating her bold stance would be the first to label her a fake activist or attention seeker. Firdaus would probably have been accused of insincerity; that if she was genuine she should have protested by not obeying the dress code convention.

At times, civil disobedience might be the most effective mechanism to address a social injustice and effect change.

On civil disobedience, Martin Luther King Jr. famously stated:

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

In this regard, if a law is unjust, discriminatory and violates human rights, should such a law be obeyed? In the case of Firdaus, it is a dress code convention, that she and others consider discriminatory, that has been disobeyed and not a law.

Evidently, some people are more courageous than others, whilst some may withstand oppression and discrimination, others will definitely not.

In terms of the Rosa Parks analogy: On a fateful day of December 1, 1955 in Montgomery Alabama, Rosa Parks decided to disobey an unjust law by initiating a protest against segregation.

Before that day, many people had complied with the unjust law.

However, it must be emphasised that there are those who the unjust law did not affect; to those the law didn’t discriminate against, it was not an unjust law.

Rosa Park’s singular act of rebellion against an unjust law emancipated many affected people. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a 13-month mass protest between December 5, 1955 and December 20, 1956 that ended with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional.

Rosa Parks, by her own admission, was a ‘rebellious’ lady and Malcolm X was one of those she was inspired by. Malcolm X once stated that:

“A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything”

If Rosa Parks had obeyed an unjust law that was discriminatory towards her and other affected people, the injustice would have persisted.

Study history and you will find exceptional individuals who challenged the status quo: those who chose to fight a selfless battle that would benefit others in the future. The world celebrates and benefits from the struggles and sacrifices of such people today.

I celebrate Firdaus for being courageous enough to sacrifice her being called to bar to initiate a debate about an injustice and human rights infringement that has been perpetrated against those who choose to practice their faith and the ambit of the legal profession.

Ask yourself, what you have done with your life, what cause have you stood for and what will you be remembered for after you are gone!

3. Temporary Inconvenience

Some have argued that it is only a temporary inconvenience – which it is just a few hours! The hijab wearer practically feels naked without her hijab! So would those proposing she takes off her hijab for a few hours be willing to go be naked for a few hours as well? Will such people, with any decency, walk around naked for a few hours or even allow themselves be photographed in the nude for just a few hours?

Modesty is relative and we must respect the modesty of others. It’s a free world after all! I posit a critical advancement in human history is the evolution from the primitivity of unclothedness to the civilisation of being clothed.

If certain people want to regress to the era of ‘uncivilisation’ by practically being ‘naked’, ironically in the name of ‘civilisation’, then there shouldn’t be a problem with those who choose to express their interpretation of civilisation as wearing a scarf on their head. We should learn to be more tolerant – live and let live!

Agent's thoughts: I find the first part of this statement objectionable! Progress and civility isn't measured by how people dress or appear. It is measured by how much value is placed on personal freedoms. The author redeemed quickly redeemed himself in the last statement: Live and let live!

From the Muslim’s perspective, Islam is a complete religion – complete in every sense of the word, with guidelines on how to live every aspect of life. One of those aspects is the etiquette of public appearances, which some Muslim women have chosen to abide by in their daily lives. The scriptural injunction states:

“And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.” – Quran 24:31

It must be emphasised that Islam allows individuals the choice of living by these guidelines or not, because there is no compulsion in religion.

“There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.” – Quran 2:256

However, for those women who have chosen to follow Islam and use the hijab, it is a dressing etiquette for public appearances.

By M.B.O. Owolowo
https://opinion.premiumtimesng.com/2017/12/26/hijab-and-the-bar-by-m-b-o-owolowo/

I wonder why the hijab is such an issue, this is a Nation where the necessarily things are taken for granted while the unnecessary things are question.....


What happen to Arabic inscripted language on our naira.?

What happen to the bill currently on hold that is about to stop building of mosque around the busy area like market.?

Even with the law......
What happens to the non compliance of court rules in Nigeria?


Hijab wearing is not necessary religious outfit but more or less of cultural outfit of the middle east......even in Nigeria, northern christains use hijab......kaduna and jos to be specific........

First of all, is the columnist a Muslim, because sometimes opinions are relative and can be sentimental.

Like President Buhari said "I'm for everybody and I'm for nobody"

I'm for equal right, everyone should have freedom to practice thier beliefs as long it does not hurt anyone.

I maybe wrong when I said "obey before complain" but I'm right also, Sometimes circumstances matters when dealing with things, in the case of Firdaus, she's dealing with a body she agreed by signing an agreement/consent form to abide to the rules and regulations, she should know some of her constitutional rights will be superseded by the court rules the moment she agreed with the terms, I'm very sure she is not ignorant of that.

Even among the high benchers in the court was a Muslim that told her to comply to the dress code.

If she had complied and become an active lawyer, her protest will carry more weight.

I wonder how related a public bus is to a court, the circumstances are quite different.

Anyways, Hijab should not be the only religious regalia accepted if Firdaus case is succeeded, both other traditional and religious regalia should be accepted to the bar, masqurade mask should be allowed in call to bar, that's my stance!

I don't have problem with this article at all, I agree with some of what he said.

tintingz:
First of all, is the columnist a Muslim, because sometimes opinions are relative and can be sentimental.

Like President Buhari said "I'm for everybody and I'm for nobody"

I'm for equal right, everyone should have freedom to practice thier beliefs as long it does not hurt anyone.

I maybe wrong when I said "obey before complain" but I'm right also, Sometimes circumstances matters when dealing with things, in the case of Firdaus, she's dealing with a body she agreed by signing an agreement/consent form to abide with the rules and regulations, she should know some of her constitutional rights will be superseded by court rules the moment she agreed with the terms, I'm very sure she is not ignorant of that.

Even among the high benchers in the court was a Muslim that told her to comply to the dress code.

If she had complied and become an active lawyer, her protest will carry more weight.

I wonder how related a public bus is to a court, the circumstances are quite different.

Anyways, Hijab should not be the only religious regalia accepted if Firdaus case is succeeded, both other traditional and religious regalia should be accepted to the bar, masqurade mask should be allowed in call to bar, that's my stance!

I don't have problem with this article at all, I agree with some of what he said.

The last paragraph has answered it all. What is good for James should be good for Peter. Nigeria is not USA or UK. Nigeria is Nigeria and so we should accept other religious norms not just one. No problem with hijab but other religious beliefs should be allowed to wear their regalia

tintingz:

I'm for equal right, everyone should have freedom to practice thier beliefs as long it does not hurt anyone.

If you really believe the above, then I see no need why you should see any problem in this issue at all, rather you are expected to support her claim because she's been denied her freedom of religion and association which in anyway doesn't hurt anyone.

I maybe wrong when I said "obey before complain" but I'm right also, Sometimes circumstances matters when dealing with things, in the case of Firdaus, she's dealing with a body she agreed by signing an agreement/consent form to abide to the rules and regulations, she should know some of her constitutional rights will be superseded by the court rules the moment she agreed with the terms, I'm very sure she is not ignorant of that.

Maybe I've not really been following the issue since it came out, but is it stated anywhere that you cannot be called to bar with hijab on your head? Even if it's stated, don't you think it'd absurd as even most other developed countries don't see anything wrong with since it doesn't in anyway affect others?
Besides does the rules and regulations guiding the school supersedes the Nigerian Constitution that says:

Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,... and freedom ( either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private ) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

I'm actually ignorant of these things and I'll like to know.

Even among the high benchers in the court was a Muslim that told her to comply to the dress code.
If she had complied and become an active lawyer, her protest will carry more weight.

No. Her protest wouldn't have carried weight if she had became a lawyer because there'd be nothing else to talk about. Even you will ask "what's she crying foul of, after all she's been called to bar". The issue only gained momentum because it is unbelievable that because she had hijab on her head, then that automatically disqualified her from being called to bar.

anyways, Hijab should not be the only religious regalia accepted if Firdaus case is succeeded, both other traditional and religious regalia should be accepted to the bar, masqurade mask should be allowed in call to bar, that's my stance!.

Indeed, others should be allowed to dress as their religion dictates so far it doesn't affect the right of other members of the society, be it maqurade, Catholics nuns and ifa worshipers and so on. But based on what you wrote above, how many masquerade worshipers do you see in masquerade regalia on daily basis compared to those Muslim women in hijab? Think about it, masquerade people only wear their regalia whenever they are doing their ceremony which is once in a year, but here you are making it seem like they wear it on daily basis the way hijabites sisters wear their hijab, this is borne out of nothing but your blind hatred for what Islam stands for, thereby losing your objectivity in your criticism. Abi can't you see your criticism and what you claim to stand for is absurd? agentofAllah is an atheist like you, do you see him trying to criticize blindly the way you're doing? Anyways, you're new to atheism, so it's a normal thing, in due time, your hatred will die down and you will improve in your objectivity and possibly see the truth for what it is once again.

Rilwayne001:

If you really believe the above, then I see no need why you should see any problem in this issue at all, rather you are expected to support her claim because she's been denied her freedom of religion and association which in anyway doesn't hurt anyone.

Her freedom to wear hijab was denied when she was "called to bar" just for few hours(she still has her full freedom after that) and she knows wearing of hijab will be denied the moment she agreed to obey the rules and regulations.

Why didn't she and her fellow Muslims protest when they were given agreement/consent form to sign?

Maybe I've not really been following the issue since it came out, but is it stated anywhere that you cannot be called to bar with hijab on your head? Even if it's stated, don't you think it'd absurd as even most other developed countries don't see anything wrong with since it doesn't in anyway affect others?
Besides does the rules and regulations guiding the school supersedes the Nigerian Constitution that says:

Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,... and freedom ( either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private ) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

I'm actually ignorant of these things and I'll like to know.

There are lay down rules when it comes to dress code in the court in Nigeria law school, religion and traditional regalia is not part of it, the Muslims among the benchers knows that, they want the ceremony to be in secular form.

Like I said you have freedom to practice your beliefs according to the constitution but again the moment you agreed to the terms of a legal body or organization, the rules of the organization will superssed some your constitutional rights e.g NYSC, some christian doctrine frown at female wearing trousers, do you see Christians causing hullabaloo because of this? I guess NO, that's because they have agreed to obey the NYSC rules and regulations. They can protest if they want to but not playing the victim card as they are not ignorant of the rules and regulations.

No. Her protest wouldn't have carried weight if she had became a lawyer because there'd be nothing else to talk about. Even you will ask "what's she crying foul of, after all she's been called to bar". The issue only gained momentum because it is unbelievable that because she had hijab on her head, then that automatically disqualified her from being called to bar.

This is not an excuse, if she has been protesting before she was called to bar and she complied just to archive are goal to be a lawyer, she became a member, her story will not sound hypocritical(since she will have evidence for her long protest), she can gather more lawyers to protest(traditional and religious).
Workers and staffs protest and things are settled so why can't same be done in that way?

Now she just wasted 6 years just to be denied on a day she just has to comply just for FEW HOURS, not that they didn't stop her from practising her religion.

Indeed, others should be allowed to dress as their religion dictates so far it doesn't affect the right of other members of the society, be it maqurade, Catholics nuns and ifa worshipers and so on. But based on what you wrote above, how many masquerade worshipers do you see in masquerade regalia on daily basis compared to those Muslim women in hijab? Think about it, masquerade people only wear their regalia whenever they are doing their ceremony which is once in a year, but here you are making it seem like they wear it on daily basis the way hijabites sisters wear their hijab, this is borne out of nothing but your blind hatred for what Islam stands for, thereby losing your objectivity in your criticism. Abi can't you see your criticism and what you claim to stand for is absurd? agentofAllah is an atheist like you, do you see him trying to criticize blindly the way you're doing? Anyways, you're new to atheism, so it's a normal thing, in due time, your hatred will die down and you will improve in your objectivity and possibly see the truth for what it is once again.

Your post here is irrational, you mean because masquerade don't wear thier regalia on daily basis and Muslim women wear theirs everyday mean one equal right should be higher than another or one should be attended than another? What If i decide to wear my masquerade regalia to court everyday? Do you consider Catholic women? Celestial women? Ifa women that wear white gele everyday?

Because hijab is worn by muslim women everyday doesn't mean masquerades rights shouldn't be attended to or take serious.

My criticism is not hating on Islam but the hypocrisy surrounding the whole saga, I'm not criticizing Firdaus because of her religion nor any of her beliefs but the way she hypocritically play the victim card.

And I wonder how it got to do being an atheist, you think atheist don't have different opinions or oppositions?

In the conclusion of this case, I'm pleased that liberalism has prevailed over secular neo-fascism.
It is not the place of anyone, including the state, to deny a woman the right to practice her preferred profession because of what she wears. Firdaus' struggle has made the Nigerian law school a more inclusive place, and opened the gates for even more protests to be registered; and I hope they are!

Tintingz, thank you for your passionate debate. You're brilliant, but this time, you were so wrong. I hope you can now see that!

https://www.nairaland.com/4609634/amasa-firdausa-finally-called-bar

AgentOfAllah:
In the conclusion of this case, I'm pleased that liberalism has prevailed over secular neo-fascism.
It is not the place of anyone, including the state, to deny a woman the right to practice her preferred profession because of what she wears. Firdaus' struggle has made the Nigerian law school a more inclusive place, and opened the gates for even more protests to be registered; and I hope they are!

Tintingz, thank you for your passionate debate. You're brilliant, but this time, you were so wrong. I hope you can now see that!

https://www.nairaland.com/4609634/amasa-firdausa-finally-called-bar

Dude, don't get be wrong, I might have some faults in my premises but my main argument in my premise was why did she sign a consent-agreement/terms when she knows the regulations in the law school, why didn't she and her co protest before signing up? Even in FIFA football a player removing his shirt in post-goal is sanction with yellow card, you can't protest it when game is on or you get a red card, do a semi-protest, comply and protest after the game.

Let's not get into another argument, I'm in for secular libralism, I hope the regulations are review and adjust to lift the ban of hijab and other religious and cultural regalia in law School, i hope it doesn't turn to nepotism in the future.

Congrats to Amasa Firdaus.

tintingz:
Dude, don't get be wrong, I might have some faults in my premises but my main argument in my premise was why did she sign a consent-agreement/terms when she knows the regulations in the law school, why didn't she and her co protest before signing up? Even in FIFA football a player removing his shirt in post-goal is sanction with yellow card, you can't protest it when game is on or you get a red card, do a semi-protest, comply and protest after the game.

You might as well ask why Rosa Parks didn't protest the right given to bus drivers, by Montgomery city ordinance, to reassign bus seats based on skin colour before she boarded. Yes, we can have a lengthy academic discussion around the subject, but the answer is a lot simpler: That wouldn't have been as effective a protest. As a rule of thumb, results tend to be more profound and far-reaching when the stakes are high for everyone involved.

As you have allowed yourself to be bugged down by the colour of each pixel, you have invariably failed to appreciate the beautiful picture of a rich and evolving landscape. As you can now see, in the end, justice paid no heed to your objections.

Let's not get into another argument, I'm in for secular libralism, I hope the regulations are review and adjust to lift the ban of hijab and other religious and cultural regalia in law School, i hope it doesn't turn to nepotism in the future.

Congrats to Amasa Firdaus.

Herein lies our common ground. Well said!

AgentOfAllah:

You might as well ask why Rosa Parks didn't protest the right given to bus drivers, by Montgomery city ordinance, to reassign bus seats based on skin colour before she boarded. Yes, we can have a lengthy academic discussion around the subject, but the answer is a lot simpler: That wouldn't have been as effective a protest. As a rule of thumb, results tend to be more profound and far-reaching when the stakes are high for everyone involved.

As you have allowed yourself to be bugged down by the colour of each pixel, you have invariably failed to appreciate the beautiful picture of a rich and evolving landscape. As you can now see, in the end, justice paid no heed to your objections.

Circumstances also play a role, rules and regulations in organizations are more strict than that of public affairs.

If a new policy is implemented in an organization, some organizations don't allow any form of protest, some allow only close-door protest, some are open to any kind of protest it depends on the rules in the game.

There are close-door protest that yield good results and there are open protest that end up with negative results and vice versa, the main thing is one should know what he or she is about deal with before signing in.

It's good justice is done to miss Firdaus case, I'm looking forward to how the law school will be fair to other religions and traditions in this case.