She should not bother herself with what she wants to believe is the Nigerian Bar Association in denying her a professional membership over her flagrant disabuse of their laid down traditions with respect to the ceremonial dress code for inductees but should concern herself to the plight of the Muslim woman within the sharia realm.

As a Muslim woman and trained lawyer, she can never aspire to be a recognized sharia legal practitioner, judge or witness. The only time a sharia court can even accommodate her presence is when she must present testimony either as an accused or in the rare case they decide to hear her in an instituted case of divorce filed by her person.

So miss hijabi lawyer should factor in the fact that the asexual dress code in our secular courts provides her a level playing field where she is foremost and only recognised as a trained lawyer. Her sex or religion are not of anybody's concern within the legal profession and this should make her understand she as a Muslim woman has the full backing of the judiciary system to carry out her professional duties without bias to her gender or religion.

Why all these hullabaloo about this woman not been called to bar because of wearing an Hijab. Was she not aware of the dress code before now. Is a Yoruba Muslim now more religious in the practice of Islamic religion than the core northerners. For instance, I am aware that shoes are not allowed in the mosque. Should I now go to the mosque and insist on entering it with my shoes on? If those Hisbah people prevent me from entering the mosque is it proper for me to come to social media and be crying that my right has been infringed upon?

Miss hijabi should advocate for a place for women in the sharia realm

chinjo:
Why all these hullabaloo about this woman not been called to bar because of wearing an Hijab. Was she not aware of the dress code before now. Is a Yoruba Muslim now more religious in the practice of Islamic religion than the core northerners. For instance, I am aware that shoes are not allowed in the mosque. Should I now go to the mosque and insist on entering it with my shoes on? If those Hisbah people prevent me from entering the mosque is it proper for me to come to social media and be crying that my right has been infringed upon?

The idiot can't even practice as a sharia lawyer

Her religion doesn't have any professional place for her outside being a baby making machine or a suicude bomber

ShinnBet:


The idiot can't even practice as a sharia lawyer

Her religion doesn't have any professional place for her outside being a baby making machine or a suicude bomber

i can naturally feel d unease inside u, it is only those who are unwise that makes judgement out of ignorance...

nicedas:
i can naturally feel d unease inside u, it is only those who are unwise that makes judgement out of ignorance...

Her testimony in a sharia court is non admissable as she is a woman

She can never hold council or be a prosecuting lawyer in a sharia court neither can she oversee a sharia court.

The only time she can stand in a sharia court will be as an accused!

Facts

Is it not funny that her religion cannot even allow her to be a Sharia Lawyer?

superstar1:
Is it not funny that her religion cannot even allow her to be a Sharia Lawyer?

Her religion doesn't even allow her presence in a mosque

ShinnBet:


The idiot can't even practice as a sharia lawyer

Her religion doesn't have any professional place for her outside being a baby making machine or a suicude bomber

why the abuse

bamidelee:

why the abuse

4. Under Sharia, Wives do not Share the Same Divorce Rights as Their Husbands.
Under Sharia, a husband can divorce his wife simply by stating, “you are divorced” three times in the presence of two adult mentally sound males, without even having to justify his decision, and he will retain custody of any children. In this connection, Professor Samir states that “the most absurd thing is that if the husband later repents of his decision [of divorce] and wants to ‘recover’ his wife [for the third time], she must first marry another man who in his turn will repudiate her (Q 2:229-30 ).” [6] By contrast, no such power is given to the wife.

copied.

fellowman:

4. Under Sharia, Wives do not Share the Same Divorce Rights as Their Husbands.
Under Sharia, a husband can divorce his wife simply by stating, “you are divorced” three times in the presence of two adult mentally sound males, without even having to justify his decision, and he will retain custody of any children. In this connection, Professor Samir states that “the most absurd thing is that if the husband later repents of his decision [of divorce] and wants to ‘recover’ his wife [for the third time], she must first marry another man who in his turn will repudiate her (Q 2:229-30 ).” [6] By contrast, no such power is given to the wife.

copied.

so

ShinnBet:


Her testimony in a sharia court is non admissable as she is a woman

She can never hold council or be a prosecuting lawyer in a sharia court neither can she oversee a sharia court.

The only time she can stand in a sharia court will be as an accused!

Facts

ha are you serious

fellowman:

4. Under Sharia, Wives do not Share the Same Divorce Rights as Their Husbands.
Under Sharia, a husband can divorce his wife simply by stating, “you are divorced” three times in the presence of two adult mentally sound males, without even having to justify his decision, and he will retain custody of any children. In this connection, Professor Samir states that “the most absurd thing is that if the husband later repents of his decision [of divorce] and wants to ‘recover’ his wife [for the third time], she must first marry another man who in his turn will repudiate her (Q 2:229-30 ).” [6] By contrast, no such power is given to the wife.

copied.

come o
I don't think this is the case in the north sharia courts

Hijab done dey cause kolo mental for many people.

baralatie:

come o
I don't think this is the case in the north sharia courts

Status of women's testimony in Islam

In Islamic law, testimony (shahada) is defined as attestation with regard to a right of a second party against a third. It exists alongside other forms of evidence (bayyina), such as the oath (yamin), acknowledgement (iqrar), and circumstantial evidence (qara'in al-ahwal). A testimony must involve certain knowledge of an affirmed event, and cannot be based on conjecture.[1]

Muzammil H. Siddiqi, a notable scholar from North America, has said the Quran makes very little reference to genders, in regard to testimony.[2]

In cases of hudud, punishments for serious crimes, 12th-century Maliki jurist Averroes wrote that jurists disagree about the status of women's testimony.[3] According to Averroes, most scholars say that in this case women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses.[3] However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions, discussed below), their testimony is acceptable.[3][4][5][6] In case of witnesses for financial documents, the Qur'an asks for two men or one man and two women.[7][8] It is disputed whether this means that a woman's testimony worth half that of a man either in disputes about financial transactions or as a general matter.

On the other hand, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes that Islam asks for two female witnesses against one male, in the case of financial transactions, because this responsibility is not very suited to their temperament, sphere of interest, and usual environment. He argues that Islam makes no claim that a woman's testimony is half in any case.[9] He interprets the Qur'an verse as only a recommendation and argues that it will be for the court judge to decide what kind and whose evidence will be enough to prove a case.[10] Regarding the Prophetic narration, that is used to prove half-testimony status of women, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and members of his foundation Al-Mawrid argue against its reliability[11] and its translation from Arabic.[12] Ghamdi also contends that the narration cannot be used in all general cases because it is related to the Qur'an verse whose subject is related only to financial matters.[citation needed] Another Pakistani religious scholar Ishaq argues that acquiring conclusive evidence is important, regardless of whether it can be obtained from just one man or just one woman.[13]

Ibn al-Qayyim also argued that the verse referred to, relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which an owner of wealth protects his rights, not with the decision of a court; the two are completely different from each other.[14] It is also argued that this command shows that the Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women.[15] Ibn Taymiyya also reasoned the deficiency of using Qur'an 2:282 to prove evidentiary discrimination against women.[16] However, both Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyya did believe in the difference of probative value of men's and women's testimony. It is argued that even though Ibn al-Qayyim believed that women were more prone to making errors, instead of concluding a general discrimination from this, women's testimony was to be treated on an individual basis. This is because Ibn al-Qayyim contended that in cases where a woman and man share all the Islamic good qualities of a witness, a woman's testimony corroborated by another woman may actually be considered stronger than the uncorroborated testimony of a man. Additionally, Ibn al-Qayyim also regarded the testimony of some exceptional women like those who transmitted Hadith as doubtlessly greater than a single man of lesser esteem.[17]

In matters other than financial transactions, scholars differ on whether the Qur'anic verses relating to financial transactions apply.[18] This is especially true in the case of bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ (restitution of conjugal rights). According to Averroes, Imam Abu Hanifa believed that their testimony is acceptable in such cases. Imam Malik, on the contrary, believes that their testimony remains unacceptable. For bodily affairs about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances, such as the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth, the majority of scholars hold that the testimony of women alone is acceptable. But the number of women witnesses needed is debated in different Islamic schools of law. Hanafi's and Hanbali's see even one woman enough. According to Maliki's two women are required. As for Shafii's, they see that 4 women are needed.[citation needed]

In certain situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity.[19]

Classical commentators commonly explained the unequal treatment of testimony by asserting that women's nature made them more prone to error than men. Muslim modernists have followed the Egyptian reformer Muhammad Abduh in viewing the relevant scriptural passages as conditioned on the different gender roles and life experiences that prevailed at the time rather than women's innately inferior mental capacities, making the rule not generally applicable in all times and places.[20]

Countries where in some cases a woman's testimony is worth half of that of a man:

Bahrain (in Sharia courts)
Egypt (in family courts)
Iran (in most cases)
Iraq (in some cases)
Jordan (in Sharia courts)
Kuwait (in family courts)
Libya (in some cases)
Morocco (in family cases)
Palestine (in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody)
Qatar (in family law matters)
Saudi Arabia (Never)
Syria (in Sharia courts)
United Arab Emirates (in some civil matters)
Yemen (not allowed to testify at all in cases of adultery and retribution)

ShinnBet:


Status of women's testimony in Islam

In Islamic law, testimony (shahada) is defined as attestation with regard to a right of a second party against a third. It exists alongside other forms of evidence (bayyina), such as the oath (yamin), acknowledgement (iqrar), and circumstantial evidence (qara'in al-ahwal). A testimony must involve certain knowledge of an affirmed event, and cannot be based on conjecture.[1]

Muzammil H. Siddiqi, a notable scholar from North America, has said the Quran makes very little reference to genders, in regard to testimony.[2]

In cases of hudud, punishments for serious crimes, 12th-century Maliki jurist Averroes wrote that jurists disagree about the status of women's testimony.[3] According to Averroes, most scholars say that in this case women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses.[3] However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions, discussed below), their testimony is acceptable.[3][4][5][6] In case of witnesses for financial documents, the Qur'an asks for two men or one man and two women.[7][8] It is disputed whether this means that a woman's testimony worth half that of a man either in disputes about financial transactions or as a general matter.

On the other hand, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes that Islam asks for two female witnesses against one male, in the case of financial transactions, because this responsibility is not very suited to their temperament, sphere of interest, and usual environment. He argues that Islam makes no claim that a woman's testimony is half in any case.[9] He interprets the Qur'an verse as only a recommendation and argues that it will be for the court judge to decide what kind and whose evidence will be enough to prove a case.[10] Regarding the Prophetic narration, that is used to prove half-testimony status of women, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and members of his foundation Al-Mawrid argue against its reliability[11] and its translation from Arabic.[12] Ghamdi also contends that the narration cannot be used in all general cases because it is related to the Qur'an verse whose subject is related only to financial matters.[citation needed] Another Pakistani religious scholar Ishaq argues that acquiring conclusive evidence is important, regardless of whether it can be obtained from just one man or just one woman.[13]

Ibn al-Qayyim also argued that the verse referred to, relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which an owner of wealth protects his rights, not with the decision of a court; the two are completely different from each other.[14] It is also argued that this command shows that the Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women.[15] Ibn Taymiyya also reasoned the deficiency of using Qur'an 2:282 to prove evidentiary discrimination against women.[16] However, both Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyya did believe in the difference of probative value of men's and women's testimony. It is argued that even though Ibn al-Qayyim believed that women were more prone to making errors, instead of concluding a general discrimination from this, women's testimony was to be treated on an individual basis. This is because Ibn al-Qayyim contended that in cases where a woman and man share all the Islamic good qualities of a witness, a woman's testimony corroborated by another woman may actually be considered stronger than the uncorroborated testimony of a man. Additionally, Ibn al-Qayyim also regarded the testimony of some exceptional women like those who transmitted Hadith as doubtlessly greater than a single man of lesser esteem.[17]

In matters other than financial transactions, scholars differ on whether the Qur'anic verses relating to financial transactions apply.[18] This is especially true in the case of bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ (restitution of conjugal rights). According to Averroes, Imam Abu Hanifa believed that their testimony is acceptable in such cases. Imam Malik, on the contrary, believes that their testimony remains unacceptable. For bodily affairs about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances, such as the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth, the majority of scholars hold that the testimony of women alone is acceptable. But the number of women witnesses needed is debated in different Islamic schools of law. Hanafi's and Hanbali's see even one woman enough. According to Maliki's two women are required. As for Shafii's, they see that 4 women are needed.[citation needed]

In certain situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity.[19]

Classical commentators commonly explained the unequal treatment of testimony by asserting that women's nature made them more prone to error than men. Muslim modernists have followed the Egyptian reformer Muhammad Abduh in viewing the relevant scriptural passages as conditioned on the different gender roles and life experiences that prevailed at the time rather than women's innately inferior mental capacities, making the rule not generally applicable in all times and places.[20]

Countries where in some cases a woman's testimony is worth half of that of a man:

Bahrain (in Sharia courts)
Egypt (in family courts)
Iran (in most cases)
Iraq (in some cases)
Jordan (in Sharia courts)
Kuwait (in family courts)
Libya (in some cases)
Morocco (in family cases)
Palestine (in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody)
Qatar (in family law matters)
Saudi Arabia (Never)
Syria (in Sharia courts)
United Arab Emirates (in some civil matters)
Yemen (not allowed to testify at all in cases of adultery and retribution)

that is my point I don't see Nigeria on that list!
Nigeria judiciary and judicial is a bit more free

although I don't how the sharia customary court and its appeal court in the north operates

Culled from a Muslim forum...

Is it permissible for a woman to be a judge?.

Praise be to Allaah.
The majority of scholars are of the view that it is not permissible for a woman to be appointed as a judge, and if she is appointed, the one who appointed her is sinning, and her appointment is invalid, and her judgements carry no weight, no matter what ruling she passes. This is the view of the Maalikis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis, and of some of the Hanafis.

See: Bidaayat al-Mujtahid (2/531); al-Majmoo’ (20/127); al-Mughni (11/350).

They quoted a number of texts as evidence for that:

1 –Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means”

[al-Nisa’ 4:34]

So the men are the protectors and maintainers of women, in the sense that they are in charge of them. So the verse may be understood as meaning that women cannot be appointed in charge, otherwise women would be the protectors and maintainers of men, which is the opposite of what the verse says.

2 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them”

[al-Baqarah 2:228]

Allaah has granted men a degree over women ,and if a woman were to be appointed as judge that would contradict the degree that Allaah has given men in this verse, because in order for a judge to judge between two disputants, he must have a degree over them.

3 – It was narrated that Abu Bakrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) heard that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes as their ruler, he said: “No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman in charge of their affairs.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4425).

The fuqaha’ quoted this verse as evidence that it is not permissible to appoint a woman as a judge, because lack of prospering is a kind of harm, the causes of which must be avoided. The hadeeth is general in meaning and applies to all positions of public authority. So it is not permissible to appoint a woman, because the word “affairs” is general in meaning and includes all the public affairs of the Muslims.

Al-Shawkaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

There is no stern warning greater than stating that they will never prosper, and the most important issue is to rule according to the rulings of Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, and therefore this warning applies more emphatically to women. End quote.

Al-Sayl al-Jaraar (4/273)

The Fatwa Committee of al-Azhar said:

The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not intend by this hadeeth only to state that the people who appoint a woman in charge of their affairs will not prosper, because his task was to explain everything that is permissible for his ummah, so that they may succeed and prosper, and everything that is not permissible for them so that they may be safe from evil and loss. Rather he intended to forbid his ummah from imitating those people (the Persians) by delegating any of their public affairs to a woman, and he used this incident to convey this message to the people who were keen to be prosperous so that they would comply with this advice. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used definitive language to state that lack of prosperity is inevitable when a woman is appointed in charge of any affairs. Undoubtedly the prohibition that is derived from this hadeeth applies to any woman in any era; women are not to be appointed to positions of public authority. This general meaning is understood from the wording of the hadeeth. End quote.

4 – Moreover, the nature of woman means that a woman should not be appointed to a position of public authority.

The Fatwa Committee of al-Azhar said, after mentioning the arguments based on the hadeeth:

This ruling is based on this hadeeth, which is that the ruling that women should not be appointed to positions of public authority is not a ruling which is to be followed as a religious ritual without necessarily understanding the wisdom behind it, rather it is one of the rulings that are based on reasons which are obvious to those who understand the differences between the two types of human beings, men and women. This ruling is not connected to anything other than the femininity which is indicated by the word “woman” in the hadeeth. So femininity alone is the reason. … Because of her nature, woman is designed to fulfil the mission for which she was created, which is the role of mother and caring for and raising children. This means that she is likely to be affected by emotion. In addition to that she is faced with natural events that happen repeatedly over the months and years, which may weaken her strength and resolve in forming opinions and adhering to them and in fighting for them. This is something which women themselves cannot deny, and we do not need to quote examples and evidence to prove the emotional nature of woman throughout the ages. End quote.

5 – Practical experience in some countries indicates that women are not fit to play the role of judge. When Islam forbade women to be appointed to positions of public authority, it brought something that would protect people’s rights and ward off corruption, which is something that is not understood by those who are short-sighted.

In one of the Muslim countries the Ministry of Justice opened the door for talented women to become judges, but after five years they dismissed all of these female judges and banned women from entering the graduate school for judges because of their failure despite the opportunities they had for learning and training, and despite the fact that they got higher grades than the men in the theoretical field.

In another Muslim country women were given the opportunity to become judges, but after they failed the state had to remove them from the courts to the technical and research fields.

This indicates that women are not qualified to be judges.

6 – The judge is required to be present among men’s gatherings and to mix with disputants and witnesses, and may need to be alone with them. Islam seeks to protect women and preserve their honour and dignity, and protect them from those who would toy with them. So Islam tells women to stay in their homes and not go out except in cases of necessity. And it forbids them from mixing with men and being alone with them, because that poses a threat to women and their honour.

7 – The position of judge requires a high level of intelligence, insight and reason, and women have less of these qualities than men, and they have little experience in the affairs of life and disputes.

In addition to that, women are faced with natural phenomena during certain days, months and years, namely menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding etc, which weakens their bodies and affects their understanding of things, which is incompatible with the position and status of a judge.

See: Wilaayat al-Mar’ah fi’l-Fiqh al-Islami (p. 217-250) – Master’s Thesis by Muhammad Anwar.

https://islamqa.info/en/71338

baralatie:

that is my point I don't see Nigeria on that list!
Nigeria judiciary and judicial is a bit more free

Thats because sharia courts are not as powerful as our secular courts

The only Nation to appoint a female Sharia judge is Israel

The Jews where up to some serious fuckery and trolling when they did that

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1090226/middle-east