@ mcreggae. That is why they want it in the constitution so that in matters of inheritance,divorce etc etc there word can be supreme. Yes they can address the issues in a higher court but the higher court looks at other non islamic laws,not the islamic laws,that might have been broken in passing of the judgement by the kadhis court.
Let me try and summarize why people are against the kadhis court in the constitution
1. Tax.. I doubt the court uses alot of money
2. Kenya is not a secular state. The laws in kenya are judaic belief based and that is where they get moral authority from. Judaism is where christianity branched from,they are asking very little.
3. The courts will recruit kenyas into islam. The courts only address muslim to muslim relationships. If one of the party is not muslim then it doesnt fall under the court. If margaret wanjiru doesnt want you the muslims probably dont want you to ... you can try buddhist.
4. Margaret 'i want the money' wanjiru told me ..... Have some sense use your brain.
5. If kadhis court are included include njuri njekes. That is 5 year old mentality. Mbona haukusema hivyo when views were being taken. Is that a reason to waste the billions already spent on developing this constitution. If you feel strongly ask your MP to introduce a bill in parliament.

SK A.L.U.M.N.I (Alcoholic Liason and Undergarments Manager of Nakedness Internationally)

I totally agree with you B. Timer.
There is misconception that Muslims are a minority. They are 10% of the population and they include all ethnics. I wonder what the Hindus and Budhists become if 10% is minority.
I believe the constitution should capture the wishes of the majority and that's the reason it's subjected to a referendum.

Bright and interesting people talk about ideas.
Those of average intelligence talk about things.
Stupid people talk about other people.

I am not qualified to answer the questions raised by @Adept,so I do not even wish to attempt.

However if in my contribution here he feels that any of them is adequately addressed by default so be it.



The constitution we are wriiting is not handed from anybody,but rather what we agree upon as a people.

Yash Pal and his committe went round to ask us of our wishes on various matters,which we gave. It is from that work that the constitution heavily borrows. If there was a Kenyan Judas,then his views are therein,as well. Any other Judas from far off places is not likely to have met Yash Pal,so his views couldnt be taken into account.

The only laws that could be borrowed from elsewhere,and do not form part of the constitution (infact I hazard they come third in the order of application priority) are statutes such as The British common laws.





B.timer