in the words of one Mwalimu Nyerere,,,Serikali haina dini...so lets not skirt around the issue of including kadhis court. Say No to state getting into the business of religion. The current President of Tz who is islamic plans to introduce kadhis court in their constitution against a backdrop of massive resistance. His ratings is fast dropping and now the Catholic Church is giving him a riot act on good governance against backdrop of an insensitive govt that is rooted with corruption. A neighbouring nation that happens to be in longerheads with our nation over some piece of island is party to the OIC and at some point in time might probably introduce Sharia Law similar to what some quarters in our nation have been promoting through the pyrrhic Majimboism that portends to secceionalism by some regions in our beloved nation....Say No to Kadhis Court

The fool folds his arms and consumes his own flesh. Better is one handful with tranquility than two with toil and a chase after wind!

The Nation had an article narrating how Kandhi's court came to be in Kenya. The coastal strip was under the Sultan of Zanzibar. The strip had Kandhi courts established long before the Sultan ceeded authority to the British. One condition of ceeding given by the Sultan was that the courts will continue to operate even after the British took over. Once Kenya became independent this had to continue. Kandhi courts were the setup throughout the country although the law stated that they be limited to the strip.

It would be good to look at this history first and then make a consistent and agreeable desicion.


Baada ya dhiki,faaraja

Is it too much to ask that reason prevails over passion in this debate? My small piece of opinion has attempted to,as christians say,make a call to 'reason together'.

We are a country fond of taking the path of least resistance. Granted that the muslim lobby is loud,dedicated and intractably woven to our national fabric in politics,commerce etc but the proper thing would be to achieve securalism and wipe out religious constitutionalism. The history of making constitutions that endure is largely about taking hard decisions for posterity. I am yet to hear one person say why NOW the Kadhi's courts should be entrenched in our constitution. The argument loudly coming out is that it has been in our laws and NOW should be entrenched in the constitution. Why?

The other argument is that our laws are based on christian tradition. I am yet to get an example of any such law entrenched in our constitution. If any such law exists in our constitution and is inherently christian,now is the time to wipe it clean from our constitution and not the time to muddy our constitution with bondages of religion. If am not wrong Islamic law applies only in personal matters of marriage,divorce and inheritance. Pardon my ignorance but are there laws on such matters with christianity all over them AND expressly entrenched in our constitution? I guess not.

The other issues relate to the funding of religious practice from public coffers. The current laws provide for registration of christian marriages and dissolution of such marriages by secular courts (may need to mention that the dissolution is not done according to christian teachings as the christian view on this may be as diverse as the colours of church roofs in our country). Kadhi courts go further in the sense that they adjudicate disputes on marriage,divorce and inheritance according to islamic faith. In a secular state which respects the freedom of people to marry and divorce according to their religions,whatever religion,one may go and get into marriage and divorce according to the edicts of his/her religion but reserve the state's law to only registration of such marriage and divorce- but not adjudication of disputes on marriage and divorce according to ones religion at public expense as happens NOW with Kadhi's courts.

While at it,we may need to ask what would happen were the muslims in Kenya to outnumber the christians some many years down the road when we shall all be laying in rest. My argument then would still be that they would not have the right to Islamise our state and the challenge now should not be how muslims are accomodated with express provisions and institutions in our constitution but how we wipe religion from the affairs of the state.