ECHOKENYA wrote:In regards to the Kadhi courts, the common concerns I have heard raised have primarily been that people feel one religion is being favored over the others and that this could lead to the stifling of other religious freedoms as well as extremism of the "favored" religion.
Our current court system is built and borrowed from British Christian tradition and our lawyers are trained in this tradition and have no training in Islamic law or traditional law for that matter. Therefore, the same principle the courts apply when they call upon those well versed in traditional matters to help in adjudicating matters concerning traditional laws, is the same principle that the Khadis courts are established under.
Christians with personal woes go to a subordinate court which is modeled after their faith therefore those versed in Islamic law are hired by the government to adjudicate on similar issues for Muslims. Neither the Christian nor the Muslim nor the traditionalist pays for family disputes between their followers. The tax payer, who is Christian, Muslim, Traditionalist or Other, foots the bill in all these scenarios. So there is no semblance of favoritism of one religion over another.
This claims of our laws being allegedly modeled on judo-christianism is nauseating.
For all I care, the laws we have are laws we have suggested to the drafters of the constitution, and the rest will be passed by parliament that we elect.
As you suggested, it would all be fine if everybody went to the same subordinate courts, then invited experts in their traditional/kadhi laws to advise the court.
That way, nobody would be complaining
Dunia ni msongamano..