The nomination of Dr. Willy Mutunga for the position of Chief Justice of Kenya has generated intense debate touching on the interplay between religion and sexuality. The trigger, of course, was the stud that Willy wears on his left ear.Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Muslims were strongly divided on the issue of Kadhi’s courts during the debate on the new proposed constitution. Suddenly, the two camps find themselves on the same side of a new debate, brought together by their doctrinal interpretations of men wearing studs.

There are of course certain important differences between the Christian and Muslim orthodox positions. One is a difference of degree in the opposition expressed by orthodox members of these two faiths. A section of the Christian clergy, especially of Catholic denomination, regards Willy as totally unfit for the judicial position partly on account of the stud. The Muslim clergy, on the other hand, seem ready to accept Willy’s appointment in spite of their reservations about his stud.

Another difference is in doctrinal sources: The orthodox Christian position derives directly from the Bible itself. The corresponding Muslim stand on the matter, on the other hand, is not based on the Qur’an.  Rather it draws from the Hadith, pronouncements of the Prophet Muhammad that, for orthodox Muslims, are second only to the Qur’an in doctrinal value.  But it is also true that there are Muslims, though in the minority, who rely exclusively on the Qur’an and give little or no weight on the hadith. Our late elder, Sheikh Harith Al-Amin bin Ali was, for a while, a follower of this strict, ‘Qur’anist’ doctrinal position.

For both orthodox Muslims and Christians, the opposition to Willy’s stud comes from the association of the stud/earring with women’s adornment. Both the Bible and the Hadith seem to condemn this and other forms of ‘cross-dressing’. According to Deuteronomy 22:5, ‘The woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord your God.’ Similarly, according to one of the canonical hadith collections, Sahih al-Bukhari, ‘The Prophet cursed the effeminate men and women who imitate men.’ There is in both these texts a clear prohibition for men and women to imitate the opposite sex in attire, adornment, manner of speech or behavior.

One of the ironies of the Mutunga debate is the two entirely different meanings of the word ‘stud’ in the English language.  When worn in the ear some have interpreted the stud as ‘effeminate’.  Paradoxically, the Concise Oxford Dictionary also defines the word ‘stud’ as ‘young man, especially one noted for sexual prowess.’  In this latter meaning, the word ‘stud’ implies high masculine virility.  Neither of two opposing meanings of ‘stud’ (female adornment or virile masculinity) were relevant in the debate about who was to become Kenya’s next Chief Justice.

There is, of course, a false presumption among both orthodox Christians and Muslims that the sexual division of attire and adornment is the same the world over. This is certainly not the case. Kenyans and Tanzanians know only too well that Maasai men, for example, regularly wear earrings. So did men among the Kikuyu and several other ‘traditional’ African societies. Some Punjabi (from Punjab in the Indian sub-continent) men traditionally wear one or two earrings.  It is even arguable that the tradition of men not wearing earrings at all was for a long time Anglo-Saxon disproportionately. There is sufficient evidence to show that in the past at least there were earring-wearing men in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.  Similar examples can be drawn from modes of dress. Among the predominantly Muslim Tuareg people of the north-central Sahelian region of Africa, for example, men wear the veil as a matter of tradition that goes back to pre-Islamic days.

There are cultures which limit the wearing of perfume only to women.  On the other hand, the Arabs developed different perfumes for men and women.  Indeed, there are Muslims who believe that the use of male-specific perfume is recommended in Islam as sunna. Until relatively recently Anglo-Saxon culture had regarded wearing a necklace as primarily part of female attire.  But among many traditional African cultures, necklaces and bracelets have been worn by both men and women ever since beads were invented in pre-colonial times. In Islam both men and women wear decorative rings on the appropriate finger, unconnected with weddings.  But most Muslims believe that jewelry of pure gold is more appropriate for women than for men. The bottom-line here is that we should not take it too much for granted that what is considered feminine in one society would be so considered in another society.

More fundamentally for our purposes, however, is the notion that the orthodox Muslim case against men wearing studs is built on the assumption that they intend to ‘imitate’ women and to commit a trans-gender act of assuming a woman’s identity. This imperative of imitation is clearly not the one that has inspired the new and increasingly fashionable male stud. The stud is distinctly male partly because of its own unique style and partly because it is worn only on one ear. Women invariably wear earrings on both ears.  There is little ground then for regarding the male stud as an abominable cross-gender act. Indeed the same Muslim source, the Hadith, that seems to forbid cross-dressing, also affirms that every act must be judged by its intention. And if the intention is not to imitate women, the male stud would stand as mubah, an act of personal preference that is neither forbidden nor recommended in Islam, distasteful as it may be to some citizens.

The position taken here, then, is that the interpretation of Islamic doctrines must bear in mind forces of both cultural relativity and historical relativity. What is true in one culture may not be true in another culture. What is reasonable in one historical moment may be totally absurd or even repulsive in another. To this extent the message of Islamic doctrines is one that continues to unfold in the stark realities of a changing world, the spirit of ijtihad (theory) constantly requires us to interrogate our readings of doctrinal texts anew, sometimes arriving at new interpretations that are more compatible with the current state of human knowledge and development.  This liberal tradition has inspired new translations of the Qur’an, including Qur’an: A Reformist Translation by Edip Yuksel and his colleagues, and The Sublime Qur’an by the woman theologian Laleh Bakhtiar.
Different readings of Islamic doctrine have resulted in a distinction between liberal Islam as against literal or orthodox Islam. Many orthodox Muslims regard men and women as unequal in status, the amputation of the hand of a thief as justifiable under certain circumstances, and the death penalty as an appropriate penalty for adulterers. Liberal Islam, on the other hand, is anxious that Muslim women be treated as equals; that slavery be declared haram under any circumstances; that the amputation of hands of thieves be relegated totally to history; and that the death penalty be either abolished completely or be limited to such egregious offences as first-degree murder (and never be imposed on adulterers). To liberal Muslims, Allah is the God of Compassion. And it is to the liberal school of Islam that Willy clearly belongs. New circumstances, new developments, new understandings, sometimes require new interpretations.

We now know, of course, that Willy did not choose to wear the stud to imitate women’s adornment or to adopt an emergent male fashion.  His reasons rather were cultural, rooted in his Kamba traditions. In a sense his stud can be described as hirizi ya mila (a form of an amulet signifying the blessings of ancestors). It is different from the hirizi ya dini (the kind of amulet that usually contains verse(s) from the Qur’an and used for protective purposes). The hirizi ya dini is, of course, frowned upon in orthodox Islam.  In Willy’s public statements he has made it clear that his stud, his hirizi ya mila is traditionally ordained as a symbol of communion with those ancestors. This is one among very many areas of cultural convergence between Islam and traditional African cultures outside the sphere of kufr (unbelieving), of associating other forces with realms of power that belong exclusively to Allah.

Christianity has had its own differentiation between hirizi ya dini (sacred protection) and hirizi ya mila (ancestral good-luck charm).  Among Christians these hirizis have sometimes taken the form of a necklace.  When a crucifix is worn around the neck, the hirizi becomes sacred (ya dini).  But when there is no crucifix, the necklace may be an ancestral ‘good luck charm’ of that particular culture.

In Islam we are told that when a person dies, all his or her actions come to an end except in one of three ways. One of those is a dutiful child who remembers and prays for the dead person(s). From a recent interview with Willy’s family in Ukambani, Willy is that dutiful child. His hirizi ya mila helps him keep the memory of his ancestors alive and foster a sense of communion with them. Hopefully, Willy’s hirizi ya mila will also stimulate the consciousness of Kenyans to be more mindful of our cultures and regard our traditions with greater reverence.

Willy was born into his Kamba traditional religion in a household that was accommodating and inclusive in matters of religion. Later he joined the Protestant Church. Then he converted to Catholicism before he eventually adopted Islam.  Today Willy continues to be a Muslim by faith though in practice he has tried to be a bridge-builder between the various religious traditions in Kenya. In the aftermath of the violence that accompanied the 2007 presidential elections, several inter-faith initiatives emerged to find a common religious space for contributing to national reconciliation, peace and national unity. Willy has been the personification of the interfaith spirit, a personal attribute that adds to his remarkable credentials for the position of Chief Justice.

By Ali A. Mazrui University of Binghamton, New York  & Alamin M. Mazrui, Rutgers University New Jersey.