Muslim leaders drawn from the Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims (SUPKEM) and National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF)  have roundly criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the right of children born out of wedlock to inherit property from their fathers.

Led by SUPKEM Chair, Sheikh Hassan Ole Naado, the leaders termed the ruling a "direct affront to the Islamic faith", which is not only practiced by millions of Kenyans but is fully protected under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, especially under provisions on freedom of religion, and the application of personal law as stipulated in the Constitution.

They noted that the constitution, through the Kadhi Courts, allows Muslims to be governed by the Shariah (Islamic Law) in all personal matters including marriage, divorce and inheritance.

"Our faith holds that lineage, family bonds, and inheritance rights are sacred and governed by clear divine injunctions. Any attempt to impose a blanket civil or Western interpretation of family law drawn from Christian Judeo principles on Muslims, especially when it directly contradicts our religious doctrine, is unconstitutional, discriminatory, offensive and deeply provocative," said Ole Naado.

In their arguments, the leaders said that according to Islamic law, children born out of wedlock can inherit from their mother and vice versa.

"They can also be granted a gift (hiba) during the father's lifetime or be included in a will (wasiyyah) where they can be bequeathed up to one-third of the estate," added the SUPKEM chief.

"It needs to be understood that Islamic law aims at protecting the integrity of the family and social lineage. Allowing inheritance from someone not legally recognized could destabilize the family structures, lead to disputes or dilute legal lineages."

They added that the judgment by the apex court undermines the sanctity of what Muslims hold dearly to be divine law which stipulates clear guidelines on inheritance, and which does not recognize inheritance rights for children born outside of a legitimate marriage, violates the constitutional right of Muslims to be governed by their religion in matters of personal law.

NAMLEF and SUPKEM called on President William Ruto to intervene in the matter and demanded that the Attorney General files an advisory opinion over the contrroversial ruling.

"We call upon His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Kenya to immediately intervene in defense of religious freedoms and legal pluralism. and to safeguard the rights of Muslims to be governed by their personal laws, as enshrined in the Constitution," added Ole Naado.

"We demand that the Office of the Attorney General file a constitutional interpretation reference or advisory opinion to protect religious and cultural minorities from judicial overreach that erodes legal safeguards for faith-based practices."

Additionally, they urged Parliament and especially Muslim representatives and members of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, to move swiftly and introduce legislative safeguards to protect Muslim Personal Law from erosion and misrepresentation by secular courts.

The leaders also urged the Judiciary to exercise caution and inclusivity when making rulings that impact constitutionally protected religious practices.

"We remind the Apex judges that Islamic law and particularly the Kadhi's courts are part and parcel of the negotiated historical agreement between the late President Kenyatta and Zanzibar that enabled Kenya to acquire the 10-mile strip, making Kenya what it is today," they said.

"Thus, any chipping away of our religious rights is not just reckless but can be extremely dangerous to the stability of the state."

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that children born out of wedlock to Muslim fathers are entitled to inherit from their father’s estate.

In their judgment, Supreme Court judges emphasized the need to balance the application of Muslim personal law with constitutional protections.

The court cited Article 24(4), which permits the limitation of certain rights under personal laws such as Islamic law, but stressed that such limitations must be reasonable, justifiable, and narrowly defined.