/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Muslim mother excluded from school parents' evening for wearing veil



Uthman
04-04-2009, 02:01 PM
A Muslim mother was turned away from a school parents' evening for her son because she was wearing a full-length veil.

Police were called when the 34-year-old refused to leave Our Lady and St. John Catholic Art College, in Blackburn, Lancashire, which she attended herself.

The comprehensive school operates a policy which requires anyone entering the building to remove specific headwear for identification purposes.

She claims the problem first surfaced at a parents' evening two years when she was told she was not allowed into the main hall while wearing her niqab.

The full veil, which covers all the body except the eyes, is worn by a minority of Muslim women in the UK as part of their religious beliefs, to protect their modesty from men.

The woman, who does not wish to be named, said: "I explained that I was willing to take off the veil in front of the female teachers, but not the male teachers.

"A year later the same thing happened when I went to drop my son off at the school. Then this week at a parent's evening I signed myself in and saw two teachers in the library as I was not allowed in the main hall.

"Then I got asked by a senior member of staff whether I was aware of the school's policy on identification."

Since the issue arose in 2007, the school's policy has been amended to include full veils with items such as hoodies and crash helmets that have to be removed before entering the building.

The woman claims that had she been made aware of the change in advance, she would not have enrolled her son at her former school.

She added: "The whole situation has upset me and I don't like going to the school any more because I always leave crying.

"I can understand that people should be identified but I am just a normal person trying to lead a normal life. Why should how I dress make a difference?"

A spokesman for Lancashire Police confirmed officers were called to the school, but had taken no further action.

Colette Gillen, the headteacher, said the school was rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted for community cohesion, care and guidance.

She said whilst it was acceptable for women to wear veils on a one-to-one basis at meeting, difficulties could arise when people were wandering around corridors or rooms.

A Blackburn with Darwen borough council spokesman said it was for individual schools to implement dress policy, including the wearing of veils.

The town became the focus of national attention in 2006 when its MP Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, suggested the wearing of veils could damage community relations because they were a "visible statement of separation and of difference".

At the same time Aisha Azmi, a 24 year old teaching assistant, from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, was suspended for refusing to remove her veil in lessons in case male colleagues saw her,

She later lost an appeal against an employment tribunal's decision that she had not been discriminated against on religious grounds.

Her employers, Headfield Junior School, insisted face-to-face communication was essential in her role as a bi-lingual support worker.

Source
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Whatsthepoint
04-04-2009, 03:45 PM
the school did the right thing.
And how can a woman religious enough to wear the niqab ever enroll her son in a Catholic school?
Reply

Zahida
04-04-2009, 04:53 PM
:sl: No the school did not do the right thing when they would have given the child a place within the school his forms would of shown the childs religous background.....................

The mother may not have been able to send her son to another school therefore had no choice to place him into a catholic school which is totally irrelevant that the child and his mother have been treated this way...............discrimination.

The woman can take this further and the whole thing could go to court, this is suppossed to be a multi-cultural society........ Schools are there to teach regardless of sex, colour religion etc etc.... Yes if you want to send your child to a religious school............. then that is your own perogative...........:w::D
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
the school did the right thing.
And how can a woman religious enough to wear the niqab ever enroll her son in a Catholic school?
Reply

nebula
04-04-2009, 05:01 PM
im proud of that muslim lady, may allah give her and her son strength to endure those people! ameen
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
The Ruler
04-04-2009, 05:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
the school did the right thing.
It wasn't the right thing to do. If it was for identification purposes, was her son bring with her not enough? (I'm supposing that he was).

And how can a woman religious enough to wear the niqab ever enroll her son in a Catholic school?
I went to a Church of England school for half a year due to lack of places in any other schools.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-04-2009, 05:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zahida
:sl: No the school did not do the right thing when they would have given the child a place within the school his forms would of shown the childs religous background.....................

The mother may not have been able to send her son to another school therefore had no choice to place him into a catholic school which is totally irrelevant that the child and his mother have been treated this way...............discrimination.

The woman can take this further and the whole thing could go to court, this is suppossed to be a multi-cultural society........ Schools are there to teach regardless of sex, colour religion etc etc.... Yes if you want to send your child to a religious school............. then that is your own perogative...........:w::D
Well the whole point is that all garments partly or entirely covering the face are banned.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-04-2009, 05:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The Ruler
It wasn't the right thing to do. If it was for identification purposes, was her son bring with her not enough? (I'm supposing that he was).
She said whilst it was acceptable for women to wear veils on a one-to-one basis at meeting, difficulties could arise when people were wandering around corridors or rooms.
This is just one case, I am for the banning of niqab in all public places.
Reply

The Ruler
04-04-2009, 05:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
This is just one case, I am for the banning of niqab in all public places.
Why do you say that?
Reply

afzalaung
04-04-2009, 05:54 PM
The school has good point for their stand on this matter, given all the security lapses in schools in the recent months.
But they should allow leniency on case-to-case basis. the lady was already willing to unveil in front of female staffs.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-04-2009, 07:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
the school did the right thing.
And how can a woman religious enough to wear the niqab ever enroll her son in a Catholic school?
i think you have grasped this better than many people, she obviously observes some parts of the religion of the creator but leaves others out of neglegence or ignorance.
Reply

Zahida
04-04-2009, 11:27 PM
:sl: May i ask why? What happened to freedom of speech? What happened to freedom of choice........... These are all passed by the Brish public..........:thumbs_do:w:
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Well the whole point is that all garments partly or entirely covering the face are banned.
Reply

Zahida
04-04-2009, 11:33 PM
:sl: How can u say that? How can you pass judgement so easily???? Do you know the sister? Do you know what her circumstances are maybe she does not want her son to go to a Catholic school but has no choice................ Her son is there for an education............. Parents evening is for parents to see the teacher who is responsible for her child throughout the day............. our school doesn't turn parents away on the basis of what they are wearing we are there for the welfare of the child....................

Parents evening is a different scenario, the woman was not there during the time when lessons would be given but there in the evening amongst other parents................:w::thumbs_do
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i think you have grasped this better than many people, she obviously observes some parts of the religion of the creator but leaves others out of neglegence or ignorance.
Reply

Eric H
04-04-2009, 11:49 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;
she obviously observes some parts of the religion of the creator but leaves others out of neglegence or ignorance.
Maybe there are no local Islamic schools nearby, she seems passionate about her faith, maybe there was not much of an acceptable choice open to this lady.

I have a great sympathy for both the school and the lady, probably ten or twenty years ago this would not have been an issue. It sounds like she would have the same kind of problem in any other UK school apart from an Islamic one, people seem to live in fear now.

My feelings are that she should comply with the rules of the school in order that her son gets a good education. But I also feel that she is fully entitled to campaign, gather support, think creatively and to keep challenging the rules. Could a room by the reception area be made available for any meetings with her son and teacher; so she does not have to wonder through the corridors? Maybe there are compromises acceptable to both parties, but she would have to find them because she wants the rules changed.

In the spirit of praying for justice in an unjust world

Eric
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-05-2009, 06:53 AM
education is compulsory in the uk, school is not. there is an alternative for most families if we are just willing to work hard and look after our kids education ourselves.
Reply

Thinker
04-05-2009, 08:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zahida
:sl: The mother may not have been able to send her son to another school therefore had no choice
Everybody has choices; she could choose to live in a country with a culture which is more in tune with her own.
Reply

Thinker
04-05-2009, 08:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
education is compulsory in the uk, school is not. there is an alternative for most families if we are just willing to work hard and look after our kids education ourselves.
Education is compulsory in the UK; residing in the UK is not compulsory.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-05-2009, 09:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Education is compulsory in the UK; residing in the UK is not compulsory.
Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 applies to England and Wales:

Compulsory education

7 Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age

The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—

1.

to his age, ability and aptitude, and
2.

to any special educational needs he may have,

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.
homeschooling is a choice of many parents, muslims and non-muslims, religious and the not religious.

but it also serves the needs of muslims who would rather not have their children exposed to unislamic ideas at too early an age.
Reply

Uthman
04-05-2009, 09:07 AM
Hi Thinker,
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Everybody has choices; she could choose to live in a country with a culture which is more in tune with her own.
It's all too easy to sit behind a computer screen and say who should or not should reside in the UK. In practice, it's not as easy as simply choosing to live in a different country. Perhaps, like me, she was born in this country and is not in a financially suitable position to be able to move.
Reply

Thinker
04-05-2009, 02:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Hi Thinker, It's all too easy to sit behind a computer screen and say who should or not should reside in the UK. In practice, it's not as easy as simply choosing to live in a different country. Perhaps, like me, she was born in this country and is not in a financially suitable position to be able to move.
First let me make my position ABSOLUTELY clear; I welcome anyone of any race, colour, culture or creed to live in my country so long as they abide by the laws, customs and culture of the country and try hard to live in peace and tolerance with the indigenous population. With regards to suggesting someone might be happier living elsewhere, I make those suggestions only when it appears that someone cannot live with the laws, customs and culture of the country and want everybody else to change to the way they want it to be.
Reply

Zahida
04-05-2009, 03:03 PM
:sl:Hey! Not everyone this is just one case!!!

We don't know the specific circumstances with regard to this womans predicament.......just jumping to conclusions. I was born in the UK and am a teacher of English for the last nine years. I am just very surprised that the school did not make allowances given the circumstances............

My nephew attends a Catholic school because that is the only one available within catchment, and he is very happy there. The school also respect that he is a Muslim child and make allowances........... In fact there are many children there from different religions, Jewish, Seikh, Hindu........ and the children are all taught to respect each other......... The lady has not committed a crime or broken any British Laws to the way she dresses.......What happened to people being there for each other and supporting each other??:D

She is not enforcing her dress code onto anyone. Simply doing what is right for her and her beliefs................:D
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 05:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zahida
:sl: How can u say that? How can you pass judgement so easily???? Do you know the sister? Do you know what her circumstances are maybe she does not want her son to go to a Catholic school but has no choice................
The woman claims that had she been made aware of the change in advance, she would not have enrolled her son at her former school.

Either there were other schools available or she thought her right to wear the niqab more important than her son's education.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 05:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The Ruler
Why do you say that?
It poses safety concerns, it is completely foreign and it creates isolation.
Reply

Snowflake
04-05-2009, 05:39 PM
If the school has no objection to muslim woman wearing a veil on a one-to-one meeting then both parties shouldve discussed this and made alternative arrangements for the mother to check her son's progress at the school at a different time.

I can't blame the school as to them it's matter of identification, hence banning hoodies and the like. Tomorrow some loony can walk in dressed as muslimah and gun down kids there.
Reply

Thinker
04-05-2009, 06:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zahida
:sl:The lady has not committed a crime or broken any British Laws to the way she dresses.......D

She is not enforcing her dress code onto anyone. Simply doing what is right for her and her beliefs................:D
It is the woman’s right and she is free to wear the niqab. The question for me is: does she wonder/care about what non-Muslims think when they see her and do other Muslims care about what impression she gives of Islam to those who see her?

The reason we have proverbs such as ‘you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover’ is because, like it or not, people do judge people by how they appear. I would estimate that 99% of all UK non-Muslims know nothing about Islam and Muslims other than what they see on the news. When they see a woman dressed in a niqab it reminds them of the Taliban and they presume she is a fundamental/radical/extremist. They don’t postulate on the difference between a fundamentalist and extremist they just put them all into the same box. In the politically correct world in which we live, nobody is going to suggest that she be denied her right to wear what she likes and likewise everybody is going to demand their right to put her into the radical extremist box. You might think that’s unfair and I might agree with you but that’s people. So why is that woman walking amongst kafir, in a non-Muslim country, wearing a niqab knowing that the people she passes are reminded by her appearance that they have been bombed by Muslims extremists and is waiting in certain anticipation for the next bombing?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 06:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zahida
She is not enforcing her dress code onto anyone. Simply doing what is right for her and her beliefs................:D
So I could walk around naked and as long as I didn't enforce my nakedness to anyone else, you'd be fine with it?
You know there are religions that perform naked rituals, so why should we let niqabs, who also happen to be a threat to security, and ban nakedness?
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-05-2009, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
First let me make my position ABSOLUTELY clear; I welcome anyone of any race, colour, culture or creed to live in my country so long as they abide by the laws, customs and culture of the country and try hard to live in peace and tolerance with the indigenous population. With regards to suggesting someone might be happier living elsewhere, I make those suggestions only when it appears that someone cannot live with the laws, customs and culture of the country and want everybody else to change to the way they want it to be.
exactly thinker, your country. but this case didnt take case in your country.

when the muslims first came here to the uk they were free to live by their own culture and creed, just had to keep to the laws, fair enough.

but now matters have changed, the deal is being changed after both signatures are long dry by one party, in complete opposition to that of the other party to the agreement.
Reply

S_87
04-05-2009, 06:42 PM
This is just one case, I am for the banning of niqab in all public places.
how generous of you. atleast we'd be able to veil in private :rolleyes:
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 06:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
how generous of you. atleast we'd be able to veil in private :rolleyes:
And in places a veiled person doesn't pose any significant danger as well as hospitals.
Or you could also think of a way that enables a niqabi to prove he or she is not wearing a bomb or anything illegal underneath the holy cloth.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-05-2009, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
And in places a veiled person doesn't pose any significant danger as well as hospitals.
Or you could also think of a way that enables a niqabi to prove he or she is not wearing a bomb or anything illegal underneath the holy cloth.
im all for banning fat people from public places, after all they could have explosives or anything hidden and you'd never know.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 06:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
im all for banning fat people from public places, after all they could have explosives or anything hidden and you'd never know.
That's true but you can at least see their face and determine whether it exhibis any unusual signs.
And safety isn't the only concern I have with niqabs.
Reply

crayon
04-05-2009, 06:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
im all for banning fat people from public places, after all they could have explosives or anything hidden and you'd never know.
Yup, I agree. I guess the only solution is for people to walk around in speedos and bikinis..only even that isn't foolproof.

format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
That's true but you can at least see their face and determine whether it exhibis any unusual signs.
And safety isn't the only concern I have with niqabs.
Yes, because people's facial expressions are completely uncontrollable...:offended:

"And safety isn't the only concern I have with niqabs."
Yes, that's true. You simply don't like them. Sigh.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 07:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
Yup, I agree. I guess the only solution is for people to walk around in speedos and bikinis..only even that isn't foolproof.



Yes, because people's facial expressions are completely uncontrollable...:offended:

"And safety isn't the only concern I have with niqabs."
Yes, that's true. You simply don't like them. Sigh.
No, read an earlier post of moi.
Reply

crayon
04-05-2009, 07:05 PM
Dude, have you ever even met a niqabi?
I have no doubt that your answer is no.
Well I have met tons, and the only time I have trouble communicating is when their voices are extremely low and I can't read their lips. That's it.
You can't see my face now, can you? Is it hindering communication? Can you see my facial expressions on the phone? Eh?
Eurgh.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 07:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
Dude, have you ever even met a niqabi?
I have no doubt that your answer is no.
Well I have met tons, and the only time I have trouble communicating is when their voices are extremely low and I can't read their lips. That's it.
You can't see my face now, can you? Is it hindering communication? Can you see my facial expressions on the phone? Eh?
Eurgh.
Eurgh:p
Reply

crayon
04-05-2009, 07:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Eurgh:p
In other words, "YES CRAYON, YOU ARE RIGHT.":muddlehea
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 07:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
In other words, "YES CRAYON, YOU ARE RIGHT.":muddlehea
haha never in a million years, cln!:shade:
Reply

S_87
04-05-2009, 07:15 PM
whatsthepoint, just curious...when you see a veiled woman what is ur reaction to her? would you speak to her? do you see her as a threat? (seriously, not minding the stereo types) do you think she cant speak english or something?
What are your thoughts when u see a veiled woman
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 07:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
whatsthepoint, just curious...when you see a veiled woman what is ur reaction to her? would you speak to her? do you see her as a threat? (seriously, not minding the stereo types) do you think she cant speak english or something?
What are your thoughts when u see a veiled woman
I'm wouldn't consider her a thread, but then I never consider anyone a threat even though several people are a threat.
Reply

S_87
04-05-2009, 07:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I'm wouldn't consider her a thread, but then I never consider anyone a threat even though several people are a threat.
the other questions...
Reply

Zahida
04-05-2009, 07:26 PM
:sl: Dearest Whatsthepoint............ I am so sorry you feel this way......... Not everyone is alike, no two people are the same it seems you have a chip on your shoulder about the niqaab wearing scenario because it poses a threat????????

When i was about 22 a young British woman wearing a bikini top was riding her bike in London. A passer by snatched her top as he walked past.......? Was she doing the wrong thing by your standards too???? Or was it the right thing?

This woman chooses to wear the niqaab she maybe aware of what others think of her or what goes through other peoples minds...........but i commend her for standing up for herself and her religious beliefs..:smile::w:
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 07:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
the other questions...
Well I've never had the chance to meet one but I'd like to talk to one.
It doesn't matter though.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 07:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zahida
:sl: Dearest Whatsthepoint............ I am so sorry you feel this way......... Not everyone is alike, no two people are the same it seems you have a chip on your shoulder about the niqaab wearing scenario because it poses a threat????????

When i was about 22 a young British woman wearing a bikini top was riding her bike in London. A passer by snatched her top as he walked past.......? Was she doing the wrong thing by your standards too???? Or was it the right thing?

This woman chooses to wear the niqaab she maybe aware of what others think of her or what goes through other peoples minds...........but i commend her for standing up for herself and her religious beliefs..:smile::w:
She wasn't doing anything bad by my standards.
She can stand up for her believes in Saudi Arabia and in her own community, but not in public places.
Reply

Zahida
04-05-2009, 07:36 PM
:sl: Phewwwwwwwww man you are hard work!!!!:w::bump1:


No bad feelings everyone has the right of expression...........
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
She wasn't doing anything bad by my standards.
She can stand up for her believes in Saudi Arabia and in her own community, but not in public places.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-05-2009, 07:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
That's true but you can at least see their face and determine whether it exhibis any unusual signs.
And safety isn't the only concern I have with niqabs.
you totally missed the point there didnt you?
Reply

Uthman
04-05-2009, 07:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
you totally missed the point there didnt you?
Is that a pun? :D
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 07:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
you totally missed the point there didnt you?
Apparently yes.
Reply

Thinker
04-05-2009, 08:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
exactly thinker, your country. but this case didnt take case in your country.

when the muslims first came here to the uk they were free to live by their own culture and creed, just had to keep to the laws, fair enough.

but now matters have changed, the deal is being changed after both signatures are long dry by one party, in complete opposition to that of the other party to the agreement.
That's as clear as mud!!
Reply

Thinker
04-05-2009, 08:05 PM
If the scholarly consensus is that the hijab is all that is required can someone explain to me how a Muslim woman can claim that she is wearing the niqab because she believes it is her religious duty to do so?
Reply

Uthman
04-05-2009, 08:14 PM
Hi Thinker,
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
If the scholarly consensus is that the hijab is all that is required can someone explain to me how a Muslim woman can claim that she is wearing the niqab because she believes it is her religious duty to do so?
Who said that there is a scholarly consensus on the issue?
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-05-2009, 08:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
If the scholarly consensus is that the hijab is all that is required can someone explain to me how a Muslim woman can claim that she is wearing the niqab because she believes it is her religious duty to do so?
it is agreed by all muslims that the hijab and modest clothing is a must for women to wear outdoors or she is sinning.

some scholars also believe the clothing should be long and hide the shape of the body,

others also hold the niqab to be compuslory as well, others say the long clothing and niqab are voluntary but strongly stressed.
Reply

nadia85
04-05-2009, 08:27 PM
The school should have more respect for the lady
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-05-2009, 08:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Apparently yes.
why dont we ban people wearing glasses, after all anyone could be hiding behind them and using them as disguise.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 08:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
why dont we ban people wearing glasses, after all anyone could be hiding behind them and using them as disguise.
It's completely different, fat and bad sighted is a condition, extreme piety is not.
And you cannot compare glasses and fat people to a loose garment covering the entire body.
And I said niqab also creates isolation and the entire culture is based on eye contact, facial expressions. You cannot trust a person whose face you don't see. Even sun glasses are a problem.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-05-2009, 09:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
It's completely different, fat and bad sighted is a condition, extreme piety is not.
And you cannot compare glasses and fat people to a loose garment covering the entire body.
And I said niqab also creates isolation and the entire culture is based on eye contact, facial expressions. You cannot trust a person whose face you don't see. Even sun glasses are a problem.
ok lets address this point seriously...

you are wrong, your culture is wrong, your way of life is wrong, it is sick and perverted.

this is because you place man and his desires as the arbitrator in life.

If your culture says men and women must interact then it is wrong because the creator says it is wrong.

but you dont believe in the creator as such or have serious doubts, therefore that is the discussion we should have as you will never accept what i say as is based on Quran and sunnah and i will never accept what you say as based on your desires and ration and the desires and ration of other men.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
ok lets address this point seriously...

you are wrong, your culture is wrong, your way of life is wrong, it is sick and perverted.

this is because you place man and his desires as the arbitrator in life.

If your culture says men and women must interact then it is wrong because the creator says it is wrong.

but you dont believe in the creator as such or have serious doubts, therefore that is the discussion we should have as you will never accept what i say as is based on Quran and sunnah and i will never accept what you say as based on your desires and ration and the desires and ration of other men.
The discussion absically revolves around the fact that the school didn't let the woman attend the parents' meeting.
U think the school had all the right to do that.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-05-2009, 10:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The discussion absically revolves around the fact that the school didn't let the woman attend the parents' meeting.
U think the school had all the right to do that.
do i think they had the right to do that
or do i think it was right to do that?

the answer to the first seems in the uk seems to be yes they can

but do i think it was right? no, it was wrong, what do i base that reason on? God's law. but you are never going to get that unless you become a believer first.
Reply

S_87
04-05-2009, 10:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Well I've never had the chance to meet one but I'd like to talk to one.
It doesn't matter though.
im sure there are veiled sisters here who would happily speak to you and answer your questions. maybe next time you do see one you should talk and see how it goes.

as for the school- its not as if the town is alien to veiled women. there are many many women wearing the veil in blackburn- its not even a big deal so i dont see the point in this hoohaa
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-05-2009, 10:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
do i think they had the right to do that
or do i think it was right to do that?

the answer to the first seems in the uk seems to be yes they can

but do i think it was right? no, it was wrong, what do i base that reason on? God's law. but you are never going to get that unless you become a believer first.
Yes.
I feel sorry for the poor woman, but every battle needs victims I guess, or perhaps martyrs.
Reply

Zahida
04-05-2009, 11:01 PM
:sl: Maybe this thread can be closed now i mean whatsthepoint:w::'(
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
04-06-2009, 12:50 AM
^;D Honestly, LOOK who ur talking to u guys. :/
Reply

kwolney01
04-06-2009, 01:29 AM
The school is clearly taking this too far. I think she should be able to wear it and maybe just be given a visitors pass or something that people can tell who she is.

As for the catholic school, maybe they wanted to send their children to a better school and did not have the option of an Islamic school. Public schools are not the best here in America and InshAllah when I have kids I will send them to private school. InshAllah it will be an Islamic school.
Reply

*charisma*
04-06-2009, 02:23 AM
Assalamu Alaikum

The woman, who does not wish to be named, said: "I explained that I was willing to take off the veil in front of the female teachers, but not the male teachers.
I don't why it was made into such a problem when it takes a few seconds to identify a person. They could have had a couple of woman see her, and then give her some sort of a badge that would say she was 'identified' or inspected. To go farther than that is irrational. It clearly said identification purposes...not terrorist check.


fi aman Allah
w'salaam
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-06-2009, 07:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by kwolney01
The school is clearly taking this too far. I think she should be able to wear it and maybe just be given a visitors pass or something that people can tell who she is.

As for the catholic school, maybe they wanted to send their children to a better school and did not have the option of an Islamic school. Public schools are not the best here in America and InshAllah when I have kids I will send them to private school. InshAllah it will be an Islamic school.
once again home schooling is a perfectly legal option to take in america as well as britain.
Reply

Uthman
04-06-2009, 08:01 AM
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...schooling.html
Reply

S_87
04-06-2009, 10:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by kwolney01
The school is clearly taking this too far. I think she should be able to wear it and maybe just be given a visitors pass or something that people can tell who she is.

As for the catholic school, maybe they wanted to send their children to a better school and did not have the option of an Islamic school. Public schools are not the best here in America and InshAllah when I have kids I will send them to private school. InshAllah it will be an Islamic school.
that it is a catholic school doesnt say much. i personally went to a church of england school and half the students were muslim. its still state funded and all that
Reply

Thinker
04-06-2009, 10:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
it is agreed by all muslims that the hijab and modest clothing is a must for women to wear outdoors or she is sinning.

some scholars also believe the clothing should be long and hide the shape of the body,

others also hold the niqab to be compuslory as well, others say the long clothing and niqab are voluntary but strongly stressed.
Isn't that the answer to many of the questions I've been asking? The reason nothing is clear in Islam is because there are so many scholars with so many different interpretations!!
Reply

Thinker
04-06-2009, 10:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nadia85
The school should have more respect for the lady
The Knights Templar was a religious group, how would the people of Bradford feel about me walking amongst them dressed in the style of the Knights Templar? On a scale of 1 - 10 how insensitive do you think that would be? And that’s Bradford UK, the land of the kafir. How far would I get walking through the streets of a Muslim country dressed in the style of the Knights Templar?
Reply

aadil77
04-06-2009, 10:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
The Knights Templar was a religious group, how would the people of Bradford feel about me walking amongst them dressed in the style of the Knights Templar? On a scale of 1 - 10 how insensitive do you think that would be? And that’s Bradford UK, the land of the kafir. How far would I get walking through the streets of a Muslim country dressed in the style of the Knights Templar?
whats that? they'd prbably not even know who you're dressed as, lol
Reply

Uthman
04-06-2009, 10:17 AM
Hi Thinker,
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Isn't that the answer to many of the questions I've been asking? The reason nothing is clear in Islam is because there are so many scholars with so many different interpretations!!
It is an exaggeration to say that nothing is clear in Islam. There are differences of opinion on certain issues (Ikhtilaf) and these are acceptable, so long as they are firmly rooted in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Muslim must follow what they deem to be the strongest opinion and the most correct.
Reply

Thinker
04-06-2009, 10:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
whats that? they'd prbably not even know who you're dressed as, lol
Amazing lack of knowledge!! See . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar
Reply

Thinker
04-06-2009, 10:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Hi Thinker, It is an exaggeration to say that nothing is clear in Islam. There are differences of opinion on certain issues (Ikhtilaf) and these are acceptable, so long as they are firmly rooted in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Muslim must follow what they deem to be the strongest opinion and the most correct.
Greetings Osman,

With respect, to find the difference between "nothing is clear in Islam" and "there are differences of opinion on certain issues" is symantecs. Of course there are many things which are clear like which way you face during prayer but these things are clear (in my opinion) because they are not contentious, anying contended appears to have a many interpretations.
Reply

Uthman
04-06-2009, 10:56 AM
Greetings Thinker,
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
With respect, to find the difference between "nothing is clear in Islam" and "there are differences of opinion on certain issues" is symantecs.
Perhaps I interpreted your words too literally, since in the literal sense there is a big difference between those two statements!

format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Of course there are many things which are clear like which way you face during prayer
Agreed.

format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
but these things are clear (in my opinion) because they are not contentious, anying contended appears to have a many interpretations.
What do you mean by contentious? Do you mean ambiguous? If so, then to say anything that is ambiguous has many interpretations is still an exaggeration in my opinion (and I hope I'm not getting into semantics again!). For the issue of Niqab, there are essentially two interpretations. One interpretations sees it as obligatory and the other sees it as recommended but not obligatory. It's as simple as that. :)

Regards
Reply

Al-Zaara
04-06-2009, 01:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
And in places a veiled person doesn't pose any significant danger as well as hospitals.
Or you could also think of a way that enables a niqabi to prove he or she is not wearing a bomb or anything illegal underneath the holy cloth.
format_quote Originally Posted by *charisma*
Assalamu Alaikum



I don't why it was made into such a problem when it takes a few seconds to identify a person. They could have had a couple of woman see her, and then give her some sort of a badge that would say she was 'identified' or inspected. To go farther than that is irrational. It clearly said identification purposes...not terrorist check.


fi aman Allah
w'salaam
Most exactly and definitely, please anyone who ignored or didn't see the post above, read it.

Safety is a must. But believe it or not, you can hide different kinds of dangerous equipment even inside your bra or other pieces of underwear.

It also baffles me, this identifying a parent, because I've never gone through such. I took my Mum, whom no one has ever seen, only her name and there she was, everyone gladly accepted she's my Mum although, we did not looks too much alike, only if you really inspect our features, you'd see similiarity. No one asked for a photo-ID, which I assume they asked this woman? Is this a usual procedur by British schools?

Once upon a time in a all white school you'd take a black mother into to halls to meet the teachers, so that the white parents wouldn't have to see her. They gave excuses and explanations then. Today we give other reasons, we all say they are justified more or less. I wonder what people will think of us in 50-100 years from now?
Our culture, indigenous people. If only one would realize, there's very, very little "indigenous" about today's majority races and people. Many cultures were man-created not too long ago, when there was need for a different kind of unity which had not been met before. Think about this.
Reply

S_87
04-06-2009, 02:04 PM
It also baffles me, this identifying a parent, because I've never gone through such. I took my Mum, whom no one has ever seen, only her name and there she was, everyone gladly accepted she's my Mum although, we did not looks too much alike, only if you really inspect our features, you'd see similiarity. No one asked for a photo-ID, which I assume they asked this woman? Is this a usual procedur by British schools?
:sl:

nope its not generally done at all.i have been to pick up nephews and niece from school and the teachers have never asked me to show my face to see if i am 'really' their aunt. (like you said- it wont have shown anything) and there are other veil wearers there and the teachers know exactly who they are without having to ask (by seeing their eyes) so that closes the argument that niqabis cant be identified. and im from this same town.

the argument that something dangerous can be hidden an abaya is absolutely ridiculous, the majority of abaya wearers here arent in massive cloaks that can fit 2 people under. infact a weapon can just as easily be hidden under a coat.
Reply

Al-Zaara
04-06-2009, 02:24 PM
Aleykum selam,

Thank you for your reply, amani. I see. Just makes it even more pathetic they give that as an excuse, which is a serious excuse, if it is not a 'normal' procedur at schools.

You can hide weapons almost anywhere if you really want to hide it, which is very frightening, but this is a fact we gotta live with.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-06-2009, 04:01 PM
I said safety is not the only concern!
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-06-2009, 04:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Hi Thinker, It is an exaggeration to say that nothing is clear in Islam. There are differences of opinion on certain issues (Ikhtilaf) and these are acceptable, so long as they are firmly rooted in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Muslim must follow what they deem to be the strongest opinion and the most correct.
Hmm, what if the school said it had a different opinion on the compulsury status of the niqab and hence didn't think it necessary to let the woman in?
Reply

Al-Zaara
04-06-2009, 04:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I said safety is not the only concern!
What are your thoughts on sister charisma's post above?
Reply

Azy
04-06-2009, 04:34 PM
While it is not particularly difficult to identify someone, allowing people who are initially totally unidentifiable into places like schools is asking for trouble. Once you make something exempt from the rules then that will be abused by people who are not as well meaning as this woman.
Reply

Al-Zaara
04-06-2009, 04:42 PM
Would you apply that ^ to a student who wears the niqab?

Rules are easily abused, there are several examples, why should the niqab especially make a greater danger than the other dangers?

What if the person is identified and given some kind of badget prooving and visible to the people, should this person be allowed to enter the building?
Reply

Uthman
04-06-2009, 05:00 PM
Jewel Raid Gang Wore Burkhas
Reply

Uthman
04-06-2009, 05:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Hmm, what if the school said it had a different opinion on the compulsury status of the niqab and hence didn't think it necessary to let the woman in?
From an Islamic perspective, that wouldn't be acceptable grounds upon which to deny her entry. We do not shun those who hold a different opinion than us.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-06-2009, 05:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al-Zaara
Would you apply that ^ to a student who wears the niqab?

Rules are easily abused, there are several examples, why should the niqab especially make a greater danger than the other dangers?

What if the person is identified and given some kind of badget prooving and visible to the people, should this person be allowed to enter the building?
Schoolchildren shouldn't wear the niqab, and unless the chool is islamic the niqab should be repalced with a hijab. If the parents don't comply the child should either have her niqab replaced with a hijab wihtout parental consent or expelled, depending on the avilability of islamic schools nearby. The same goes for university students.
That's my opinion, I said niqab creates isolation and is bad for community cohesion and the society as a whole and from what I've learned here this is a good enough reason for banning things
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-06-2009, 05:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
From an Islamic perspective, that wouldn't be acceptable grounds upon which to deny her entry. We do not shun those who hold a different opinion than us.
Any difference in opinion or just the minor differences within Islam?
Reply

crayon
04-06-2009, 05:38 PM
Oh, just something I realized about this issue:
A woman can wear a head abaya, burqa, whatever without covering her face.
This:



So if a woman wore that, while still showing her face, would it still be unacceptable? She could hide tons of stuff under there.

format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
That's my opinion, I said niqab creates isolation and is bad for community cohesion and the society as a whole and from what I've learned here this is a good enough reason for banning things
How did you come to this conclusion?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-06-2009, 05:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
Oh, just something I realized about this issue:
A woman can wear a head abaya, burqa, whatever without covering her face.
This:



So if a woman wore that, while still showing her face, would it still be unacceptable? She could hide tons of stuff under there.



How did you come to this conclusion?
I don't think abaya is that good but most certainly better than anything that covers the face.
Well first, only people a woman chooses can see her face, that probably excludes every non-mahram men, as well as every non-Muslim woman.
And this world is based on eye contact, facial contact and expression, shaking hands etc. A perfectly healthy person avoiding all these is simply wrong.
Reply

crayon
04-06-2009, 05:51 PM
What's wrong with the abaya? Why don't you like it? Just because it does not agree with your typical image of what a woman should look like?

"only people a woman chooses can see her face, that probably excludes every non-mahram men, as well as every non-Muslim woman."
Yes to the first part, no to the second.
Why is this a bad thing?
Some women don't mind being completely undressed in front of dozens of people. Some will only be undressed around their boyfriend, some only around their husbands. Women choose who to display their body to. Why should a woman in niqab be denied that choice? Why is her choice considered "simply wrong"?

"this world is based on eye contact, facial contact and expression"
So I'm guessing blind people are not considered normal, and can never lead healthy lives, right?

"A perfectly healthy person avoiding all these is simply wrong."
Says who? Says you. Unfortunately it is not up to you to decide what is "wrong" and what is not, each person can decide for themselves.
Reply

Al-Zaara
04-06-2009, 05:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
Unfortunately it is not up to you to decide what is "wrong" and what is not, each person can decide for themselves.
Fortunately. Just corrected. Good post, mashaAllah.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-06-2009, 05:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
What's wrong with the abaya? Why don't you like it? Just because it does not agree with your typical image of what a woman should look like?

"only people a woman chooses can see her face, that probably excludes every non-mahram men, as well as every non-Muslim woman."
Yes to the first part, no to the second.
Why is this a bad thing?
Some women don't mind being completely undressed in front of dozens of people. Some will only be undressed around their boyfriend, some only around their husbands. Women choose who to display their body to. Why should a woman in niqab be denied that choice? Why is her choice considered "simply wrong"?

"this world is based on eye contact, facial contact and expression"
So I'm guessing blind people are not considered normal, and can never lead healthy lives, right?

"A perfectly healthy person avoiding all these is simply wrong."
Says who? Says you. Unfortunately it is not up to you to decide what is "wrong" and what is not, each person can decide for themselves.
Abaya poses saftey concern, niqab poses even greater safety concern (due to the lack of facial visibility) as well as creates separation and isolation.
Technically it's the legislatior who decides and hence the majority. Democracy, cln.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-06-2009, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al-Zaara
Fortunately. Just corrected. Good post, mashaAllah.
Unfortunalety as angry talk.
Reply

crayon
04-06-2009, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Abaya poses saftey concern, niqab poses even greater safety concern (due to the lack of facial visibility) as well as creates separation and isolation.
Technically it's the legislatior who decides and hence the majority. Democracy, cln.
Dude, you're just repeating yourself, this conversation is going nowhere.

Yes, democracy. You know, I think under a democracy, people are allowed to wear what they want? Or has there been made a "must show __ cm of flesh" amendment?

"You may wear any eat anything in the world, as long as it's a peanut butter and jelly sandwich".
So much for democracy.

I'm done, good day to you.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-06-2009, 06:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
Dude, you're just repeating yourself, this conversation is going nowhere.

Yes, democracy. You know, I think under a democracy, people are allowed to wear what they want? Or has there been made a "must show __ cm of flesh" amendment?

"You may wear any eat anything in the world, as long as it's a peanut butter and jelly sandwich".
So much for democracy.

I'm done, good day to you.
In all europan countries niqab is not an issue, excpet for French schools I guess and this particular incident.
but I've realized multiculturalism isn't the best system and thats why I am against niqab among other things.
Reply

Keltoi
04-06-2009, 06:16 PM
I can see both sides, but I tend to side with the school in this case. Yes, an option would have been identifying the mother and then placing a visitor's badge on her or something like that. However, I believe the school is right in not allowing people whose faces are hidden to walk around the campus. The school has many children to worry about, and if a student was killed or taken by an individual whose face was hidden but was allowed inside...surely you can see the problem with that.
Reply

Thinker
04-06-2009, 06:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al-Zaara
Once upon a time in a all white school you'd take a black mother into to halls to meet the teachers, so that the white parents wouldn't have to see her. They gave excuses and explanations then. Today we give other reasons, we all say they are justified more or less. I wonder what people will think of us in 50-100 years from now?
Come on get real!! They hid the parent!! did they also hide the black child from the white children so they wouldn’t tell their mother’s that there was a black kid in the school. Incredible – where do you get this stuff from?

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-Zaara
Our culture, indigenous people. If only one would realize, there's very, very little "indigenous" about today's majority races and people. Many cultures were man-created not too long ago, when there was need for a different kind of unity which had not been met before. Think about this.
I think you’re getting mixed up with what is an indigenous people and what is culture. The population size of the UK is about 61 million, in addition to that there are approximately 2 million foreigners there and there is also about 2 million Muslims some of whom are citizens and some of whom are not. The 59 million indigenous people are exactly that. They are a mongrel race; the original Celtic tribes were first enslaved by the Romans, then the Vikings slaughtered and plundered, next the Saxons, then the Normans. The genes of the indigenous people are a mixture of all these peoples; their culture is a mixture of cultures of all those people. The genes and culture is a mixture because the native people and the conquering nations integrated. The phenomina of setting up enclaves of segragated cultures like those seen in Bradford and Leicester is a something which has only occurred in the past 50 years or so. Segragation (in my opinion) leads to suspicion, mistrust and intolerance.
Reply

crayon
04-06-2009, 06:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I can see both sides, but I tend to side with the school in this case. Yes, an option would have been identifying the mother and then placing a visitor's badge on her or something like that. However, I believe the school is right in not allowing people whose faces are hidden to walk around the campus. The school has many children to worry about, and if a student was killed or taken by an individual whose face was hidden but was allowed inside...surely you can see the problem with that.
I agree Keltoi, it was a tough decision for the school to make.
But the thing is, this isn't just some isolated incident; this is laying the groundwork for more things like it to come.
First niqab is banned from schools, then from workplaces, then on public transport, like buses and subways. Eventually it gets to the point when it's banned altogether, when a woman walking down the street in a niqab poses a safety hazard to the community.

It is not the niqab that creates isolation, it is people's reactions to it, attitudes towards it, and pre-decided opinions about it.
Reply

Uthman
04-06-2009, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Any difference in opinion or just the minor differences within Islam?
Good question. My answer to your previous question was actually based on this story:

Imam Abu Hanifah was once praying behind Imam Malik. Imam Malik was of the opinion that one should raise their hands before and after the Ruku' position. Imam Abu Hanifah was not of this opinion.

They both prayed and Imam Malik was raising his hands before and after Ruku' whereas Imam Abu Hanifah didn't do this.

After the prayer, Imam Abu Hanifah joked to Imam Malik that "you were flapping your hands so much, I thought you would fly!"

Imam Malik responded that "I thought you had already flown away the first time you raised your hands!". :D

The above story shows the attitude that we should have towards those who hold a different opinion. However, it is a minor theological difference of opinion (both of which have a firm basis) so I'm not sure whether the same approach can be used for any difference of opinion. So I will have to answer your second question with a response that perhaps more of us should use on this board:

I don't know.
Reply

Al-Zaara
04-06-2009, 07:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Come on get real!! They hid the parent!! did they also hide the black child from the white children so they wouldn’t tell their mother’s that there was a black kid in the school. Incredible – where do you get this stuff from?
Lots of stuff have happened which you don't know or haven't heard about, sorry to say that's a true story. But mind you, that's the same question I ask myself when reading your posts about Islam and Muslims.

I think you’re getting mixed up with what is an indigenous people and what is culture.
.... The genes and culture is a mixture because the native people and the conquering nations integrated.
No, I'm not mixing. This is exactly what I meant. Today's 'indigenous' had lots of changes, they will most probably change once again.

Not angry talk, liberal and updated talk.
Reply

Thinker
04-06-2009, 07:41 PM
I wrote in an earlier post in this thread about the impressions niqab wearing Muslims have on the indeginous populations view of Islam. Read here of such an example and tell me why you think this lady should have been allowed to keep her job?

A teaching assistant who refused to remove her Muslim veil in the classroom has been sacked. . . . .

Mrs Azmi did not wear the veil when she was interviewed for the Headfield post, nor at her first training day, but problems arose soon after she started work on a one-year fixed contract last September. Although the school’s other female Muslim teachers wore a headscarf, Mrs Azmi insisted on wearing the niqab.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...icle649482.ece
Reply

Al-Zaara
04-06-2009, 07:47 PM
I hate it when they state niqab as only 'veil', I can't get out did she wear a veil/headscarf at all when first meeting or did she wear the headscarf until the change to niqab?
Reply

Al-Zaara
04-06-2009, 08:13 PM
You should understand why I asked that, when reading my post here.

The children didn't like her it seems. Who knows, maybe not even the staff liked her.

“it was readily apparent that the children were seeking visual clues from her which they could not obtain because they could not see her facial expressions” - Huh? How? You know, like once upon a time my neighbours, the Italians, hands do the job. She went from hijab to niqab, it's bound to be different, not for only the outsiders but herself!

"second language", "it’s very clear that her wearing the veil in the classroom inhibits her ability to support children.” - Meaning? This is all quite relative. She didn't fit the way to support the children into the British culture, maybe?

Didn't they hear well? She could have raised her voice if they would have told her to, honestly it is not that hard. Was she not a good teacher, or were the children prejudiced about her and made her an outcast thus only deepening their dislike/negative feelings about her? Was she herself not comfortable with the niqab, suddenly infront of youngsters? Was she shy? Did the school find the "Taliban-style" destroyed further repuatation and thus couldn't keep her?

You want me to tell you why this lady would have kept her job. From experience, I had to stand a horrendous teacher for over a year until change, not that there weren't enough teachers out there, but that the school staff found it important to give this person a real chance. I, along with majority of the students, disliked him as a teacher but were still OK with dealing with him 'cause it showed fairness. I think she should have gotten time to adjust herself into the role, same goes to the staff and children.

The woman did wrong in not telling her authorities about this drastic change, specially if she was the only one. This quite critical to ensure trust and get a real chance to prove oneself, whether it is about a face-veil or having problems at home, as a teacher has a tough post 'cause day after day your problems and happiness and whatnot will show and it will effect several people.
Reply

S_87
04-06-2009, 08:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
That's my opinion, I said niqab creates isolation and is bad for community cohesion and the society as a whole and from what I've learned here this is a good enough reason for banning things
gggrrrrrr :'(
you yourself have said youve never spoken to a veiled woman so seriously, what do you know? maybe if you actually accepted niqabis as normal people itll be fine for society...it only creates isolation because its people like you who take it as a barrier
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-07-2009, 02:38 AM
Anywhere a muslim woman can wear a niqab, I should be allowed to wear a ski mask. No special rights for the religious please. You're welcome to do everything I'm allowed to do, no less and no more.
Reply

جوري
04-07-2009, 02:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Good question. My answer to your previous question was actually based on this story:

Imam Abu Hanifah was once praying behind Imam Malik. Imam Malik was of the opinion that one should raise their hands before and after the Ruku' position. Imam Abu Hanifah was not of this opinion.

They both prayed and Imam Malik was raising his hands before and after Ruku' whereas Imam Abu Hanifah didn't do this.

After the prayer, Imam Abu Hanifah joked to Imam Malik that "you were flapping your hands so much, I thought you would fly!"

Imam Malik responded that "I thought you had already flown away the first time you raised your hands!". :D

The above story shows the attitude that we should have towards those who hold a different opinion. However, it is a minor theological difference of opinion (both of which have a firm basis) so I'm not sure whether the same approach can be used for any difference of opinion. So I will have to answer your second question with a response that perhaps more of us should use on this board:

I don't know.

Masha'Allah

that is a really interesting story.. thanks for sharing...

I didn't want to partake on this thread for several reasons:
1- being (I don't want to be crucified for my opinion) which is-- if niqab were a must (obligatory), then why are women forbidden from wearing it during pilgrimage (hajj) when the largest number of men would as well be present...
nonetheless I think anyone should be entitled to dress as they please unquestioned...
2-I believe the Niqab grants a woman complete anonymity thus it makes no sense to wear it and expect to be identified, in other words if there is a situation when anonymity isn't needed then I believe the hijab will take place of the niqab, else a phone conversation with the teacher might accomplish the task just the same...


and Allah swt knows best

:w:
Reply

Azy
04-07-2009, 10:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
Yes, democracy. You know, I think under a democracy, people are allowed to wear what they want?
Unfortunately, living in a democracy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, whenever you want.

In the UK hard hats are compulsory on building sites and nudity in public is forbidden. There's also the interesting case of Peter Trigger. Employers are allowed to enforce reasonable dress codes and you're not allowed in a bank wearing a balaclava, in fact people have been arrested for wearing one in public.

Not sure I agree with the last point but it's clear that people are allowed to dictate dress codes in certain situations and that muslims are not being discriminated against by enforcing these rules.
Reply

S_87
04-07-2009, 10:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Anywhere a muslim woman can wear a niqab, I should be allowed to wear a ski mask. No special rights for the religious please. You're welcome to do everything I'm allowed to do, no less and no more.
go right ahead and wear your ski mask. but dont be hypocritical and wear it only when you choose to, to spite muslim women or stir up trouble. wear it ALL THE TIME in public. including if you may have to eat out in public. or if you need a breather. or anything. wear it and keep it on. but dont choose to wear it 'because muslim women can wear a veil and i want to prove a point.' thats stupid.
Reply

Thinker
04-07-2009, 11:17 AM
This site says that Islamic texts do not require women to cover their faces.
http://www.islamicnetwork.com/index....ijab_the_veil/

This site says that they do
http://muttaqun.com/niqab.html

Again another example of Islamic text is ambiguous and another example of how ‘scholars’ find the interpretation that they want to find.

I note that on the site suggesting that it is NOT obligatory it states that . . . . Muslims must strive to be different!
Difference from the Clothing of Unbelievers ‎
‎Her clothing must not resemble the clothing of the unbelievers. This is a general ruling of the ‘Sharia’h which ‎encompasses not only dress but also such things as manners, customs, religious practices and festivities, transactions, ‎etc. Indeed, dissimilarity with unbelievers is a precedent that was established by the first generation of Islam.
‘Abdullah ‎ibn ‘Amr ibn Al-’Aas said, “The Prophet (saw) saw me wearing two saffron coloured garments, so he said: ‎‎“Indeed, these are the clothes of ‘Kuffar’ (unbelievers), so do not wear them.” [Sahih Muslim]‎


The more I learn the more I despair!!
Reply

جوري
04-07-2009, 12:12 PM
There is no ambiguity when you think about it, as neither schools of thoughts disagree, both agree you should dress a particular way (modest)
When you take an exam and get an A plus five points for a bonus question, does it detract from your grade? You've gone ahead and given it 110% instead of 100% ..
There are degrees of religiosity and some people desire to spend their life to the service of God--

Now, as not dressing like the kuffar, I don't see why that should make you despair either? Doesn't Ezekiel warn against women who dress to seduce?
It is my feeling that the hadiths that speak against imitating the kuffar, do so of clothes that are seductive or revealing or too obnoxious in color.

and Allah swt knows best!
Reply

wth1257
04-07-2009, 12:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
She wasn't doing anything bad by my standards.
She can stand up for her believes in Saudi Arabia and in her own community, but not in public places.

So I guess you'd be the type to stop me from wearing my ninja suit in public?:raging:

It has nothing to do with religion I just wear it to look cool:-[


I've never met a woman like that. In Itally I almost ran over a women dresse like that but that was only because I'm like 6'2'' and she was reallyyyyyy short and I just didn't see her.

Anyway, I can understand not allowing women to drive when they are like this, of other situations where authorities would genuinly need to check ID, but outside of that she should be able to cover her face if she wishes.
Reply

wth1257
04-07-2009, 12:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
The more I learn the more I despair!!




















:cry::cry::cry:


I was only going to do one, but they kept making me laugh so I couldn't stop:-[
Reply

Uthman
04-07-2009, 01:39 PM
Hi Thinker,
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
This site says that Islamic texts do not require women to cover their faces.
http://www.islamicnetwork.com/index....ijab_the_veil/

This site says that they do
http://muttaqun.com/niqab.html

Again another example of Islamic text is ambiguous and another example of how ‘scholars’ find the interpretation that they want to find.
How do know that is what they want to find as opposed to what they believe to be most correct?
Reply

Musaafirah
04-07-2009, 01:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
This site says that Islamic texts do not require women to cover their faces.
http://www.islamicnetwork.com/index....ijab_the_veil/

This site says that they do
http://muttaqun.com/niqab.html

Again another example of Islamic text is ambiguous and another example of how ‘scholars’ find the interpretation that they want to find.

I note that on the site suggesting that it is NOT obligatory it states that . . . . Muslims must strive to be different!
Difference from the Clothing of Unbelievers ‎
‎Her clothing must not resemble the clothing of the unbelievers. This is a general ruling of the ‘Sharia’h which ‎encompasses not only dress but also such things as manners, customs, religious practices and festivities, transactions, ‎etc. Indeed, dissimilarity with unbelievers is a precedent that was established by the first generation of Islam.
‘Abdullah ‎ibn ‘Amr ibn Al-’Aas said, “The Prophet (saw) saw me wearing two saffron coloured garments, so he said: ‎‎“Indeed, these are the clothes of ‘Kuffar’ (unbelievers), so do not wear them.” [Sahih Muslim]‎


The more I learn the more I despair!!
"As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them Whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur)."

[Qur'an Chapter 2, Verse 6 & 7.]
Need I say more?
Reply

Uthman
04-07-2009, 01:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I note that on the site suggesting that it is NOT obligatory it states that . . . . Muslims must strive to be different!
Difference from the Clothing of Unbelievers ‎
‎Her clothing must not resemble the clothing of the unbelievers. This is a general ruling of the ‘Sharia’h which ‎encompasses not only dress but also such things as manners, customs, religious practices and festivities, transactions, ‎etc. Indeed, dissimilarity with unbelievers is a precedent that was established by the first generation of Islam.
‘Abdullah ‎ibn ‘Amr ibn Al-’Aas said, “The Prophet (saw) saw me wearing two saffron coloured garments, so he said: ‎‎“Indeed, these are the clothes of ‘Kuffar’ (unbelievers), so do not wear them.” [Sahih Muslim]‎


The more I learn the more I despair!!
If you want to discuss that, there is a thread about it here. :)
Reply

Thinker
04-08-2009, 12:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Now, as not dressing like the kuffar, I don't see why that should make you despair either? Doesn't Ezekiel warn against women who dress to seduce?
It is my feeling that the hadiths that speak against imitating the kuffar, do so of clothes that are seductive or revealing or too obnoxious in color.

and Allah swt knows best!
Greetings Skye

I despair because I love my country and want all the citizens of that country to live in peace and harmony and work together towards common goals aimed at providing us with a secure and prosperous future. How can we work together with a group of people who make no attempt to integrate and who strive to be different for no good reason other than just to be different. It seems to me that it’s got nothing to do with dressing modestly it’s all about dressing differently. I watched a news clip yesterday of the Turkish parliament and all the women there were dressed modestly – non of them were wearing Muslim style garb. I watched the Prime Minister of Pakistan on the same news and he wore a ‘western’ style suit and does not have a beard. I am sure that of the two million Muslims in the UK most of them would be unrecognisable from the indigenous population but there is a sizeable number who seem to want to live in segregated enclaves which look more like Pakistan, where they dress like Pakistanis and where some don’t know how to speak English and who justify their style of dress as a requirement of the religion, that being to copy the life style and dress of a 7C warring tribe. I am sure there was a good reason for Mohammed to decree that Muslims in and around war torn Mecca should dress and wear their facial hair in a different style that the enemy. Does that requirement still stand because we are still the enemy?
Reply

Thinker
04-08-2009, 12:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
If you want to discuss that, there is a thread about it here. :)
Thanks - I read that and it confirms my reason for despair!!
Reply

S_87
04-08-2009, 12:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Thanks - I read that and it confirms my reason for despair!!
if you knew something was specifically muslim would you do it? do you celebrate eid? do you wear a thobe? do you pray in ur own way 5 times a day? do you fast?

or knowing jews wear skull caps, do you wear a skull cap? do you celebrate their festivals?

or christian festivals..as a non christian do you celebrate it?

Sikhs and their turbans and knife thingies- would you do it knowing its a 'sikh' thing?

Hinduas with their bindus- would you get one?

just generally speaking of course. would YOU take other religious practices and things and imitate?
Reply

Thinker
04-08-2009, 03:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
if you knew something was specifically muslim would you do it? do you celebrate eid? do you wear a thobe? do you pray in ur own way 5 times a day? do you fast?

or knowing jews wear skull caps, do you wear a skull cap? do you celebrate their festivals?

or christian festivals..as a non christian do you celebrate it?

Sikhs and their turbans and knife thingies- would you do it knowing its a 'sikh' thing?

Hinduas with their bindus- would you get one?

just generally speaking of course. would YOU take other religious practices and things and imitate?
Of course I don’t wear a skull cap or a turban, why would I am not even sure why anyone would wear either item as they appear to have no practical function. The point is, in considering what I might wear I don’t think – I must wear something that is different from what a Muslim wears. I also don’t purposely do anything that is opposite to anything Muslims do just because Muslims do it. I wear the clothes that are for sale in the shops where I live, provide a practical function and look like stuff everybody else is wearing. If I lived in Mecca I might wear the long flowing white shirt they wear because they would be readily available and suitable for that climate and I might want to ‘fit in’ rather than ‘stand out.’

Muhammad was at war with his neighbours, for some reason (possibly because opposing forces didn’t wear identifying uniforms) someone decreed that Muslims should look differently from the enemy. Whatever the reason surely God doesn’t care what style of clothing you wear?
Reply

جوري
04-08-2009, 04:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Greetings Skye

I despair because I love my country and want all the citizens of that country to live in peace and harmony and work together towards common goals aimed at providing us with a secure and prosperous future. How can we work together with a group of people who make no attempt to integrate and who strive to be different for no good reason other than just to be different. It seems to me that it’s got nothing to do with dressing modestly it’s all about dressing differently. I watched a news clip yesterday of the Turkish parliament and all the women there were dressed modestly – non of them were wearing Muslim style garb. I watched the Prime Minister of Pakistan on the same news and he wore a ‘western’ style suit and does not have a beard. I am sure that of the two million Muslims in the UK most of them would be unrecognisable from the indigenous population but there is a sizeable number who seem to want to live in segregated enclaves which look more like Pakistan, where they dress like Pakistanis and where some don’t know how to speak English and who justify their style of dress as a requirement of the religion, that being to copy the life style and dress of a 7C warring tribe. I am sure there was a good reason for Mohammed to decree that Muslims in and around war torn Mecca should dress and wear their facial hair in a different style that the enemy. Does that requirement still stand because we are still the enemy?
where I personally think that clothing in general is a frivolous topic to discuss, especially by Muslims when there are much more pressing problems like the current state they are in, as well I believe the prophet PBUH was a very wise person and many misconstrue his teachings, I still believe that people should dress as they please, you have spanish monks dressing like the KKK or I should rather say the KKK members dress like them, you also have Latvian nuns covered from head to toe... it is a matter of anonymity (see my previous post on the matter) I don't personally think that one expects to dress in niqab and expect certain interactions to occur, but it is a choice they have made and I have to respect it...

as stated above and this is my own personal belief based on the fact that women are forbidden from wearing niqab or covering their face during pilgrimage that it is a requirement only of the prophet's wives (or women of the house) due to a certain incident that happened to saida Aisha RA .. some sisters wish to be elevated to that status and they are certainly so entitled, they have my utmost respect and admiration as I am sure their lives are very difficult due to their choice... in other words let's try to make their lives easier not more difficult if we can...

peace
Reply

Muezzin
04-08-2009, 04:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by thinker
greetings skye

i despair because i love my country and want all the citizens of that country to live in peace and harmony and work together towards common goals aimed at providing us with a secure and prosperous future.
Is that so? From reading your posts, I think that you want people to conform to your own personal standards of The Way Things Ought To Be, and if they don't, they are not to be tolerated. Or rather, a cause for 'despair'.

How can we work together with a group of people who make no attempt to integrate
Yes, because absolutely no Muslims in Britain integrate whatsoever. None of them speak or read or write (or type) in English. And they all smell, have no sense of humour and have leprosy.

and who strive to be different for no good reason other than just to be different.
So, what, you don't like Goths, either? They like to be different for the sake of it. As do a bunch of people born in this country. As is their right, so long as they are not breaking any laws in so doing.

It seems to me that it’s got nothing to do with dressing modestly it’s all about dressing differently.
And how is 'dressing differently' necessarily a bad thing? You don't have to wear a uniform to be accepted as a British citizen.

'If everybody looked the same,
We'd get bored looking at each other'

I watched a news clip yesterday of the turkish parliament and all the women there were dressed modestly – non of them were wearing muslim style garb. I watched the prime minister of pakistan on the same news and he wore a ‘western’ style suit and does not have a beard. I am sure that of the two million muslims in the uk most of them would be unrecognisable from the indigenous population but there is a sizeable number who seem to want to live in segregated enclaves which look more like pakistan, where they dress like pakistanis and where some don’t know how to speak english and who justify their style of dress as a requirement of the religion, that being to copy the life style and dress of a 7c warring tribe.
1) The people who can't speak English probably first emigrated in the 70's

2) Immigration rules have now changed - immigrants must be able to speak and understand English (correct me if I'm wrong)

3) By your logic, my late grandmother, who was learning English in her final years, but dressed like a Pakistani for all of them, would be some sort of difficult fuddy-duddy brown leech on British society.

Also, I've not heard of traditional Arabian dress being described as that of a '7C Warring Tribe'. That's such an offensive stereotype, it's hilarious.

Still, the only thing cooler than that would be to emulate the garb of a 25C Warring Species:



K'Plah!

I am sure there was a good reason for mohammed to decree that muslims in and around war torn mecca should dress and wear their facial hair in a different style that the enemy. Does that requirement still stand because we are still the enemy?
Who said you(plural) are the enemy? Aside from certain whackos who claim to be Islamic but promptly drop all pretences in order to perpetrate or celebrate the murder of civilians contrary to Islamic law.

If people want to dress differently or men want to (gasp) grow facial hair, it's their right to, as long as they don't break any laws in the process.

However, I do object to women growing beards because I think freak shows are exploitative.

format_quote Originally Posted by wth1257

I would have chosen the Scream. :p
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-09-2009, 01:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
go right ahead and wear your ski mask. but dont be hypocritical and wear it only when you choose to, to spite muslim women or stir up trouble. wear it ALL THE TIME in public. including if you may have to eat out in public. or if you need a breather. or anything. wear it and keep it on. but dont choose to wear it 'because muslim women can wear a veil and i want to prove a point.' thats stupid.
You gloss over the point. There is a reason why I'm not allowed to wear a ski mask in many public places. That same reason holds true for the woman wearing the islamic face covering.

If we start making special exceptions for the religious, that is when we start down the downward spiral. This goes not only for muslims and face coverings but also for sikhs and knife carrying, jehovah's witnesses and the child neglect/abuse of forbidding their kids blood transfusions, jews and muslims and genital mutilation, etc.

If what you propose to do is not allowed in general, it should NOT be allowed just because you claim religious privilege.
Reply

جوري
04-09-2009, 02:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

If we start making special exceptions for the religious, that is when we start down the downward spiral. This goes not only for muslims and face coverings but also for sikhs and knife carrying, jehovah's witnesses and the child neglect/abuse of forbidding their kids blood transfusions, jews and muslims and genital mutilation, etc.
.
I am amused really for as much time as you have spent here, you have come to learn nothing at all, is that an atheist thing or are you too wrapped up in your own beliefs to take the time to learn about others, especially when you are such a staunch religio-phobe?

Let's sum it up for you in a nut shell so when you make analogies they can make better sense learned one!
1- A Jehovah's witness CAN'T withhold blood and/or blood transfusions to a minor unless it is a non-emergent situation. Medical ethics isn't subject to your veto one way or the other, given how poorly informed you appear!

2- Genital 'mutilation/cutting' has nothing to do with Islam, here is an article by a Muslim doctor and a Harvard graduate
Female circumcision and genital cutting
Nawal M Nour, MD, MPH



UpToDate performs a continuous review of over 375 journals and other resources. Updates are added as important new information is published. The literature review for version 15.1 is current through December 2006; this topic was last changed on June 30, 2006. The next version of UpToDate (15.2) will be released in June 2007.

INTRODUCTION — Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female circumcision or genital mutilation, is a culturally determined practice, predominantly performed in parts of Africa and Asia and affecting more than 130 million women and girls worldwide [1]. Recent immigration patterns have caused obstetricians and gynecologists throughout the world to increasingly encounter women who have experienced this practice. It is imperative that these providers understand the health and social issues related to FGC so that they can manage the immediate and long-term complications of the procedure.

TYPES — FGC refers to the manipulation or removal of external genital organs in girls and women. The World Health Organization classified FGC into four types of procedures. Type I consists of excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part of all of the clitoris. Type II involves clitoridectomy and partial or total excision of the labia minora. Type III, or infibulation, includes removing part or all of the external genitalia and reapproximation of the remnant labia majora, leaving a small neointroitus. Type IV involves other forms of injuries to the genital region including pricking, piercing, stretching, burning, scraping or any other manipulation of external genitalia [1,2].

ORIGINS AND RATIONALE — The origins of FGC are unknown, but theories as to its origins date back to ancient Egypt, pre-Islamic Arabia, ancient Rome, and Tsarist Russia [3-5]. More recently, this practice has come to represent an important rite of passage for girls into womanhood within some cultures. It is thought by some to be a religious custom, but no religion condones it. It is reinforced by customary beliefs that it maintains a girl's chastity, preserves fertility, ensures marriageability, improves hygiene, and enhances sexual pleasure for men.

In Europe and the United States, removal of the clitoris or prepuce was occasionally performed to treat clitoral enlargement, redundancy, hysteria, lesbianism, and erotomania up until the 1930s [6].

Most of the time, circumcision is done out of love. Parents initiate this procedure for their daughters, not to them. Being a wife and a mother is a woman's livelihood in these societies; thus not circumcising one's daughter is equivalent to condemning her to a life of isolation. Infibulation safeguards her virginity, preserves her chastity, and ensures her eligibility for marriage, thereby protecting her future.

Many women who have undergone FGC do not consider themselves to be mutilated. They do not believe that they are being selectively tortured because the majority of women in their community have gone through this ritual. Those who immigrate to the United States from refugee camps may be surprised to learn that most women here are not circumcised. Therefore, these women can be offended if they are referred to as having undergone genital mutilation. Instead, it is better to use the term circumcision, genital cutting, or the exact word they use in their language. Women who have undergone FGC have voiced concern that health care providers are not sensitive when broaching this subject and sometimes must be educated about this practice by the patient herself.

PROCEDURE — Circumcision is performed between the ages of 5 and 12, in some places during a celebration in which the girl receives gifts of money, gold, and clothes. Invited families and friends often bring food and music to the festivities. In other regions, however, girls are abducted in the middle of the night to be circumcised.

Nonmedically trained operators usually perform FGC. Anesthesia and antibiotics are rarely administered. The instruments used are old, rusty knives, razors, scissors, or heated pebbles, which are rarely washed between procedures. Hemostasis is assured by catgut sutures, thorns, or homemade adhesive concoctions such as sugar, egg, or animal excrement. The girl's legs are bound around the ankles and thighs for approximately one week after the procedure, and she is kept in bed. However, the circumcision can be done under more sterile conditions and an anesthetic may be administered when performed in major cities.

COMPLICATIONS AND OUTCOME — There are both short and long-term complications related to this procedure. However, health care providers should be aware that circumcised women present with a variety of complaints and their circumcision is not necessarily the problem. It is also important to stress that not all women suffer complications.

Periprocedural complications — Surgical precision can be compromised by lack of anesthesia, the struggles of the child held forcibly in the lithotomy position, and the experience of the operator. Success is often dependent upon chance, rather than accuracy. Early post-procedure complications thus include hemorrhage, infection, oliguria, and sepsis (show table 1) [7].

Long-term gynecological issues — Women who have undergone type II or III FGC tend to suffer more long-term complications than those who have undergone type I or IV. The most common long-term complications are dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and chronic vaginal infections. Other complications are related to voiding (show table 2) [8]. Meatal obstructions and urinary strictures could develop if the urethral meatus was inadvertently injured. Affected women complain of straining, urinary retention, or a slow urinary stream. An infibulated scar can also result in the urine becoming stagnant, thereby facilitating the ascent of bacteria into the urethra. Infibulated women are thus at higher risk for meatitis, urinary stones, and chronic urinary tract infections [9,10]. Other complications from scarring include fibrosis, keloids, sebaceous cysts, vulvar abscesses, and partial or total fusion of the labia minora or majora. The latter complication can lead to hematometra or hematocolpos. In addition, a small neointroitus may cause vaginismus, chronic vaginal infection, and neuromas [11,12]. The infertility rate is higher in circumcised women compared to the general population (25 to 30 versus 8 to 14 percent) [13]. The frequency of infertility appears to correlate with the anatomical extent of FGC [14]. Introital and vaginal stenosis create a physical barrier; thus, couples may attempt coitus for months before completing penetration [15]. Failure to succeed and persistent dyspareunia can lead to apareunia [16]. Infertility may also be related to tubal damage from ascending infection related to the procedure. Sexual satisfaction has been difficult to ascertain because of the sensitive nature of the topic. One survey that interviewed circumcised women reported they were able to achieve orgasm [17]. However, a study of 1836 circumcised Nigerian women found that the procedure (type 1 and II) did not attenuate sexual feelings or frequency of intercourse and was associated with a higher prevalence of abnormal vaginal discharge and pelvic pain [18]. Another study also showed that those who had undergone type III infibulation were significantly affected in terms of sex drive, arousal and orgasm when compared with those who had undergone a type I procedure [19].

Obstetrical issues

Monitoring labor — Progress of labor is typically monitored using serial cervical examinations. Performing a pelvic exam on an infibulated woman can be challenging. The narrow neointroitus can make a bimanual exam difficult, if not impossible. Obstetricians face the dilemma of either defibulating the woman early in labor or monitoring the labor via rectal exam. Neither of these is an optimum solution: early defibulation would require a very early epidural and irritation of the incision with every cervical assessment, while rectal examination of the cervix is uncomfortable and most obstetricians have no experience using this technique in labor. However, inaccurate cervical assessment is also problematic because latent phase of labor may be falsely diagnosed as active labor and lead to an unnecessary cesarean delivery. Other challenges include difficulties placing a fetal scalp electrode, intrauterine pressure catheter, or Foley catheter and performing fetal scalp pH.

The infibulated scar can prolong only the second stage of labor, probably because the scar may obstruct crowning and delivery [20]. A defibulation procedure during the second trimester is strongly recommended to prevent this problem [21].

Pregnancy outcome — A WHO study group compared obstetrical outcomes of women with and without FGC (n=7171 no FGC, 6856 FGC 1, 7771 FGC II, 6595 FGC III) [22]. Women with FGC II and III, but not FGC I, were at significantly higher risk of cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, and extended maternal hospital stay, and their infants were at significantly higher risk of requiring resuscitation and of dying in the hospital than women without FGC. The risks were higher in women with FGC III than FGC II. Nulliparous and parous women with FGC I, II, and III had higher rates of episiotomy and perineal tears than women without FGC.

DEFIBULATION COUNSELING AND PROCEDURE — Women seek defibulation because they are pregnant or planning pregnancy, or because of apareunia/dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea, or difficulty urinating [23].

The optimum time to defibulate a woman is prior to coitus to prevent dyspareunia or prior to pregnancy to prevent obstetric complications. What is medically beneficial to the woman, however, may not necessarily be the best time for her. As discussed above, one of the reasons for female circumcision is to ensure virginity. Therefore, these women may prefer to marry and prove their virginal status prior to defibulation.

Defibulation can be performed during pregnancy. A woman may require multiple prenatal visits before she finally consents to the procedure [21]. Counseling her about the risks of delivery with an infibulated scar is critical; the risks (eg, bleeding, infection, scar formation, preterm labor) and benefits of defibulation must also be reviewed and she should be aware that her urinary stream will feel different (increased).

Surgery during the second trimester under regional anesthesia decreases both obstetrical and fetal risks. General anesthesia is an alternative, but local anesthesia is not a good choice because women sometimes develop flashbacks from their circumcision.

One series of 32 patients who underwent defibulation reported that all of the women and their husbands were satisfied with the results [23].

Technique — The infibulated scar is a flap obstructing the introitus and urethra that must be excised. The steps in the procedure are as follows [23]: Place regional or general analgesics and long-acting local anesthesia. Insert a Kelly clamp under the scar to delineate its length (show picture 1). Palpate anteriorly to assess whether the clitoris is buried under the scar). Place two Allis clamps along the infibulated scar Make an anterior incision between the two Allis clamps with Mayo scissors, being certain not to cut into a buried clitoris (show picture 2A-2B). The goal is to view the introitus and urethra easily (show picture 3). There is no need to incise too anteriorly towards the clitoral region. Place (4.0) subcuticular sutures on each side (show picture 4 and show picture 5).

Postoperatively, instruct the patient to take sitz baths twice each day. Lidocaine cream (2 percent) can be applied after the sitz bath. Opioid analgesics taken as needed for one or two days is usually adequate for postoperative pain control [24].

A treatment technique using carbon dioxide laser surgery has also been described [25].

REINFIBULATION — Some women who have just given birth will request immediate reinfibulation. The procedure may create the long-term complications previously mentioned and should be strongly discouraged. The woman may only feel comfortable being infibulated; her request should be respected. The United States passed a law in March 1997 that made performing any medically unnecessary surgery on the genitalia of a girl younger than 18 years of age a federal crime. However, reinfibulation was not included as a federal crime, so it may be performed with absorbable sutures in a running fashion if a woman strongly insists upon the procedure [26].

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are four types of female genital cutting. (See "Types" above). The number of African immigrants and refugees coming into the United States is increasing, bringing renewed interest in unique cultural traditions [27]. The most important aspect of caring for circumcised women is to develop a trusting relationship. Obstetrician-gynecologists should move beyond the scar and address the woman's health needs, such as pregnancy tests, annual Papanicolaou smears, mammograms, and hormone replacement therapy recommendations. Cultural awareness and sensitivity regarding the procedure are crucial. (See "Origins and rationale" above). Potential problems after female genital cutting include dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic vaginal and bladder infections, voiding difficulties, fibrosis, keloids, sebaceous cysts, vulvar abscesses, infertility, and difficulty with pelvic examinations, coitus, and vaginal delivery. (See "Complications and outcome" above). We suggest defibulation prior to coitus to prevent dyspareunia or prior to pregnancy to prevent problems with vaginal delivery (Grade 2C). (See "Defibulation counseling and procedure" above).


Use of UpToDate is subject to the Subscription and License Agreement. REFERENCES 1. Female Genital Mutilation. A joint WHO/UNICEF UNFPA statement. World Health Organization 1997.
2. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/facts.../en/index.html. (Accessed 3/21/2006).
3. Hedley, R, Dorkenoo, E. Child protection and female genital mutilation advice for health, education and social professionals. London: FORWARD, 1992.
4. Hosken, RP. The Hosken Report Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females. Lexington: Women International Network News, 1994.
5. Shandall, AA. Circumcision and infibulation of females: a general consideration of the problem and a clinical study of the complications in Sudanese women. Sudan Med J 1967; 5:178.
6. Sheehan, E. Victorian clitoroidectomy. Medical Anthropology Newsletter 1981; 10.
7. Dirie, MA, Lindmark, G. The risk of medical complications after female circumcision. East Afr Med J 1992; 69:479.
8. Ozumba, BC. Acquired gynetresia in eastern Nigeria. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1992; 37:105.
9. Agugua, NE, Egwuatu, VE. Female circumcision: management of urinary complications. J Trop Pediatr 1982; 28:248.
10. Nour, NM. Urinary calculus associated with female genital cutting. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:521.
11. Toubia, N. Female circumcision as a public health issue. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:712.
12. Fernandez-Aguilar, S, Noel, JC. Neuroma of the clitoris after female genital cutting. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101:1053.
13. Macleod, T. Female genital mutilation. J SOGC 1995; 4:333.
14. Almroth, L, Elmusharaf, S, El Hadi, N, et al. Primary infertility after genital mutilation in girlhood in Sudan: a case-control study. Lancet 2005; 366:385.
15. El Dareer, A. Women Why Do You Weep? Zed Press, London 1982.
16. Aziz, FA. Gynecologic and obstetric complications of female circumcision. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1980; 17:560.
17. Lightfoot-Klein, H, Shaw, E. Special needs of ritually circumcised women patients. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1991; 20:102.
18. Okonofu, FE, Larsen, U, Oronsaye, F, et al. The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria. BJOG 2002; 109:1089.
19. Thabet, SM, Thabet, AS. Defective sexuality and female circumcision: the cause and the possible management. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2003; 29:12.
20. De Silva, S. Obstetric sequelae of female circumcision. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1989; 32:233.
21. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Female circumcision/Female Genital Mutilation: Clinical management of circumcised women. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC 1999.
22. Banks, E, Meirik, O, Farley, T, et al. Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. Lancet 2006; 367:1835.
23. Nour, NM, et al. Defibulation to treat female genital cutting. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108:55.
24. Nour, NM. Female genital cutting: clinical and cultural guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2004; 59:272.
25. Penna, C, Fallani, MG, Fambrini, M, et al. Type III female genital mutilation: Clinical implications and treatment by carbon dioxide laser surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187:1550.
26. Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996. Public Law 104 -140, 11O Stat 1327, 1996.
27. www.brighamandwomens.org/africanwomenscenter. (Accessed 3/21/200
I don't know the first thing about sikhs, but do know quite a few things about atheists, as they appear with every post to be a most undereducated and intolerant bunch!

all the best!
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-06-2010, 04:51 PM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 03:08 AM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 06:13 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 06:56 PM
  5. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 02:20 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!