Sunday, March 19, 2006

Hijab In The Workplace

The Hijab or clothing for Muslims in the workplace is often a touchy subject. This is especially so in countries or places where Muslims are a minority.

The problems are usually due lack of information on the part of management on the religious requirements of the Muslim employee.

In this light I am posting a Q and A article published by
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which I think is universally relevant no matter if the Muslim is a minority or otherwise at the workplace.

Hijab In The Workplace

Q. What are the requirements for Muslim women’s dress?

A: Rules regarding Muslim women’s (and men’s) attire are derived from the Quran, Islam’s revealed text, and the traditions (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

In the Quran, God states: “Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty…And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and adornments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers…(a list of exceptions)” [Chapter 24, verses 30-31]

Also, “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons…that they should be known and not molested.” [Chapter 33, verse 59]

In one tradition, the Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying: “…If the woman reaches the age of puberty, no part of her body should be seen but this — and he pointed to his face and hands.”

From these and other references, the vast majority of Muslim scholars and jurists, past and present, have determined the minimum requirements for Muslim women’s dress: 1) Clothing must cover the entire body, with the exception of the face and the hands. 2) The attire should not be form fitting, sheer or so eye-catching as to attract undue attention or reveal the shape of the body.

There are similar, yet less obvious requirements for a Muslim male’s attire. 1) A Muslim man must always be covered from the navel to the knees. 2) A Muslim man should similarly not wear tight, sheer, revealing, or eye-catching clothing. In addition, a Muslim man is prohibited from wearing silk clothing (except for medical reasons) or gold jewelry. A Muslim woman may wear silk or gold.

(References: “The Muslim Woman’s Dress,” Dr. Jamal Badawi, Ta-Ha Publishers; “Hijab in Islam,” Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Al-Risala Books; “The Islamic Ruling Regarding Women’s Dress,” Abu Bilal Mustafa Al-Kanadi, Abul-Qasim Publishing; “Islamic Dress,” Muslim Women of Minnesota; “Your Hijab and U.S. Law,” North American Council for Muslim Women)

Q. Is Islamic dress appropriate for modern times?

A: Islamic dress is modern and practical. Muslim women wearing Islamic dress work and study without any problems or constraints.

Q. Does Islamic dress imply that women are submissive or inferior to men?

A: Islamic dress is one of many rights granted to Islamic women. Modest clothing is worn in obedience to God and has nothing to do with submissiveness to men. Muslim men and women have similar rights and obligations and both submit to God.

Q. But aren’t there Muslim women who do not wear Islamic Dress, or hijab?

A: Some Muslim women choose not to wear hijab. Some may want to wear it but believe they cannot get a job wearing a head scarf. Others may not be aware of the requirement or are under the mistaken impression that wearing hijab is an indication of inferior status.

Q. Why is Islamic dress becoming an issue for personnel managers and supervisors?

A: The Muslim community in American is growing rapidly. Growth factors include conversions to Islam, immigration from Muslim countries and high birth rates for Muslim families. As the community grows, more Muslim women will enter the work force. In many cases, these women wish both to work and to maintain their religious convictions. It should be possible to fulfill both goals.

Q. What issues do Muslim women face in the workplace?

A: Muslim women report that the issue of attire comes up most often in the initial interview for a job. Some interviewers will ask if the prospective employee plans to wear the scarf to work. Others may inappropriately inquire about religious practices or beliefs. Sometimes the prospective employee, feeling pressure to earn a living, will take off the scarf for the interview and then put it on when hired for the job. Modest dress should not be equated with incompetence.

Other issues include unwanted touching or pulling on scarves by other employees, verbal harassment or subtle ostracism and denial of promotion. Many Muslims also object to being pressured to attend celebrations of other religious traditions or to attend employer-sponsored celebrations at which alcohol is served.

Q. What can an employer reasonably require of a woman wearing hijab?

A: An employer can ask that an employee’s attire not pose a danger to that employee or to others. For example, a Muslim woman who wears her head scarf so that loose ends are exposed should not be operating a drill press or similar machinery. That employee could be asked to arrange her hijab so that the loose ends are tucked in. An employer can ask that the hijab be neat and clean and in a color that does not clash with a company uniform.

Q. What are the legal precedents on this issue?

A: Many cases have demonstrated an employee’s legal right to reasonable accommodation in matters of faith. Examples:

  1. The failure of other Muslim employees to wear headscarves is legally irrelevant. The employee need only show sincerely-held religious beliefs. (E.E.O.C. v. Reads, Inc., 1991)
  2. There are no health or safety concerns at issue. (Cf. E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 82-1, 1982, also E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 81-20, 1981)
  3. Companies cannot give effect to private biases. In other words, just because an employer believes customers will be prejudiced against a woman in a scarf, that does not mean the employee can be fired. (Palmer v. Sidoti, 1984, also Cf. Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 1971)
  4. An employer must demonstrate “undue hardship” caused by the wearing of religious attire. (TWA v. Hardison, 1977) Hardships recognized by the courts include cost to the employer or effect on co-workers.
  5. Dress codes can have disproportionate impact on certain faiths. (E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 71-2620, 1971, also E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 71-779, 1970)
© 1998 CAIR. All Rights Reserved.

4 Comments:

At 6:30 PM, Blogger keropok lekor said...

Hi there,

Thanks for posting something thoughtful in my blog.

Perhaps I can't say much about this issue as I am not an adherent of the Islamic religion. If this post challenges your conscience, I wish to convey my deepest apologies. Yea, itjihad (forgive me if my spelling is incorrect) is something that is needed to reinterpret sacred texts in light of the changing world. By this I am not saying that God's Word is supposed to be changed, to suit human's desire. But rather it is relooked as the way it is, within the context when the revealed Word is given centuries ago, to apply it in terms of today's challenges.

Perhaps one of the reason that ithjihad has not been done is due to the reason that there is not many people in Malaysia or perhaps in the Muslim world that wants to engage in itjihad, due to the feeling that they are not 'qualified' enough. Prominent scholars at the other hand may perhaps feel that there is no need for further rediscovery of the meanings in sacred texts. Yea, issues of such complicated nature is not easy to deal with. There is no hierarchy within the Muslim world to recognise official scholars or theologians, thus making no one doing the initiating work, perhaps.

But coming back to my own understanding of the history and traditions within the Christian world. In the past, the Vulgate or the Latin scripture is exclusive for the clergy within the Catholic church, and religious education or knowledge is limited to few. There is no scripture in vernacular language, and believers are told to believe what they are taught without challenge, argument or thinking. Difference in interpretation is not tolerated. Matters regarding the doctrine, rituals and law are only discussed within the hierarchy of the Church, with the normal uneducated simple lay men know nothing about. Legalism and judgemental spirit creeps in as the Church tries to force 'religion' to the people. Church becomes an cultural institution rather than a place where people seek God intimately and connect spiritually. Faith in God becomes a package in life, rather than a choice in life.

It became a dead 'religiousity'. Christianity becomes a culture rather than a living faith. Believers could not actively take part intellectually in developing their faith and relationship with God, but passively doing rituals as part of the popular culture of the day, and giving the privilege of authority to the religious ones to dictate how should they live, rather than discovering it by their own.

But by God's intervention in changing history, things change. The scripture is available to all, in a form they can appreciate, understand and apply practically in their daily life. They can think and choose for themselves either to choose worldly values or Godly values, through personal discovery and conviction of God's truth. While the principles remain, the methods of religious life change in order to make the faith relevant to the changing world. I personally believe that God's way is not too high that its exclusive for the knowledgable few, but its relevant and applicable even to the simplest matter of life. None of us can fathom the mind of God, or even can give the best interpretation of God's Word, but that shouldn't stop us from living the way we believe God wants us to.

Public debate may perhaps be too outrageous and oblivious to the sensitive nature of the Malaysian society. Perhaps what could have been done are efforts to see through this issue in a new light, according to the Quran and Sunnah alone. Scholars must be willing to put away their personal preference or existing school of thought, to be truly consistent with the revelation of the Quran and Hadis, which I believe upholds justice and equality. They must perhaps be more open to differing views and be more critical in making any judgements, even on well-established interpretations.

This is my view.

 
At 12:29 AM, Blogger kilamxx said...

Hi fauzi,
Thanks for contributing your views on the subject of public debates on Islamic law.

Ijtihad has always been an important part of the development of Islamic jurisprudence right from its earliest years even before the four main schools of thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiee and Hanbali) were established. The Prophet’s (Peace Be Upon Him) companions were practicing ijtihad when they had no direct access to him.

It should be noted however that ijtihad can only be exercised when there is no clear ruling within the Qur'an or Sunnah with regards to a particular matter. Ijtihad is therefore essentially the last resort, it cannot be utilised when solutions are evident in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and crucially ijtihad can never be exercised when it is in violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

There exist certain groups of individuals in Malaysia who profess to be Muslims, calling for open public debates of Islamic law. The ultimate aim of these individuals are to create an environment whereby they can advance the legislation of Islamic laws which are based on the latest feminist cause transplanted from the West. It is completely unacceptable that views on matters related to Islam be represented by anyone applying only their human opinions and benchmarks.

Note: The above comments from fauzi and myself are in reference to the article by Zainah Anwar which fauzi posted on his blog at http://extremeweight.blogspot.com

I am posting the Zainah Anwar article and my original comment above.

 
At 6:02 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Those that insist on enforcing women’s dress codes which, in the most conservative examples, force women to go about in what could be viewed as ‘sacks’ with eye holes cut in them are not, in my view, protecting the honour of women. Rather they are dishonouring themselves by demonstrating that they don’t have the strength of character, sincerity of spirit or personal will to control their own basest instincts. The emotional (EQ) and spiritual (SQ) quotients of intelligence seem to be lacking in many. IQ is a ‘fluke’ and is not enough, the other two quotients are essential in large amounts to overcome personal stupidity or is it that they suffer from plain old ‘dumbness’ borne of a cultural indoctrination that looks to the past and pleads for the return of the ‘dark ages’!

 
At 10:35 PM, Blogger syahi said...

read urdu al risala here:

http://www.dar-ut-tazkeer.com/tazkeer/

 

Post a Comment

<< Home