Veil Off........and i will hear you out - Page 9

Created

Last reply

Replies

100

Views

6160

Users

16

Likes

1

Frequent Posters

zoya786uk thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
Aishah Azmi was given 1,100.00 for being victamised please!!!

'No discrimination' in veil row

Ms Azmi is appealing against the dismissal of her claims


Ms Azmi's reaction
A Muslim classroom assistant suspended by a school for wearing a veil in lessons has lost her claim of religious discrimination at a tribunal.
Aishah Azmi, 23, was asked to remove the veil after the school in Dewsbury, W Yorks, said pupils found it hard to understand her.

The tribunal dismissed her claims of religious discrimination and harassment on religious grounds.

But Kirklees Council was ordered to pay her 1,100 for victimising her.

Ms Azmi, a married mother-of-one, said she would be appealing against the decision to dismiss her religious discrimination claims.

In a statement she criticised ministers who had intervened in the case and said it made her "fearful of the consequences for Muslim women in this country who want to work".

She said: "However, I am pleased that the tribunal have recognised the victimising way in which the school and the local education authority have handled this matter and the distress that has caused me."

Muslim women who wear the veils are not aliens

Aishah Azmi


Send us your views

The case attracted comments from Prime Minister Tony Blair, who backed Kirklees Council for suspending Ms Azmi.

Mr Blair said the wearing of a full face veil was a "mark of separation" and made some "outside the community feel uncomfortable".

The government's race minister Phil Woolas demanded Ms Azmi to be sacked, accusing her of "denying the right of children to a full education".

Ms Azmi, who is originally from Cardiff, said: "Muslim women who wear the veils are not aliens, and politicians need to recognise that what they say can have a very dangerous impact on the lives of the minorities they treat as outcasts.

"I will continue to uphold my religious beliefs and urge Muslims to engage in dialogue with the wider community, despite the attacks that are being made upon them."


Tony Blair said wearing full face veils was a "mark of separation"

Headfield Church of England Junior School, which has 546 pupils, suspended Ms Azmi because it said pupils found it hard to understand her during lessons.

Kirklees Council said the decision was taken after a monitoring period in which the impact of wearing the veil on the teaching and learning was studied.

It said: "In this case the school and local authority had to balance the rights of the children to receive the best quality education possible and Mrs Azmi's desire to express her cultural beliefs by wearing a veil in class.

"The education of the children is of paramount importance and it is disappointing that the school was unable to reach a compromise with Mrs Azmi in this case."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6066726.stm
Minnie thumbnail
Anniversary 19 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: zoya786uk


I don't understand the need to wear something as severe as the niqab, but I respect those who bear this endurance test - the staring, the swearing, the discomfort, the loss of identity. I wear my robes to meet a friend in Notting Hill for dinner that night. "It's not you really, is it?" she asks.

No, it's not. I prefer not to wear my religion on my sleeve ... or on my face.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1924101,00.html

    I think this is exactly what I have been trying to say ..........the discomfort, the loss of identity......it can't be easy for a woman, any woman.......but then possibly in most such cases they haven't known or even considered any other way .......

   And these racist people.............they should be hanged.....😡. They are as much a culprit of the unrest in the world as the terrorists are 😡.

Edited by Minnie - 17 years ago
Minnie thumbnail
Anniversary 19 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla


Harbhajan did an alcohol commercial recently with open hair. He had to apologize -not for promoting alcohol but for keeping hair open.

alchohol chalega but khule baal nahi 😲.....what kind of reasoning is that

Edited by Minnie - 17 years ago
punjini thumbnail
Anniversary 18 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail Engager 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: amy22

 
You put it so well.

 

It has been made clear by the leaders that it is the face-covering which leads to problems in communication. It has been explained to death that the face is most important for communication. We cannot talk to veils.


Where does breast-exposure come into the topic?
punjini thumbnail
Anniversary 18 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail Engager 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
My question to zoya786uk and amy22:
In India, there is a sect of Jains which believes in going stark naked. For them renunciation means renouncing even the clothes one wears. Now, if the Jains in UK start clamouring for their right to go stark naked and if the government says it is against the laws of the state, will you continue your stance on "respect of individual beliefs"?
Minnie thumbnail
Anniversary 19 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: punjini

My question to zoya786uk and amy22:
In India, there is a sect of Jains which believes in going stark naked. For them renunciation means renouncing even the clothes one wears. Now, if the Jains in UK start clamouring for their right to go stark naked and if the government says it is against the laws of the state, will you continue your stance on "respect of individual beliefs"?

And all those nanga sadhus of Khumbh mela.....

corvette thumbnail
Anniversary 17 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail Engager 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
I'm sure all readers here will have heard of the phrase " beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder"

My opinion about sharam/haya/respect generally, is exactly the same.

If Islam does not require you to be naqab'ed but to maintain dignity and respect by covering up arms, hair/legs etc, then I'll accept that.

But then practising Muslims should also be actively denegrating the practice of wearing a Naqab as unecessary, not a requirement of Islam and a customary or cultural practice of individuals that should be distanced from Islam.

Although there are some that point this out, there are certainly not enough Muslims doing so.

A woman is not like a piece of food that should have to be covered up to prevent flies(men) getting to it.

It is NOT good enough to say the Naqab is preventative of sin - Allah Mian also granted his children intelligence and the capability to respect others which should extend to men and women equally to be respectful of each other.

Wearing a Naqab doesnt make you a better Muslim than those that dont.

Muslim mothers, like all others, should teach their sons to respect women and that respect should reflect in their eyes when they speak, communicate ond interact with women.

If this were to happen and our own women could start changing their own attitudes intead of being woman's worst enemy, then believe me,

the Naqab would become redundant.

It is Muslim women themselves who can make a difference here, if they so wish to do.

😡 Madds 😡
punjini thumbnail
Anniversary 18 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail Engager 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
Well said Madmadgirl! You don't appear to be mad at all! 😊
amy22 thumbnail
Anniversary 17 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail Engager 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: punjini

My question to zoya786uk and amy22:
In India, there is a sect of Jains which believes in going stark naked. For them renunciation means renouncing even the clothes one wears. Now, if the Jains in UK start clamouring for their right to go stark naked and if the government says it is against the laws of the state, will you continue your stance on "respect of individual beliefs"?

 

Punjini, there is a difference between a person who's covering his body and one who's undressed.

While walking around naked is a disgrace for a person, covering yourself is not. How are you supposed to respect a person who does not feel ashamed in walking around naked?

Even in our lives we see that women who wear way too revealing clothes are often called 'sluts' and smiliar. I'm not saying that they have lose characters... but this is what we get to hear very often and how people tend to call them.

 

zoya786uk thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: punjini

My question to zoya786uk and amy22:
In India, there is a sect of Jains which believes in going stark naked. For them renunciation means renouncing even the clothes one wears. Now, if the Jains in UK start clamouring for their right to go stark naked and if the government says it is against the laws of the state, will you continue your stance on "respect of individual beliefs"?

What a ridiculous example you have just given. Are you possibly comparing both the veil and prancing around naked of the same nature. It isn't against the law in th UK to wear a niqab as it doesn't in any form or shape offend others whereas walking around bare in public is! I still do therefore stand by any woman wanting to wear an niqab, you see i'm not so narrow minded that i can't respect and tolerate ones values and beliefs.