Epigraph:
Article 1.
- “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Source: The Guardian
Supreme court votes 8-1 that Samantha Elauf faced discrimination after company said wearing the head scarf violated its ‘look policy’ for members of sales staff
Samantha Elauf, who was denied a sales job in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. For the Muslim Times’ collection of articles on Hijab
The US supreme court on Monday ruled in favour of a Muslim woman who filed a lawsuit after she was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.
On an 8-1 vote, the court handed a win to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that sued the company on behalf of Samantha Elauf. She was denied a sales job in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, when she was 17.
The legal question before the court was whether Elauf was required to ask for a religious accommodation in order for the company to be sued under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, bans employment discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.
Elauf was wearing a head scarf, or hijab, at the job interview but did not specifically say that as a Muslim she wanted the company to give her a religious accommodation.
The company denied Elauf the job on the grounds that wearing the scarf violated its “look policy” for members of the sales staff, a policy intended to promote the brand’s east coast collegiate image.
Muslim groups said in a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Elauf that employment discrimination against Muslims is widespread in the US. Often, the act of a woman wearing a head scarf is what triggers the discrimination, according to the brief.
The EEOC has reported that Muslims file more employment claims about discrimination and the failure to provide religious accommodations than any other religious group.
Groups representing Christians, Jews and Sikhs also filed court papers backing Elauf.
Categories: Americas, Court Ruling, Discrimination, Hijab, United States, Women In islam
Well done supreme court!
Veil is a sign of woman liberation from Current Naked liberalism, unethical fashion, social harassment, over consciousness about figure etc and become a sex icon and toy of the troy.
Veil is not mere name of piece of cloth but it also has complete women education and training to enjoy her full, fledge life without any fear and become tradable commodity and symbol of enjoyment.
Europe is needlessly focussing the “veil issue” which relates to the lives of a very small portion of European society. It is estimated that there are only about 2000 Muslim women in France and 30 in Belgium who wear burqa. European Establishments concern with the affairs of such a tiny minority represents a clear instance of cultural bigotry. Those wearing burqa were ridiculed as “walking-coffins” or ” asymmetrical cylinders”. In very cold winter people walk about with scarves tightly wrapped around their face. In those cases no security issue arises, but the wearing of burqa raises security concern. Burqa is regarded as a symbol of male domination by the self-proclaimed torchbearers of liberty but they do not know that Islam gave women the rights that the west could not even think about till 20th century. Burqa is worn as a matter of choice. Nowadays young women choose to wear full veil seeing it as a powerful statement of identity, The parliaments of various European countries are voting to legislate the banning of the veils, In Switzerland a ban on minarets was imposed. The campaign against Islamic symbols is on the rise because of a sense of insecurity in some Europeans. A ban on the burqa is bound to widen the differences rather than bridging them. It will just encourage discrimination against Muslims in European society.
Niqab is part of freedom of expression and religion. It might be something you don’t like or respect, but it is the choice of women to make, if they want to cover their faces then they should and in many societies are free to do so.
Wearing the Niqab has never been a security threat, and if one was to say in case it becomes a security threat, let’s BAN women from expressing their beliefs and determining for themselves what they want, then I say INCREASE and IMPROVE the security of institutions.
There might be some Muslims who deny the niqab as having any legitimate basis in Islam, but when faced with evidence from Islamic traditions, I wonder, what evidence to they bring to support their preposterous arguments.
And, Let’s for the sake of the argument say this has nothing to do with Islam, it still has everything to do with the right of women to determine for themselves how they want to dress.
According to some western feminists, ban on burqa is violation of fundamental human right to choice for dress. To them the law does not aim at defending Muslim women rights but restricting the same. The burqa ban is, in fact, liberticidal, they argue. And it will not defend women dignity but increase racist aggression against Muslim women wearing veils.
The niqab, hijab, and burqa are all Islamic, as they have been customary in parts of the Muslim world and are bound up in Muslim scripture and tradition for hundreds of years. Such clothes may very well have been inherited by Islam from pre-Islamic cultures, too. But that doesn’t change the fact that the clothes are closely identified with Islam. As for any rules REQUIRING or BANNING clothes are unnecessary.
Not covering whole face or not is up to interpretation of various schools of thought and they shall be accountable on their intentions behind interpretation but I have numerous examples around me where women are doing complete veil and they are very much professional and active in every walk of life and living a very “respectable” and healthy life along with every contemporary suitable fashion and ornaments they may feel comfortable with.
IA
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
@Iftikhar Ahmad:
Please stop telling women what to do, how to act, dress, and think.
Cogratulations Samantha Elauf that you did not compromise with your faith for a job. At the same time We must appreciate Supreme Court of that country where nacked liberalism, unethical fashion, social harassment & over- consciousness have become the way of life.Thanks God the court did not say that by using hejab Elauf is hurtng their sentiments which is punishable . This judgment should be a lesson to the judges of muslim countries who do injustice . May Allah open their eyes .
@Syed Aftab Alam
“At the same time We must appreciate Supreme Court of that country where nacked liberalism, unethical fashion, social harassment & over- consciousness have become the way of life.”
What a bigoted, xenophobic comment. What makes you think you have the right to judge another individual’s choice of dress as “unethical”?
I am not commenting upon the life style of people . I was comparing between two concepts . The genral concept of American society is what I have written . I appreciated the people living there that they donot claim of being custodian of all goodness but this judgment proves that they are better from those who not only claim to be custodian of all goodness but also doing Jehad.