Muslim: Fired over beard

[forgethell]

OK, I got al het up over the woman who was fired for eating a BLT. This time I'm on the side of the Muslim. What's your opinion?


http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004370419,00.html

[Dhalgren]

1. I can't tell from the article

whether there was discrimination or not. If he was fired because of his beard, then yes, he should win his caes; if he was let go for poor performance, then no, and his suit hurts all of those with legitimate complints.

[T_i_B]

6. That's cos' it's the Sun

Rupert Murdoch's notoriously trashy right wing tabloid. Never a good source for anything other than page 3 girls.

Here's a story about Virgin trains from a proper source though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1279120,00.html

[SemperEadem]

73. well, that's the catch-all reason companies use to justify

workplace harassment against an employee. If he had such poor performance, did he get a job review and have it brought to his attention? Or was commanding him to shave off his beard the "job review"?

The fact that his supervisor had a beard that no was was ordering to be shaved tells me that this is nothing but blatant religious discrimination based upon ignorance of other cultures.

[dedhed]

2. Not enough info...

Virgin told an employment tribunal Mr Mohmed, of Ilford, Essex, was fired for poor performance, not his beard.

It also doesn't help his case that Virgin let him wear that turban.

What is Mr. Mohmed's idea of "humiliated" and "harassed," versus how a court would define that?

Unless Mr. Mohmed has quantifiable proof that he was fired because of his beard, this will be nothing but a case of "he said" vs. "they said." But Virgin would probably settle out of court to avoid more embarrassing headlines.

:bounce:

[TX-RAT]

3. What the hell

Well, where i worked we were not allowed beards, only mustaches, and they were to be neatly trimmed.I personally don't have a problem with company established dress codes.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Only a "chin"

model should be harrassed over the issue of a beard.... like the hand models on QVC.... I just wouldn't be able to handle a massively hairy hand demoing jewelry (male or female). It would not only obstruct the view of the merchandise... but it would be scary too. Just my 3 cents.

[Dhalgren]

7. It becomes a completely different issue

when the beard is a religious symbol and not just a cover for bad skin or a poorly formed chin. This isn't the kind of thing where a company gets to make that decision. That would be discrimination against a person's religion, not his sense of style.

[TX-RAT]

8. Do i have to recognize it as a religious symbol?

What if i recognize no religions?

[Dhalgren]

10. This isn't about what you respect or recognize,

this is about religious freedom. If a society has freedom of religion, it is meaningless if it does not also include civil rights. An individual may personally hold any views he or she wishes, but those views may not infringe upon the rights of another citizen. A conpany cannot discriminate against a person's established religious tenets. If a beard is an established, religious symbol, then it must be respected - regardless of the views held by any one individual.

[TX-RAT]

11. If i own the company, and i say no beards.

Then are you saying i have to hire someone with a beard if he applies for the job I'm offering.

[Dhalgren]

12. Right. You can't just say "no beards because I don't like

them". If you have some legally justifiable reason for whisker prohibition, then that would be a different matter. But, just saying, "I don't like skin color that is darker than olive, so I don't have to hire anyone with that skin tone", won't work. Again, this isn't a question of style, it is a question of religious confiction. To tell a Sihk that he can not have a job with your company because you don't like beards is just as discriminatory as telling an African American that he/she can't have a job because you don't like his/her skin color.

[TX-RAT]

13. I believe we were talking about beards, not skin color.

Seems to me it would be his choice, shave the beard and go to work or keep the beard and look somewhere else. There are several industries and agencies that have a no beard policy. My department has always had a no beard policy.

[Dhalgren]

15. A Sihk could no more shave his beard than a person can

change his skin color. If your company has a "no beards" policy based purely on prejustice, then your company is a civil rights law suit waiting to happen. Again, this is just like saying, "anyone who works for my company has to eat pork, every day, in our lunchroom or they can't work here". This is religious discrimination and no amount of "P-C aversion" can change that.

[TX-RAT]

17. Interesting

(If your company has a "no beards" policy based purely on prejustice, then your company is a civil rights law suit waiting to happen.)
We've never been challenged, nor have any similar Dept's been challenged. When we agreed to work here we also agreed to no beards. No surprises here. It just seems to me, this might not be an area where he would choose to work. But to change department policy's just to oblige him, just don't seem right.

[Dhalgren]

18. But discriminating against his religion does "seem right" to you?

[TX-RAT]

22. Sorry, i never said that.

I'm arguing dress codes and you want to argue religion. As i said before, if he shaved off the beard, it's no problem. Nobody works in our department with a beard. Religion has nothing to do with it.

[Dhalgren]

26. Shaving off his beard would be like spitting on the cross

for a Christian. It is not something that they can do and still practice their religion. I don't understand why you can't understand this simple point.

[TX-RAT]

35. It's a damn dress code that has nothing to do with religion.

[Dhalgren]

52. It has nothing to do with your religion, but that

doesn't mean that it "has nothing to do with religion". I'm sorry that you can't see that.

[TX-RAT]

57. Can't see what's not there

His company policy says no beard, and nothing more. My department policy's say, no beard, if i choose to grow one i would have been fired. Simple as that. Nowhere does religion play into this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. See post #55 for a link to the UK law

which is what is under discussion here (if 'his company policy' erferes to the man in the original post, anyway).

[Occulus]

67. However, this is a case where

the dress code does touch religion for a prospective employee. Your arguments that "it's your company" just don't wash:

My roommate worked for a fast food place a couple years ago; let's just say they had a "problem" with his wearing of religious items on his person (pentacle ring and pendant) while he was working.

As it turns out, the law states that the employer must show an overriding reason, beyond it simply being company policy, why he should be denied to wear those items. We discovered that no employer has the right to prohibit religious items or modes of dress unless it interferes directly with the performance of the job in question. Simply imposing a dress code which prohibits beards does not and cannot forbid a Muslim employee from wearing one, and other employees have no right to wear one unless it is part of their religion.

Yes, this is about giving an employee preferential or different treatment based upon their religion, but it applies to all employers. Even in the Postal Service (my employer), Christian employees who adhere to the Biblical prohibition are not required to work Sundays as a rule; this even though there is a twelve year or so wait to get a bid job with weekends off. Muslim employees are similarly protected regarding their choice of clothing, so long as the traditional dress does not impede the performance of their job.

Simply crying "it's my business and I can impose whatever policies I like" just does not cut it and can be construed as illegal if it involves an employee's religion. The flip side of this is that the employee is required to notify you of any special religious considerations prior to their being hired- but those considerations are not, in and of themselves, grounds to refuse employment. As an employer, you must show an overriding reason why the employee should not be allowed their own religion's clothing or other special emblems to be displayed.

[Carni]

58. Tha article states the guy is a Muslim

Not a Sihk and the Sihks I know certainly don't have eight inch beards they won't trim blowing in the breeze.

The man himself even admits his religion mandates a four inch beard...this sounds to me like the guy just refused to keep the beard in good grooming order in general and the last time I checked being unkempt is not a requirement in any religion.

[Misunderestimator]

16. I suppose since some of the offices where I work still have "dress codes"

that require women to wear hose if they wear skirts is good for you too? I ignore those policies entirely. A company can expect me to dress professionally, but they cannot dictate exactly how I should dress.

I would like to know how your department thinks that having a beard would be detrimental to performing one's duties.

[TX-RAT]

19. having a beard would be detrimental to performing one's duties

Personally i don't think it would be detrimental, to performing one's duties.

[Bowline]

23. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it's a private company.

If one doesn't like company policy then one should seek other employment.

[TX-RAT]

25. I agree

Private company's have the right to establish their own policy's.

[Bowline]

28. Well dang! It seems we actually do have some common ground...

...outside of the Gundgeon, that is.

[TX-RAT]

37. Now thats just scary.

[Bowline]

39. LOL! Stranger things have happened.

I can't cite one off the top of my head, but I'm sure they have.

[Dhalgren]

27. So if a private bus company says blacks aren't alowed

on any of its buses, then it's ok, because it's a private company and it's just policy?

[Bowline]

30. If it's a private company then it's none of my business who they allow.

Or don't allow, for that matter. I, for one, would refuse to patronize such a company, as would the vast majority of Americans. The company would then be faced with a choice...either change it's policy or go out of business.

Your example really isn't a realistic one though, at least not in today's society. Perhaps 50 or more years ago, but not today.

[Dhalgren]

53. You missed my point and then made my point.

So, no comment.

[Barret]

83. Jesus christ

I feel like I'm reading a thread at www.welcometotheklan.com.

[Misunderestimator]

32. Then why the no-beard policy?

[TX-RAT]

40. I believe it's just appearance sake.

Have you ever seen a Deputy with a beard, that wasn't undercover?

[Bowline]

21. A private comapany certainly CAN dictate how you dress.

If company policy requires you to wear, or not wear, a particular item of dress then you have two options: 1)Comply with company policy, or 2)Seek other employment.

[Dhalgren]

29. Even if it descriminates against a person's freedom of religion?

[Bowline]

33. Private companies don't have to respect your religion.

Governments do, but private entities do not. As a private citizen you have the right to discriminate against whomever you want. It might not be good for your business, but it's your right.

[Misunderestimator]

31. Or ignore the antiquated policy entirely....

I have had no problems ignoring my company's various dress codes for many years. Dress codes that give you guidelines of what to wear make sense, but dictating exactly what... no way!

[Bowline]

34. You have the right to ignore their policies.

However, your doing so doesn't negate their right to fire you for violating company policy if they decide to.

[Misunderestimator]

38. Just as people had the right to ignore Texas' anti-sodomy laws

...and the right to get those antiquated laws overturned. Someone fires me because I'm wearing shoes without pantihose... then I will sue them.

[Bowline]

41. Apples and Oranges.

The Texas sodomy laws were about government intrusion into private lives. Your example of company dress codes deals with a privately owned company and, therefore, is not subject to the same laws regarding discrimination.

[Misunderestimator]

43. And private companies discriminate, and they can be sued.

You have an interesting position for a liberal, that companies should be allowed to do whatever they like. Interesting.

[Bowline]

48. I'm very socially liberal...

...What I don't believe in is governmental interference into ones private affairs, including whom one chooses to hire or not hire.

And yes, private companies can be sued. Whether or not the suit will, or should, be sucessful is open to debate.

[Misunderestimator]

51. So, in Florida I can be fired from ANY employer simply because I'm gay...

Do you agree with that "policy" ?

[Bowline]

54. I don't agree with the policy...

...But it's not my place to tell an employer whom he can or cannot hire and fire, and I wouldn't give my money to any company which discriminates against gays but then again, that's MY choice. If a private company doesn't want gays working for it then that's their business, not mine.

[Misunderestimator]

63. If a private company doesn't want gays working for it then that's ...

MY business, definitely.

[Bowline]

64. You can choose to make it your business by letting them know how you feel.

You can encourage others to do likewise. Hopefully this will change their position. However, the one thing you can't do is force them to see things as you do.

[Misunderestimator]

66. Um... yes you CAN force them... through better laws that protect us all.

[Bowline]

75. Better laws?

Is using the government to enforce a set of beliefs on a private individual what we really want the government to be doing? I surely don't want the likes of Senator Santorum and the Christian Coalition telling me how I should conduct my private affairs.

[Misunderestimator]

76. I surely don't like them telling me either...

What was your point? :shrug:

I do however like the government having regulations to limit the ways in which companies can pollute our environment and treat employees. You'd rather have no laws?

And are you saying that you don't think there should be anti-discrimination laws? And that an anti-discrimination stance is just a "set of beliefs?"

[Bowline]

77. Employees and pollution are two entirely different problems.

The government most certainly should enforce anti-pollution laws because the actions of a private company that pollutes our air and water directly affect the general public as a whole.

A company that doesn't want to hire someone because they are gay, straight, Muslim, Christian, vegetarian, ugly, fat, or anything else does not affect the public as a whole but rather the employment of a single individual.

Anti-discrimination laws should apply to government institutions such as schools, government agencies and the like. I think the government should keep it's nose out of private businesses, unless the business provides a product or service to the government, in which case it should be held to the same standards as government agencies.

[Misunderestimator]

78. WOW! That's some limited idea of anti-discrimination laws

So, if I'm fired because I'm too fat, too ugly, a woman or gay... that's just fine with you. How on earth do you believe that that does not affect the public as a whole?

As much as a company pouring PCBs into a river affects the nearby population (and NOT the population as a whole), the discrimination in hiring (and firing) affects anyone who applies to the job and therefore the population they represent.

[Bowline]

80. "So, if I'm fired because I'm... "

It's not OK with me, but I can't impose my belief of what's "OK" and what's "not OK" on another individual. Like I said before, it's entirely up to the private business owner who he/she wishes to hire or fire. It is entirely up to me whether or not I give my money to that business, and I refuse to give money to a business that I know discriminates against anyone. That's MY right.

Don't confuse my belief that discrimination is wrong with my belief that I should not impose my beliefs on you or anyone else.

[Misunderestimator]

81. Good... then it's clear we disagree...

I feel that I CAN impose my beliefs on others if those beliefs have to do with equal rights for all citizens.

I believe it's wrong to murder or rape. In some countries, some murders and rapes are ok. Should we get rid of all our laws making murder and rape a crime?

I believe that there should be a minimum wage. In some countries, there is no minimum wage. Should we get rid of it and let companies just do what they want. Wouldn't it be grand if corporations could make more money? With employment what it is now, I'm SURE they would have plenty of people clamoring for the lower paying jobs.

[Bowline]

95. Your rights do not supersede the rights of anyone else.

Including a private busines owner. If the owner of the business has a stated "no beards" policy, or a "no gays" policy than that's his choice and he has to live with it.

You have the right to protest, picket, or otherwise lawfully and peacefully disrupt his business but your rights stop at the point where they infringe on his/hers.

[Misunderestimator]

96. You really don't understand, do you? The reason we have laws that

protect workers is exactly because of what you are advocating that companies should have the right to do. Those laws don't just apply to government agencies, they apply to ALL US companies.

Now what is your real agenda here?

[Barret]

86. Bull shit

"A company that doesn't want to hire someone because they are gay, straight, Muslim, Christian, vegetarian, ugly, fat, or anything else does not affect the public as a whole but rather the employment of a single individual. "

Ok. Let's pretend in Birmingham, Alabama 90% of the businesses refused to hire black people. OK - now those people don't have jobs. WTF are they supposed to do to survive? Oh that's right - steal. They need food. Gotta get it some way. They need to pay the bills for the house, gotta go rob to get that money. And that goes for any group in that position.

When people can't get a job you see a general increase in crime rates. So you're telling me the general populace should have to suffer increased crime because of your business choices? I don't fucking think so. Your "individual" choice ends up effecting the entire community.

[Barret]

85. It's the price they pay

In this nation corporations have free reign, and most can't survive with out working for one of them. That being the case we need to insure that EVERYONE can get a job with out being discriminated against for bull shit reasons. Not doing so would be harmful to the nation and the people. And this (should be) a nation FOR THE PEOPLE not the corporations.

[TX-RAT]

47. If you knowingly go to work for a private company

And their policy's say pantyhose, and you are aware of those policies, wheres you argument. You have a choice, wear pantyhose or look for another job. I'm not saying it's right, i just saying that's the way it is.

[Bowline]

50. Yep, that 'bout sums it up nicely. n/t

[Misunderestimator]

65. My company doesn't have a policy to NOT discriminate against gays

But I work for them... and I knew it going in. Florida does not protect gays from discrimination by employers, yet I moved there knowingly. Doesn't mean that I'm not going to have sex in my own home in FL or pretend I'm not gay at work.

And I will NEVER wear pantihose... Sheesh people, these are guidelines, and the guidelines haven't been changed in decades.

I really can't believe people here defending discriminatory work policies.

[TX-RAT]

68. Its simply a policy about beards.

It has nothing to do with religion.( unless you have a beard)
It has nothing to do with gays.( unless you have a beard)
It has nothing to do with race.( unless you have a beard)
Whether you or I like the policy doesn't matter.

[Misunderestimator]

69. And you don't understand analogies and comparisons.

It COULD BE about religious discrimination.
It COULD BE about gays.
It COULD BE about race.
Whether you like it or not, discrimination exists.

[TX-RAT]

70. Whether you like it or not, discrimination exists.

I agree 100%
But that doesn't make a no beard policy, religious discrimination.
As i said before, a no beard policy has been in effect in the oil fields for decades. It has nothing to do with discrimination and every thing to do with personal safety against H2S. I spent 21 yrs in law enforcement, where we had a no beard policy. Most if not all state LEOs have a no beard policy. The US military has a no beard policy.

[Misunderestimator]

71. I'm not saying that the no beard policy is religious discrimination...

But if the no-beard policy is used to fire someone (barring non-performance on the job, which seems debatable in this specific case), and that person wears a beard for religious reasons, then the firing of that person is discriminatory despite the no-beard policy.

Dress-code policies are GUIDELINES. If they represented such a hard-and-fast rules, then you can bet that companies would be writing all sorts of discrimination into them. How about, no pregnant women. No old people. No short people. All of those policies might make sense in certain roles, but they are STILL discriminatory and wouldn't hold water in court.

Your examples are not the same as most employers. And they could still be challenged if the policies were used to discriminate against someone who wears a beard for religious reasons.

[TX-RAT]

72. Actually i think the biggest mistake was hiring him in the first place

I don't see how they can fire a man for having a beard, when he had a beard, when they hired him. But then, i confuse easily.

[Bowline]

79. "The US military has a no beard policy."

Absolutely correct, and there is no exception for religious reasons. The only exception is for valid, TEMPORARY medical conditions (recovery after surgery, inability to shave due to facial injury, etc.) If the condition becomes permanent then the individual is discharged.

[TX-RAT]

82. Did you notice the soldier who ended up in Jordan

I believe he was of Islamic faith and beardless.

[Bowline]

94. Not only beardless, but no mustache either, and very strict haircut rules.

Apparently it was not at odds with this particular Marine's faith to abide by his faith AND the USMC grooming standards.

[Barret]

89. Oh christ

Let me get this straight - you are using military rules to justify civilian policy? Just goes to show how royally screwed this nation is. I wonder when I get to seig heil bush every morning because the military does it.

The military doesn't let you hold a protest when a general gives an order you disagree with. I guess we shouldn't protest any more under your logic.

[TX-RAT]

90. you are using military rules to justify civilian policy?

Not what he was doing at all. He was using that to make a point about no beard policy's. The thread was about no beard policy's.

[Barret]

87. Civil rights act of 1964

No employer may discriminate on the basis of sex. Unless her employer mandates that males wear pantyhose as well (which I doubt) they will get smacked down in court should they fire her for it.

[Barret]

84. Bull shit

Go get your self a legal book. I an assure you that you don't know ANYTHING about civil rights law in this nation. I will assume it's a result of the crap high schools in this nation.

The civil rights act of 1964 provides that a company can NOT fire a person for violating a policy which is sexist, discriminatory religiously/racially, national origins, etc. The ADA also protects disabled people. If you are an employer I suggest you start learning now how to live poor because all it's going to take is an employee who knows a little bit more about law than your self....

[Warpy]

5. Unless they could prove a four inch beard were a safety hazard

which is bloody unlikely in just about any job, I don't think they've got a legal leg to stand on, "poor performance" my arse.

The woman with the bacon sandwich was a little different, since she'd contaminated company propetty (the microwave) to the extent that the Jews and Muslims there would be unable to use it. Some overly religious members of both those groups would also be unable to sit at the table she used to eat her lunch. Although firing would have been a little drastic, I do think I'd have deducted the price of a new microwage for the lunch room out of her paycheck. Perhaps that might have caused her to research which foodstuffs came from a pig, which was probably the real problem.

Whatever it takes to be religious is something I simply don't have. However, I do try to respect other folks, especially their dietary laws. For me, this is just part of being polite.

I just draw the line at the sort of politicized fundies of any religion who want me dead.

[Spentastic]

9. It depends

"A MUSLIM man who claims he was sacked for refusing to shave off his 8in beard has become the first person to sue for religious discrimination.

Mohsin Mohmed, 22, said he had been humiliated by bosses at Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains, who demanded he shave or lose his job as an assistant at Euston station in London."

If he was harassed for having a beard Virgin are fucked. If however he's a poor performer claiming religious harassment I have no sympathy whatever for him.

[kamtsa]

14. No woman, even Muslim, should allow to come to work with a beard, period!.

[Bowline]

20. If "no beards" is a company policy then there is no discrimination.

So long as it's a private company, and there is one company policy, then the man really doesn't have a case.

[Dhalgren]

24. So if it is company policy for every employee

to spit on the cross each day before work, then it's ok, because it's a private company and everyone has to do it? Is that about right? Because having some men, of some religions, shave their beards is equivalent to spitting on the cross for a Christian. Just wanting some clarification.

[Bowline]

36. You are correct.

If a private company makes spitting on the cross a condition of employment, and individuals agree to that stipulation as a condition of employment, then I have no place telling the company they can't do that. I would refuse to do business with such a company, but that's MY right.

[Misunderestimator]

42. It's a silly argument, ain't it? The only answer you'll get

will be... If the company says it requires you to do X, then you MUST do X or go somewhere else. Ah, if life were that simple.

Thank god for those people who actually don't tolerate discrimination, or many of us wouldn't even have a job.

[Bowline]

45. Even sillier when you consider it's the UK and not the U.S.

They have different standards and laws in the UK regarding discrimination. In the UK this man might just have a valid case. I don't believe he would in the U.S. but ya never know.

[The Stranger]

44. It is interesting, is it not, seeing all of the

"company policy" defenders, anti-beard police, "shape-up-or-ship-outters", even those who want to see the man's job performance, when the issue is the "Other" religion, here Muslim (or possibly even actually Sikh).

[Bowline]

46. I hadn't detected a particularly religious tone to the argument....

...until now. Personally, I don't give a hoot about the man's religion, and neither, apparently, does the company he works for.

[The Stranger]

56. Last week there was a thread regarding a woman fired for eating a BLT

sandwich, and posters then were screaming for vengeance in the name of religious freedom.

[Bowline]

62. They'll get over it.

If you asked me, and you didn't but I'm gonna give my opinion any way, I believe organized religion has caused far more problems then it has ever solved.

[forgethell]

91. Yep,

that was my thread, as is this one. In both cases, I have sided with the individual against the company.

[Spentastic]

59. That's bollocks

A man has claimed he is being discriminated against due to his religion.

The company have said he was a poor performer so his performance data is pertinent to that argument. Furthermore, so is company policy should the former prove not to stand up.

I don't know if this guys case has any merit.

He could be a poor performer crying racism.

He could be the victim of racism.

That's what tribunals are for. If he's the victim of the latter I hope he wins. If he's malingering I hope he gets nothing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. The man's job performance is relevant

because Virgin is claiming that was the reason for sacking him, not the beard. If they can show his enthusiasm and performance were poor, and if the remarks about his beard come down to just the employee's word against the manager's, then they could win.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. That would be indirect discrimination, according to the law in the UK

since 2003.

"Example: Disliking the baseball caps his delivery drivers like to wear, a Chief Executive applies a ‘no headwear’ policy to all his staff. The policy, although applied to all employees, disadvantages his Sikh staff who wear turbans for religious reasons. This policy is indirect discrimination."
http://www.acas.org.uk/publications/pdf/guide_religionB.pdf

In fact, the original request seems to have been to trim the beard; and then the dispute has been about whether that was good enough. From a slightly more reliable newspaper:

The tribunal was told: "In or around September 2003, David Adams instructed Mr Mohmed to trim his beard.

"Mr Mohmed explained that he had, but Mr Adams did not believe it was short enough." From then on, Mr Adams allegedly regularly harassed Mr Mohmed.

The originating application said: "In early December 2003, David Adams began questioning Mr Mohmed about his beard. He asked Mr Mohmed if he had a choice between keeping his job or shaving his beard off, what would he do? Mr Mohmed explained he had trimmed his beard on a number of occasions to the minimum required by his religion. David Adams stated that he would seek further guidance."

In February this year, Mr Mohmed was summoned to a meeting by Mr Adams and told he was being dismissed for his "lack of enthusiasm".

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/12476232?source=Evening%20Standard
(which also has a phot of Mr. Mohmed, with a not-very trimmed beard. But that was presumably taken after his employment).

[Carni]

49. If he was involved with food... then I agree with Virgin

The article doesn't say...just states he was an assisstant at a train station (asst of what?)

Sorry people... I don't want a guy with an eight inch beard hanging around my food and if I were an owner of a company I wouldn't be willing to drive off customers because some guy insists on having an eight inch beard...his religion states a four inch beard is required...so why does the guy insist on not trimming and tooling around in eight inches of ungroomed beard?

This isn't a Muslim discrimation issue with me it's a grooming issue if this guy was around food.

Now before everyone jumps on me...a man, or woman with long hair in a kitchen, or serving environment, would be told to put their hair up. You can't put a cap on a beard.

If the guy wasn't in food service, or around food, then more power to him and his beard as long as it was at least clean and well kept!

[CJCRANE]

74. Firstly, I doubt

it's a religious law that all muslim men have to have at least a four inch beard. It's probably more like a tradition rather than a compulsory obligation.

[PsychoDad]

93. Opinions of the four schools of thought.

The Beard according to the Great Imams of Jurisprudence

Hanafi
Imam Muhammed (R.A.) writes in his book "Kitabul Aathaar" where he relates from Imam Abu Hanifa (R.A.) who relates from Hadhrat Haytham (R.A.) who relates from Ibn Umar (R.A.) that he (Ibn Umar) used to hold his beard in his hand and cut off which was longer. Imam Muhammed (R.A.) says that this is what we follow and this was the decision of Imam Abu Hanifa. Therefore, according to Hanafies, to shorten the beard less than a FIST LENGTH is HARAAM and on this is IJMA (concensus of opinion).

Shafi'i
Imam Shafi (R.A.) in his Kitabul Umm states, "To shave the beard is HARAAM." (Shari Minhaj dar Shara Fasl Aqueeqa).

Maaliki
Shekh Ahmad Nafarawi Maliki in the commentary of Imam Abu Zayed's booklet states, "to shave the beard is without doubt haraam according to all Imams." It is also mention in "Tamheed" which is a commentary of "Muatta" (Sunnan Imam Malik (R.A.)) that to shave the beard is HARAAM and among males the only ones to resort to this practice (of shaving) are the HERMAPHRODITES (persons who possess both male and female features and characteristics).

Hanbali
The Hanbalies in the famous Al-Khanie'a Hanbali Fatawa Kitab state that "to grow the beard is essential and to shave it is HARAAM." Also in the Hanbali Mathab books "Sharahul Muntahaa" and "Sharr Manzoomatul Aadaab", it is stated "The most accepted view is that it is HARAAM (prohibited to shave the beard)."

Also note, according to scholars of Islam: "To shave off the beard is unlawful (haraam) and one who shaves his beard is legally speaking an unrighteous fellow (FASIQ); hence, it is NOT PERMISSIBLE to appoint such a man as an Imam. To say Taraweeh behind such an Imam is MAKRUH-E-TAHRIMI (near prohibition)" (Shami Vol.1, p.523)

The Durre-Mukhtar states: "No one has called it permissible to trim it (the beard) less than FIST-LENGTH as is being done by some westernized Muslims ." (Vol. 2, p. 155). Also, "It is forbidden (haraam) for a man to cut off another's beard." (Vol. 5, p. 359).


The opinion I hear most is that if you can grow a beard, you should. But, as with many other things in Islam, it depends who you talk to.

[Ducks In A Row]

88. Ross Perot's rules for his company forbid facial hair period

and I think it was applied equally to men and women


:D

[PsychoDad]

92. Well...

This is a case in England, so I'm not sure if it only depends on company policy or upon civil law.

In America an employer must make a "reasonable" accomodation for someone's faith. And a beard is regarded by many Muslims( and some others, such as the amish and hasidic jews) as a nessicery symbol of their faith, just as a hijab is.

I'm not sure where an American court would come down on this one, much less a British one.

Again, proving discrimination in court may be the hard part

BTW- A number of years ago I had a job with a company that had a "no beards allowed" policy. It was possible to get a medical exemption to that policy if you had a doctors statement. In essence, all you had to do was tell a doctor that shaving caused you rashes and discomfort.

Is there any precident for religious beards vs. US companies?

[roguevalley]

97. what comes next? what retaliation will come next to what person? WHAT

EVER HAPPENED TO CIVILITY AND TOLERANCE!?!??!?!!?!?!?!