As I understand it, a Ms. Sarah Desrosiers owns a salon in London called Wedge. In the news story she’s quoted as saying
"I sell image - it's very important - and I would expect a hair stylist to display her hair because I need people to be drawn in off the street," said Ms Desrosiers. "It's the nature and style of my salon that brings people in and someone having their hair covered conflicts with that. If someone came in wearing a baseball hat or a cowboy hat I'd tell them to take it off while they're working. To me, it's absolutely basic that people should be able to see the stylist's hair."
I think the gallery photos on the Wedge web site back her up:
Clearly she’s going for an urban alternative vibe and she does indeed show off her stylists and her stylists’ hair.
Ms. Bushra Noah, pictured below, is suing Ms. Desrosiers for discrimination. In a legal letter sent to the tribunal overseeing the discrimination suit, Ms. Noah claimed that she was discriminated against because of her Muslim custom of wearing a head scarf at all times.
Apparently, Ms. Desrosiers conducted her initial interview by phone and offered Ms. Noah a “trial day” at the salon. Ms. Noah apparently made no mention of her headscarf practices in the interview so it wasn't until the trial day that Ms Desrosiers found out about it. Ms. Desrosiers apparently made it clear that the stylists were expected to help sell the image of the shop because they how they appeared helped draw in walk by traffic.
According to her news story, Ms. Noah had applied for approximately 25 hairdresser jobs without success and she is quoted as saying,
“I decided to sue this hairdresser because she upset me the most. I felt so down and got so depressed, I thought if I am not going to defend myself, who is? ... Ever since I was in high school hairdressing is what I wanted to do. It is sad for them to not give me the opportunity. This has ruined my ambitions. Wearing a headscarf is essential to my beliefs.”
There are lots of thorny issues in this case. First of all, is it OK for the salon owner to require the stylists display their hair as part of the image they are trying to create for the shop? Why or why not? And how does that balance against religious customs involving a hair. What if a job applicant was bald? What if a job applicant simply had unwashed/unkempt hair? What if the job applicant was a Hassidic Jew wearing his traditional payot? What if the job applicant was a Rastafarian wearing dreadlocks? What if the applicant was a good ol’ boy who insisted on wearing a John Deer baseball cap every waking hour? Which of these applicants should Ms. Desrosiers be able to reject on the basis of the appearance or lack of appearance of their hair? Does it matter if the customs relating to the applicant’s hair are religiously motivated or not? Does religious practice trump job requirements? Is the appearance of the stylist and the stylists’ hair a legitimate issue for Ms. Desrosiers to make hiring decisions?
Forget hair for a second. Ms Desrosiers claims she is selling an image. Is that legitimate? Is she allowed to create an image for her salon according to her preferences and vision? Can this image she’s striving for include exclusion of people who don’t fit that image? Would it be OK is she had simply said, “The woman just doesn't fit the image I’m striving to achieve?” What if the job applicant had been a Hindu woman who wore bindis on her forehead and other sorts of tilak every day? Would this be a legitimate reason to reject her as a job applicant?
I think that starts to get to the nub of the issue and the reason it makes so many of us uncomfortable. When you start discussing the issue in that way, you begin wandering down a very slippery slope that ends in gender-exclusive clubs, Aryan nationalists, class hierarchies and all sorts of other nasty things.
I think there are two key issues we have to keep in mind regarding this lawsuit.
First of all, the issues of free association, workplace behavior, job requirements, and religious practices all have to be balanced against each other. None of these issues is absolute and takes precedence over the others at all times.
In particular, we've learned over the years that there are times when our participation in public life requires that we curb our religious practices in public. Catholic churches have learned not to ring their bells at all times of the day and instead restrict themselves to a schedule and volume that’s acceptable to their local community. Most employers discourage or even forbid the display of religious symbols when “on company time.” Likewise there are issues which employers have seen that it’s good to accommodate employee’s religious practices when possible.
In order for people of many faiths to coexist and live together peacefully, these sorts of restrictions and accommodations have to be made. We work these out one case at a time and build up a body of case law and customs and acceptable practices over time. There’s nothing wrong with that. And letting freedom of association, or business requirement trump religious custom in one case is not automatically going to turn us into evil bigots. True, we have to be constantly vigilant against that danger and we have to have a good healthy debate and dialog over the evolution of our customs to make sure we don’t go too far. But it’s OK to let other issues trump religious practices sometimes.
Likewise, believe it or not, the concept of free association isn't entirely dead. No one owes Ms. Noah a job. Ms. Desrosiers certainly doesn’t owe Ms. Noah a job. Over the years we've been very careful to not allow discrimination and exclusivity based on a variety of issues. Everyone can recite these by memory. And one of these is religion.
So the question becomes, if you claim that a religious custom is interfering with the image you are striving for in the workplace, does that constitute discrimination? As I understand this particular case, the claim is not that Ms. Desrosiers rejected Ms. Noah because she is a Muslim, but because her religious custom interferes with the plans she has for her business. She seemed to be willing to give Ms. Noah a trial period if she was willing to remove her headscarf. So is it discrimination or not
This leads me to the second important lesson from this case. Given that there are going to be cases in which workplace custom, free association, and other factors are going to trump religious custom, it’s important that all religions be treated equally. If we decide that Ms. Desrosiers we indeed guilty of discrimination, then must she also accept Hassidic Jews, Rastafarians, and Hindus as well? I would say the answer is yes. You can’t favor one religion’s customs over another. You codify into law special treatment for Muslim customs, Christian customs, or any other religion. So when we look at this particular case, we have to set aside the fact that the particular religion involved in this case is Islam and look at it in a broad sense regarding all religious customs as they conflict with the salon’s image.
In this particular case, I tend to side with Ms. Desrosiers. I think she has voiced counter-balancing interests and business issues that are sufficient to justify her exclusion of Ms. Noah because she wouldn't display her hair. I'm sorry that Ms. Noah's ambitions suffered as a result of being rejected for 25 jobs. But her ambitions do not trump Ms. Desrosiers' ambitions which would almost certainly be equally destroyed if she were forced to hire people against her will. If the job in question were a more a mundane field, such as accounting, I'd be a lot more sceptical. It’s interesting to turn the issue around. Suppose business wanted to cater to devout Muslims and therefore wanted all its female employees to adopt the modest dress requirements. Would we want to force that business to hire a woman that didn't want to adopt the headscarf requirements? I wouldn't, for exactly the same reasons I side with Ms. Desrosiers in this one.
2 comments:
The Universal Appeal of Islam
By the soul, and the proportions and orders given to it. And its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right.' [91:7-8]
Islam is the religion of fitrah, i.e. human nature, and morality according to the Quran is something INHERENT in the nature of man. So true is this fact that the Holy Book draws attention to it in order to convince humanity of the truth of the Day of Judgement. If the Quran did not believe that all men possess a realization of 'good' and 'evil', why would it consider using it as an example to draw attention to the accountability in the next life?
The misunderstanding by many that Islam defines morality reveals a fundamental flaw in thinking and correction regarding the role of revelation is necessary because it affects the way Muslims present their religion. Instead of appealing to human nature in presenting their religion, Muslims have presented Islam in so many different ways, including a political and economic ideology, totally divorcing Islam from its universal appeal and in fact, the manner in which is was presented by the Prophets (AS). They present Islam as acting from 'without', and not from within the depths of his soul. The point of revelation is not to enforce a 'system', but to complement the human personality. Revelation was sent to remind men of their ultimate destiny and to regulate all those components (i.e. emotions, passions, hedonism and reason according to Moiz Amjad), that make up a human being so that he can achieve harmony in life. Without revelation, men tend to fall into extreme, whether it is through his own reason or heart. History is a testimony to this. Those that tended to have extremely sensitive 'religious' feelings often fell into ascetism viewing the world as evil. While the good people went to monasteries and churches, the world was left to those interested only in pursuing their selfish ends at the expense of the weaker class. This attitude towards piety clouded their view regarding 'war' as a means to achieve a just social order. It is absolutely no coincidence that the remarks of the Quran regarding monasticism and monkery are made in the context of 'jihad'. Thus, revelation balanced their perspective on attaining piety and goodness. As opposed to those who left the world, there were those whose worldliness tended to make them oblivious to the plight of others. They failed to see that although most wealth is earned was the result of their own hands, much of what they earned could be rightfully attributed to forces that were not the result of their own effort. Those that weren't as selfish realized this and acknowledged that there must be some way in which they could express their gratitude. But they were in a state of confusion, what the Quran calls 'dalalah', on what should they spend, how much should they spend and so forth. They could not figure it out through their own mind and faculties, so God in His Infinite Mercy sent revelation to complement this natural urge and provide them with the most balanced way to spend. Even the divisions of zakat took into account the labor of the individual, with fields that were primarily watered by purely natural forces being subjected to more tax than fields that involved more labor-intensive work.
Without this recognition of human nature, this attitude of presenting Islam from a manner of 'without' has has gone to such extremes that piety is often presented by certain circles as an adoption of certain norms and practices that are part of a specific culture. Revelation as we see, deals with those UNIVERSAL values that are part and parcel of human nature. They give us practical rules that allow for the proper expression of these human values, without which life becomes a dis-integrated mess. Men emphasize one aspect of their personality without given due prominence to another. One of the greatest examples of Muhammad (S) is his balanced and purely integrated personality. Before Islam, we find that he (S) was actually quite 'introverted' seeking recourse to the caves outside Mecca to think about life and its mysteries. But as soon as revelation descended upon him, shattering his very being, it resulted in all the depth and dimension of his personality to shine through. His simplicity was complemented by a profound sense of self-respect. His quiet nature was complemented by his strength when he saw the hudood of Allah, Glorious is He, being violated. A personality so vast and powerful that it totally changed the course of world history, inlfuencing not only the desert Arabs, but Europe as well. It is not coincidence, besides being paradoxical, that the proclamation "Read" to the UNLETTERED Prophet gave birth to the 'empirical sciences' that has so heavily influenced the modern world.
To present Islam in contradiction to the fitra of man goes directly against the universal teachings of the Quran and the Prophet (S). When the Quran says to enjoin the MA'RUF and forbid the MUNKAR, these terms do not signify acts of shareeah but universally recognized principles of good and evil. We find in the Quran commands to pay the mehr in accordance with the MARUF, which in Arabic refer to the NOBLE TRADITIONS OF A SOCIETY. If a rich man pays a mehr to his wife not in accordance to what is seen as noble in his society, he is not fulfilling the spirit of the Quran. The Quran tells the man that if he desires to marry a widow, whose husband had just died, he may indicate his desire to marry her only by taking into account the MARUF, which also includes the sensitives of a people of a particular culture. The shareeah never defines this MAR'UF because the traditions and cultures of men are so diverse, but here we find the Quran's love of all those GOOD traditions that originate out of the good nature of man. We find the Prophet (S) and His Companions (R) praising the MARUF even before Islam. In fact, Muhammad (S) had marvelled upon hearing a verse of pre-Islamic hanif poet, who died right before the coming of Islam, and proclaimed to the effect, "By God, this man came to the door of Islam."
Diversity is one of the signs and marvels of God, indicating His Wisdom, Mercy, and Providence according to the Divine text. In fact, to go against it would be declaring war on nature. The Prophet (S) said to the effect that if somebody came and told you a mountain moved, you can believe it, but if somebody came and told you a man changed his nature, i.e. his fitra, never believe it. Men cannot win a war against their own self, and their is no way possible the Creator of man could reveal a Book that contradicts his nature. "Does God not know what He created? He is the Subtle, the Aware."
This is precisely why God Almighty says, "We never sent a Messenger, except from his own people." Because of the nature of the role of a Messenger in making the truth clear to the people he presents it to, God, the All-Knowing sent one who could relate to the experiences of them. Further, the Quran itself speaks in such a way that it appeals to the various levels of intellect that make up these people. The Holy Book says to the effect that "We have explained the Quran in various ways so that men may take heed." It possesses the simplicity to charm the villager, and at the same time, its words possess such depth that a scientist who has studied all the various disciplines that humanity has discovered throughout time can find in it knowledge to quench his thirst. It possesses such musical charm that the poet Labid, whose verse use to hang on the Ka'aba, renounced his poetry saying to the effect that he forgot all his poetry once he learned the Quran. The Quran appeals to the diverse taste of men, both aesthetic and rational, or 'mind and heart'.
The Universal Appeal of Islam
By the soul, and the proportions and orders given to it. And its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right.' [91:7-8]
Islam is the religion of fitrah, i.e. human nature, and morality according to the Quran is something INHERENT in the nature of man. So true is this fact that the Holy Book draws attention to it in order to convince humanity of the truth of the Day of Judgement. If the Quran did not believe that all men possess a realization of 'good' and 'evil', why would it consider using it as an example to draw attention to the accountability in the next life?
The misunderstanding by many that Islam defines morality reveals a fundamental flaw in thinking and correction regarding the role of revelation is necessary because it affects the way Muslims present their religion. Instead of appealing to human nature in presenting their religion, Muslims have presented Islam in so many different ways, including a political and economic ideology, totally divorcing Islam from its universal appeal and in fact, the manner in which is was presented by the Prophets (AS). They present Islam as acting from 'without', and not from within the depths of his soul. The point of revelation is not to enforce a 'system', but to complement the human personality. Revelation was sent to remind men of their ultimate destiny and to regulate all those components (i.e. emotions, passions, hedonism and reason according to Moiz Amjad), that make up a human being so that he can achieve harmony in life. Without revelation, men tend to fall into extreme, whether it is through his own reason or heart. History is a testimony to this. Those that tended to have extremely sensitive 'religious' feelings often fell into ascetism viewing the world as evil. While the good people went to monasteries and churches, the world was left to those interested only in pursuing their selfish ends at the expense of the weaker class. This attitude towards piety clouded their view regarding 'war' as a means to achieve a just social order. It is absolutely no coincidence that the remarks of the Quran regarding monasticism and monkery are made in the context of 'jihad'. Thus, revelation balanced their perspective on attaining piety and goodness. As opposed to those who left the world, there were those whose worldliness tended to make them oblivious to the plight of others. They failed to see that although most wealth is earned was the result of their own hands, much of what they earned could be rightfully attributed to forces that were not the result of their own effort. Those that weren't as selfish realized this and acknowledged that there must be some way in which they could express their gratitude. But they were in a state of confusion, what the Quran calls 'dalalah', on what should they spend, how much should they spend and so forth. They could not figure it out through their own mind and faculties, so God in His Infinite Mercy sent revelation to complement this natural urge and provide them with the most balanced way to spend. Even the divisions of zakat took into account the labor of the individual, with fields that were primarily watered by purely natural forces being subjected to more tax than fields that involved more labor-intensive work.
Without this recognition of human nature, this attitude of presenting Islam from a manner of 'without' has has gone to such extremes that piety is often presented by certain circles as an adoption of certain norms and practices that are part of a specific culture. Revelation as we see, deals with those UNIVERSAL values that are part and parcel of human nature. They give us practical rules that allow for the proper expression of these human values, without which life becomes a dis-integrated mess. Men emphasize one aspect of their personality without given due prominence to another. One of the greatest examples of Muhammad (S) is his balanced and purely integrated personality. Before Islam, we find that he (S) was actually quite 'introverted' seeking recourse to the caves outside Mecca to think about life and its mysteries. But as soon as revelation descended upon him, shattering his very being, it resulted in all the depth and dimension of his personality to shine through. His simplicity was complemented by a profound sense of self-respect. His quiet nature was complemented by his strength when he saw the hudood of Allah, Glorious is He, being violated. A personality so vast and powerful that it totally changed the course of world history, inlfuencing not only the desert Arabs, but Europe as well. It is not coincidence, besides being paradoxical, that the proclamation "Read" to the UNLETTERED Prophet gave birth to the 'empirical sciences' that has so heavily influenced the modern world.
To present Islam in contradiction to the fitra of man goes directly against the universal teachings of the Quran and the Prophet (S). When the Quran says to enjoin the MA'RUF and forbid the MUNKAR, these terms do not signify acts of shareeah but universally recognized principles of good and evil. We find in the Quran commands to pay the mehr in accordance with the MARUF, which in Arabic refer to the NOBLE TRADITIONS OF A SOCIETY. If a rich man pays a mehr to his wife not in accordance to what is seen as noble in his society, he is not fulfilling the spirit of the Quran. The Quran tells the man that if he desires to marry a widow, whose husband had just died, he may indicate his desire to marry her only by taking into account the MARUF, which also includes the sensitives of a people of a particular culture. The shareeah never defines this MAR'UF because the traditions and cultures of men are so diverse, but here we find the Quran's love of all those GOOD traditions that originate out of the good nature of man. We find the Prophet (S) and His Companions (R) praising the MARUF even before Islam. In fact, Muhammad (S) had marvelled upon hearing a verse of pre-Islamic hanif poet, who died right before the coming of Islam, and proclaimed to the effect, "By God, this man came to the door of Islam."
Diversity is one of the signs and marvels of God, indicating His Wisdom, Mercy, and Providence according to the Divine text. In fact, to go against it would be declaring war on nature. The Prophet (S) said to the effect that if somebody came and told you a mountain moved, you can believe it, but if somebody came and told you a man changed his nature, i.e. his fitra, never believe it. Men cannot win a war against their own self, and their is no way possible the Creator of man could reveal a Book that contradicts his nature. "Does God not know what He created? He is the Subtle, the Aware."
This is precisely why God Almighty says, "We never sent a Messenger, except from his own people." Because of the nature of the role of a Messenger in making the truth clear to the people he presents it to, God, the All-Knowing sent one who could relate to the experiences of them. Further, the Quran itself speaks in such a way that it appeals to the various levels of intellect that make up these people. The Holy Book says to the effect that "We have explained the Quran in various ways so that men may take heed." It possesses the simplicity to charm the villager, and at the same time, its words possess such depth that a scientist who has studied all the various disciplines that humanity has discovered throughout time can find in it knowledge to quench his thirst. It possesses such musical charm that the poet Labid, whose verse use to hang on the Ka'aba, renounced his poetry saying to the effect that he forgot all his poetry once he learned the Quran. The Quran appeals to the diverse taste of men, both aesthetic and rational, or 'mind and heart'.
Post a Comment