Jilbab

[even_sven]

@t-bonham@scc.net

She’s 17, and has only just reached ‘sexual maturity’ (onset of menstruation, I presume)?

I’d say she has some problems with her physical development that are more important to deal with.

The article clearly states that she wore a salwar kameez until she was 12.

[Johanna]

The main health issue with veiling is vitamin D deficiency from lack of exposure to the sun.

[yBeayf]

She’s 17, and has only just reached ‘sexual maturity’ (onset of menstruation, I presume)?

17 is in the far upper range of normal for menarche. Absent any other signs of abnormality, menarche at 17 would just mean she was a statistical outlier.

[griffin1977]

@yBeayf

Yes, but there comes a point where individual interpretation must give way to common sense. If I were a Jewish student, and argued that a yarmulke or small, unobtrusive kippah was forbidden for a grown man to wear, but I must wear a shtreimel, I wouldn’t expect a public school to give much weight to my argument. There might be cultural reasons why I would prefer a shtreimel, but religiously a small kippah would be fine, and a shtreimel would definitely be disruptive in a school environment.

If she were able to make a convincing argument from Islamic law that a shalwar kameez that fully covered the body of a woman, without being tight or revealing in any way, were forbidden, I’d say she has a point. But I really don’t think she can make that case.

Surely thats not the point, its not up to judge to define what does or does not go against someone’s faith. If say, school wanted to force an orthodox Jew was forced to break one of the more obscure tenets of the orthodox faith, would he have to justify that in a court of law. (i.e. justify why breaking that proscription was against his interpretation of the Torah, whereas a non-Orthodox would consider it ok).

[yBeayf]

If say, school wanted to force an orthodox Jew was forced to break one of the more obscure tenets of the orthodox faith, would he have to justify that in a court of law. (i.e. justify why breaking that proscription was against his interpretation of the Torah, whereas a non-Orthodox would consider it ok).

To my knowledge, yes, he would have to demonstrate it was a bona fide religious requirement. A high school student could claim that his membership in the First Church of Beavis Christ entitles him to drink beer in class, but that doesn’t mean they have to let him.

[Mellivora_capensis]

Thanks for all your replies and comments.

[irishgirl]

The school has a UNIFORM. Not a dress code, a UNIFORM. It has a salwar kameez version of that UNIFORM that is perfectly modest and accepted BY EVERY OTHER MUSLIM STUDENT.

Indian students don’t get to wear saris, Scottish students don’t get to wear kilts, German students don’t get to wear Lederhosen, Chinese students don’t get to wear cheongsam- why should an Arab student get to wear a jilbab rather than salwar kameez?

If her argument is that the jilbab is more modest and that salwar kameez is unaceptable- she’s wrong, as a salwar kameez is acceptable to all but the most fundamental.

If her argument is that she’s not wearing ethnicnally exact clothing- well, why should she?

The school’s argument is that they have made reasonable provisions for muslim students, and that Ms Begum is being unreasonable. Allowing her to wear a jilbab causes more problems than it solves, by making it appear as if the ordinary salwar kameez uniform is somhow not religiously correct- when it is.They also argue that she is within her rights to leave the school and attend one which will let her wear the jilbab. They are not denying her access to education and it is the denial of right to education that is the breach of her rights, not the denial of religious freedom or to dress as she wishes.