Quote of the day

Mandela neither demanded nor received an entirely unconditional devotion; in power he expected his compatriots to behave as assertive citizens not genuflecting disciples

Tom Lodge

Syndicate content

Login

Login or Register to be identified in your comments

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:



Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

Dress Code


Posts: 41
Joined: 2003-03-06
Established 1981 London School of Islamics An Educational Trust 63 Margery Park Road London E7 9LD Email: info@londonschoolofislamics.org.uk www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk Tel/Fax: 0208 555 2733 / 07817 112 667 Dress Code A Muslim girl could not attend her school for the last two years because she could not wear the Jilbab banned by her school. Jilbab is considered to be a health and safety hazard and is likely to lead to an unhealthy competition among its pupils to dress more Islamically. The High Court upheld the decision of the school which is worrying and objectionable in the opinion of the MCB. The ruling is “a regrettable limitation of personal freedom”, according to the Daily Telegraph. The school has 90% Muslim girls and a western educated Muslim head teacher who had imposed the ban to prevent students from falling prey to extremist groups. She wanted to protect other Muslim pupils from fundamentalists. It is a multi-cultural and multi-faith secular school which is not suitable for bilingual Muslim girls. They need Muslim community school with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models. In the opinion of Fiona MacTaggert MP, the native teachers do not have the linguistic skills or relevant social and theological know-how to tackle the issues of the Muslim pupils in secular state schools. State funded Muslim school with Muslim teachers is a proper place for Muslim children than a secular multi-faith school. The case should not have gone to court in the first place. The school should have tolerated what she wears as long as it is the same colour as the school uniform and the whole matter should have been sorted out as a community matter. School has accommodated other forms of Islamic dress. Jilbab is acceptable in other British schools and it is the uniform of Feversham College Bradford, the first state funded Muslim school. The school’s arguments are bogus and reminiscent of the arguments that used to be put forward prior to 1997 to prevent Islamic schools from gaining state funded status. Respect and tolerance of Muslims is essential for positive community cohesion. State funded Muslim schools are not divisive; they are beacons of excellence academically, spiritually and morally. They provide a powerful structure for students to pursue their education. Curriculum infused with Islamic teaching allows students to explore their beliefs and cultural backgrounds more fully, an opportunity they would not have in a multi-faith state school. A deeper exploration of Islamic beliefs and history produces young Muslims who are willing and able to serve as responsible and knowledgeable ambassadors of Islam in the British multicultural society. State schools LEAs and the DFES are not in a position to educate Muslim pupils because they do not have enough bilingual Muslim teachers, governors and policy makers. Islam is a maker of identity and belonging rather than a system of belief. Iftikhar Ahmad



Posts: 703
Joined: 2004-07-31
Re: Dress Code
A School may adopt what it pleases as its 'uniform', within reason, and it is entirely within its rights to refuse to allow the Jibab to be worn, just as it is entitled to refuse the wearing of Jeans. Respect and tolerance of Muslims is essential for positive community cohesion. Quite so. But just because you are a Muslim does not absolve you from obedience to our law and to our customs. If the Girl was not willing to comply with the rules of the school she sought to attend then she ought to find another school. It is no more complex than that.



Posts: 90
Joined: 2003-12-31
Re: Dress Code
Iftikar, You said "Islam is a maker of identity and belonging rather than a system of belief." Surely the primary purpose of a state (actually taxpayer) funded school is to educate the children of those taxpayers in such a way that their own personal development is maximised, along with their future contribution to the society inhabited by them and their parents. Any identity and belonging additionally fostered in this environment should be primarily focused on the nation state, directed by the elected government chosen by those taxpayers. Any secondary identity and belonging desired by those children (not, incidentally those foisted on them by their parents) should be pursued in private. If this means imposing a non-divisive school uniform to protect the personal human rights and freedom of individual children, then so be it. One of the fundamental lessons they must learn at home and at school, is that while they should be largely free to pursue their own agenda as adults, they must also learn to conform when and where it matters. Wearing a school uniform is good practice in this essential discipline. The phrase "Muslim girl" is virtually impossible in reality anyway - a child of school age cannot possibly have the knowledge (either of the world and herself) to choose a particular faith from the many on offer (or indeed to choose to be of any faith.) This can only be undertaken by consenting adults - as we insist for social narcotics such as alchohol and tobacco. She was at most a "child of Muslim parents". To impose one's own faith on offspring in today's world, is not much short of child abuse. In a multi-faith nation state, with a high proportion of no faith, the state has an obligation to remove all aspects of particular faiths from education and public life. This is the only way to minimise division in society and maximise shared interests. We are stuck for the foreseeable future with the nation state as the main macro-tribe for the human animal - to protect cultural diversity the state must rise above the mini-tribal divisions and represent the common interests only (including protecting individuals from tribal differences). Individual tribal affiliations are then largely free from state interference, as long as they don't infringe the common moral and legal code of the nation state that hosts them. Individual freedom first, nation second, mini-tribe last.



Posts: 116
Joined: 2003-10-25
Re: Dress Code
It is better for Muslims to take the knowledge and wealth we may have gained in the non-muslim world back to our countries of origin, perhaps then we will not have to fight for the right to practice every peripheral aspect of our Islmaic life. The Islamic state will not be European but an already established Muslim country. It is fruitless to engage in a dialogue of compromises as Islam cannot compromise with other ideologies unless of course the compromise is in the favour of Islam. This is a fact, for if as a Muslim I say that I believe the Qur'an is the word of God then surely I am a hypocrite for compromising what I believe to be God-made with that which is man-made. One need not be a Muslim or even believe in God to understand hypocrisy when one sees it.


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options

Remember to login to have your comments properly attributed

Login or Register to be identified in your comments

16 days blog

Just published:
Podcast - Afaf Jabiri takes on the Jordanian government
Articles - Jameen Kaur, India's silent tragedy
Rebecca Barlow, women and conflict
Blog:

50.50 blog