To send an employee to a client even though she refuses because of her religion?

Ok. Feel free to read the thread to answer that question.

I think you've missed my point. I wasn't implying the OP was overseas. I was asking if she had said she was in ENGLAND. I am, for example, in the UK. I am not in England.

Good job that isn't remotely what was said then isn't it?

I described two different situatiosn requiring the same or similar adjustment. Everything else is you projecting your own prejudices. I note you failed to answer the question.

Interestingly in decades of experience in consulting/advisory in a heavily male dominated area I have experienced the need resulting from assault/abuse scenario a few times but never that combination of religious observance clahing unavoidably with a 100% male client or 100% male client working in an enclosed space.

Fair point. I have made assumptions based on the fact that OP has not said that the equality legislation, which has been linked and referred to several times on this thread, is not relevant because they are overseas.

Did OP say she was in England?

So, I haven't replied to her and won't until I've spoken to someone who can tell me big No's. I have a meeting with our HR lady first thing Monday, and we will be trying to consult a lawyer the same day. Trying to tread very carefully here.

If need be, I can make the client appointment myself, but of course it will throw our fee calculation (and everything else) completely overboard.

To all those suggesting a chaperone: you've never worked in a professional setting, have you? Taking an aunt to a client appointment? They'd never take her seriously after such a stunt. She's a senior, not some fresh intern. Would you also suggest bringing your mum to a job interview? What a load of bollocks. But thanks for the laugh.

To conflate observing a religion through choice with a sexual assault is disgusting.

Muslim bashing? I have a healthy contempt for misogynic practices in ALL religions. To expect people to accommodate chaperones in a professional technical advisory setting is dragging women back to the dark ages. It makes no commercial sense either.

Factually this is England and it is 2025. Chaperones, outside of a few specific settings, should never be a thing here.

Is sad to see Muslim bashing on this thread and calling her beliefs the "dark ages" or "in the wrong century".

But why would him voicing his upset to a counsellor cause the police to be called?

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the woman has NO protected characteristics since she shakes hands with other non related men and shares an office with one.

She is being a selective cunt about it and frankly should be fired for insubordination. Thats the bottom line.

It’s not Muslim bashing she’s been employed to do a job but she can’t due to her beliefs how can this be resolved ?

I’m assuming because @Katemax82 DS didn’t react well.

But it dose beg the question, who’s “protected characteristics” are more important @Katemax82 DS who has a legally recognised disability or the Muslim woman who chooses to practise her faith??

For me disability over faith every time. I was born into a particular faith, however it dose not mean I do not have the freedom to choose how I practise it. Someone with a disability has no choice.

Back to the op, this lady choose her career and trained for it knowing it was male dominated, if she can’t perform the job she’s hired to do which apparently means meeting with men on her own at times then she needs to understand that she either gives up this chosen career, which op says she’s good at, I would see this a shame and set back for women’s equality or she finds a way to manage her job and religion herself at no cost/inconvenience her employer or clients.

This

Religion is a protected characteristic.

Just send someone else with her.

I’m assuming because @Katemax82 DS didn’t react well.

But it dose beg the question, who’s “protected characteristics” are more important @Katemax82 DS who has a legally recognised disability or the Muslim woman who chooses to practise her faith??

For me disability over faith every time. I was born into a particular faith, however it dose not mean I do not have the freedom to choose how I practise it. Someone with a disability has no choice.

Back to the op, this lady choose her career and trained for it knowing it was male dominated, if she can’t perform the job she’s hired to do which apparently means meeting with men on her own at times then she needs to understand that she either gives up this chosen career, which op says she’s good at, I would see this a shame and set back for women’s equality or she finds a way to manage her job and religion herself at no cost/inconvenience her employer or clients.

Why would the police have been called?

The hadith "For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him" was quoted earlier. If anyone's interested, here's an alternative perspective on it (disclaimer: writing from a Sunni background, not a fully qualified scholar, other perspectives exist, Allah knows best).

For background, a hadith is an account of something said or done by The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or his companions, passed through a chain of narration/recording. (Side note: much of sharia law is actually derived from hadith rather than the Qur'an). Given the factors which may make an account unreliable after hundreds of years, there are academic processes for evaluating the authenticity of these accounts and only a comparatively small number are considered robustly reliable. When considering the reliability of a hadith, people weigh up the credibility of the entire chain of narrators/recorders, the completeness of documentation, consistency with other evidence, etc. It's not simply a case of something being a hadith automatically being considered factual. Something can be a hadith and be considered a 'weak' hadith.

There is not a universal agreement about the reliability of the hadith quoted. Some scholars consider it to be 'strong' (to have a good enough chain of evidence and historical preservation). Others disagree. There are debates about a potential 'break in the chain' and unreliability of at least one narrator, for example. Some scholars from the Hanafi and Maliki schools (two of the main schools of thought in Sunni Islam) consider that a prohibition is not proven without evidence from the Qur'an and authentic hadiths, consistent with the principle that, in daily life, lawful things are permissible until explicitly stated not to be. Another interesting point about this particular hadith is that, while it is often brought out in modern times, it didn't actually appear to be the basis for rulings about boundaries between men and women in the early Islamic period.

Moving on to the text of the hadith, a key word in the hadith is 'touch', which is a translation of a verb in Arabic arising from the root word 'mass' (mim, seen, seen). While 'touch' is a valid translation, the Arabic word is one which is often used to refer to something more intimate / deeper than a simple handshake - for example, it can be used to mean sexual intercourse. A number of scholars therefore don't consider this hadith to be about ordinary daily interactions at all, but about sexual/intimate interactions.

So, basically, this hadith isn't a universally accepted basis for not working with men. There are also multiple accounts of Muslim women working in mixed sex environments since the time of The Prophet (pbuh), including as scholars, in healthcare, in business, in leadership positions, etc.