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

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.

That's good for them. But the islamic ruling and guidance is to minimise opposite gender interaction where it is not necessary.

That's good for them. But the islamic ruling and guidance is to minimise opposite gender interaction where it is not necessary.

So, what about the Muslim women who are able to work professionally with colleagues and clients, regardless of gender?

Is not anything about her being disgraced. As someone who has read about islam in my free time, it's all about preventative measures that stops pre martial sex in its tracks.

Does it matter at all if any of this works for the (soon to be ex) client?

Is not anything about her being disgraced. As someone who has read about islam in my free time, it's all about preventative measures that stops pre martial sex in its tracks.

Is not anything about her being disgraced. As someone who has read about islam in my free time, it's all about preventative measures that stops pre martial sex in its tracks.

Because a religious rule that thinks any woman who sits next to a man will somehow be disgraced is sexist and regressive?

Its bat sh*t behaviour like this that would make me nervous about hiring religious employees. Seems as soon as they have their feet under the table problems start to be caused. Would manage out 100% before 2 years service. It feels like muslim culture particularly seems to take precedent even in Western countries with western norms. The same doesn't apply with westerners in the middle east for example.

As I said earlier in this thread:

OP-

"She shares her office with a male colleague and has no problems shaking hands with men... "

She has shot herself in the foot right there. Big time.

Document every interaction/handshake she has, document the time spent in the office with the other (non-related) male, and then proceed to sack her.

She cannot selectively choose which parts of her religion suit her work life.

Either she is all in or she isnt. That she handshakes other non-related men is seen by "some Muslims" as a big no-no, but she does it.

So to claim she cant be in an office of other men is fucking utter horseshit.

Dont let the tail wag the dog. Give her one chance and if she refuses, sack her.

Its that simple. And before anyone claims I am being anti-Muslim/Islamic etc, I am of the same faith.

There is NO protected characteristic at stake here.

Under two years employment, I'd frankly sack her sorry ass immediately for blatant insubordination and refusing to carry out tasks commensurate with the terms of her employment.

I have a new employee in my team, she is a devout Muslim. She's been with us since January and there were no issues so far, she's getting along well with everyone and her performance was fine. I sent her an email on Friday afternoon to say that our client has now (finally) prepared all necessary documents and that she should go there and go over everything with them one day next week. She wrote me back today that she can't do that because only men work in the department and she can't spend the day alone with strange men (because of her religion).

AIBU to insist that she does her job and goes there or would that be religious discrimination? She shares an office with a male colleague and has never complained about it. She's the first devout Muslim I've ever had on my team and I honestly have no experience at all with such issues. She's the only one who has the necessary experience and isn't already scheduled elsewhere.

But she can still claim it was due to discrimination on the grounds of religion.

^

She can claim, yes

Be very careful..my autistic sons was asked to move seats at college because a Muslim girl needed to sit down and wasn't allowed next to a boy..he nearly got the police called on him because he took umbrage to this and voiced his upset to his counsellor about it

Managing someone out because they have told you they cannot do a particular job due to a protected characteristic is also illegal. Hope that helps. It's constructive/unfair dismissal and bullying.

I am sure that most posters are not gleeful. And the ultimate outcome might be that this employee has to leave the business; but it should not be a matter of 'managing her out'. The focus now needs to be on trying to make it work.

The OP is taking legal advice which should make her aware of the bottom line of what her employer is required by law to accommodate. It may be that what the employee is asking for is reasonable - but that will probably depend on a number of factors such as how central client visits are to the role, how often these arise, the resources of the organisation etc.

It is possible that the employee didn't think through what her chosen profession will entail. And I know there are a lot of grifters out there - but there is no evidence this employee is one of them. Nor would I accuse her of 'lying by omission' without evidence. Most people won't raise these matters during their interviews, which are about selling their suitability for the role. The responsibility is on the recruiter/prospective employer to ensure they make the role requirements clear from the outset.