To think a school can't legally suddenly ban the headscarf for muslin girls!

[Headscarfs123]

So our local catholic school has banned the headscarf this week...disastrous for some of the girls but also against church advice that headscarfs are fine, against DFES advice about consultation and sensitivity to religious groups, against best practice as this type of change should involve the governing body? discriminatory on religious and sexist grounds...Sikh boys can keep their turbans.

Aibu to think that the school is legally in the wrong?

Utter bollocks that it can't be reformed. so you can patronise me if you like Cote, but it makes you just look nasty

Headscarf for Muslim girls/woman is not required under the Qur'an's teachings.

Turban for Sikhs (can be male or female) IS required, it is one of the 5 articles of faith, especially for bapitised Sikhs (which secondary age would be)

Norfolk-says who? muslim women who wear it says that it is required....

I know that I was looking at from an article of faith point of view which is how the school may be justifying this change.

I personally think that this new policy is shocking (if true)

Posie - I didn't say Islam can't be reformed, you dingbat. I said no scholar is going to single-handedly try to reform it, that it will come eventually through popular uprising and bloodshed, like Enlightment came to Christianity after the Dark Ages. More so with Islam than Christianity, since the Bible never claimed to be the literal word of God.

If only you could learn to read properly, we could actually get somewhere.

Norfolk - Actually, Quran is pretty clear about the necessity of covering one's head & bosom. The debate is only re definition of "valuables" to be covered: some say all beauty (hands, face, feet etc) of a woman are her jewelry/valuable to be hidden away, others (the more rational among us) point out that this is about real jewellery and safety of women as it was a time whwomb urges attacked women for their valuables.

Cote - so covering up could have been originally just to do with hiding bling from bandits?

Some of it, yes.

Quran talks extensively about modesty, so a certain amount of covering up and loose clothes etc are a given. Covering the head is also a given (although imo, that is because loose garments covering head and upper body were the dress code of the day in the desert heat).

What is debated is the "valuables" or "jewellery" that Quran talks about covering. I think that is real jewellery, and many agree with me. Others feel that all the beauty of a woman, including eyes, feet, fingers etc are her adornments. That is how you get the burqa

Meanwhile, since it seems I have become the resident expert on Islam of this thread, I'd like the propose that (1) since girls are not to cover up before they are considered to have reached sexual maturity, and (2) in our day that age is 16, (3) girls should not cover up before they turn 16.

Of course, they will not accept this, because it is mighty hard to make a 16 year old dress the way her parents want her to. Much harder than a 9-year-old or even an 11-year-old.

Cote - yes, seems ambiguous and difficult to comprehend on many levels. I guess that's why faith is required.

If it's about jewellery though, why would that be age dependent? Do little girls not wear gold earrings etc?

Err... Maybe I should reiterate that I am a lifelong atheist. No faith required to understand such simple sentences in the Quran imo.

Those are two separate things:
(1) children are not responsible for their actions, so they are not obliged to observe requirements of the religion (Islam)
(2) any adult woman who is not a child needs to:
....... A) dress modestly (i.e. No figure-hugging mini skirts and plunging necklines)
....... B) cover head and bosom
....... C) cover adornments/jewellery

C is the only bit that is open for debate.

It has to work both ways. My dc went to the local cofe school because we are practicing christians. The local muslim community preferred to send their children there than the local secular school because of the family values and more traditional family ethos. The school had a uniform long before the muslim families arrived. In approximately 2006 trousers were introduced for girls because of pressure from the Muslim community. They didn't participate in the christian ethos of the school or mix very much with other families to be honest but they did expect the school to bend towards them. One of the local schools didn't have a uniform and they could have gone there but they preferred the church school and expected it to change its uniform rules and tradition for them. I would have a little more respect than to wear a mini skirt in the middle east and feel that respect needs to cut both ways. Had I sent my children to a muslim school I would have expected to confirm to its rules and traditions.

Cote - sorry my reasons for asking probably weren't very clear. Re confusion, I suppose I'm referring to the fact that's it's so hard to understand why all parts of a woman's body should be considered 'adornments' to be hidden, that someone would need faith to fill in the gaps where common sense doesn't seem to hold sway.

There will always be differences in understanding between the moderate/rational and the fundamental/ultra religious, and I think is is one such point.

It is just a word. By all evidence, it is only referring to physical adornments and real jewellery, but the ultra-conservative will of course take it to the extreme and say the eyes of a woman are also her adornments and therefore should be hidden away.

I find it all very sad Especially heart-breaking is how otherwise rational and reasonable Western women (like Riven) born in Europe succumb to this medieval interpretation and take up the veil upon converting to Islam.

Impeccable timing - Richard Dawkins on Newsnight. A shame we can't all be united by truth rather than divided by myths (to paraphrase him a bit).

I find Dawkin's views a bit simplistic on that topic - it's kinda a false uniting if we're all exactly the same in thought, surely. And even if we were all atheists who used to science to find truth...scientists are quite known for having their arguments as well.

I doubt if rival factions of scientists would be commonly found fighting to the death though. Bickering and rivalries and healthy debate, yes. But believing that god is on their side so they can do what they like, no.

"Islam cannot be easily "reformed" or even slightly changed in any way because (1) its instructions are very detailed, and (2) these are practically set in stone because they mainly come from the Quran, which is the literal word of God. This is why there is only one version of the Quran and why it has not changed at all through centuries.

Do you know of any scholars who would be willing to alter the word of God, even if the reward for doing so were not certain death? I didn't think so." Cote

I cannot fathom, given worldwide scholars gather in order to reform Islam and speak out loudly to reform, how you get off speaking to me like I know nothing saying that scholars could seek to reform.

So, yes, I do know many scholars that are willing to reinterpret the word of God, ie reform Islam.
If they are not seeking to alter it in any way how do you suppose these scholars wish to reform?
And even you admit that certain phrases/words are open to interpretation.

Being patronising and head shaking doesn't make you any more right, it just makes you a self congratulating poster, who in this case is wrong. Reformation may take bloodshed, afterall in Islamic countries sneezing the prophet's name practically causes flogging[before you jump on this I am aware it doesn't]......but I think this will change when people are more educated and better off. It's amazing how wealth creates a broader mind.

And besides, I don't remember saying 'easy reformation'.

"Islam cannot be easily "reformed" or even slightly changed in any way because (1) its instructions are very detailed, and (2) these are practically set in stone because they mainly come from the Quran, which is the literal word of God. This is why there is only one version of the Quran and why it has not changed at all through centuries.

rubbish as the quran doesn't mention covering women at all.
All the so called rules for women covering up are in the haddiths not the quran and there are plenty of haddiths that are accepted by some muslims and rejected by others.
Everyone says muslim as if they are one body but just like christians there is different schools of thought hence why sunni and shia muslims have been killing each other for the past 2000 years.

I would generally say that it's a good thing to have the freedom to choose what you wish to wear. It's just a shame that not all women and girls have that freedom.

I've been half following this and do we know yet where this school is?

I agree with Rivendale..it's nowhere to be found on Google and there's been nothing in the papers that i read.