to not send my girls on this school trip because of my beliefs

[JustGiveMeTwoMinutes]

The trip is to a mosque and the girls (year 3 and 4) have to cover their heads with a scarf, the boys don't have to.

Just to be clear about where I am coming from, this is about a specific practice which I believe is discriminatory and therefore disagree with. I would not choose myself to enter a building that I could only enter if I wore particular clothes but where that requirement was limited to one gender or one group defined by arbitrary characteristics. I would be happy to cover my head as a sign of respect/tradition if everyone entering the building was required to do so.

They can make their own decision on this when they are adults.

Am I being ridiculous and petty or is it reasonable to stand up for my view that just because a custom is part of a religion that does not excuse it being discriminatory?

Good to read your post JustGiveMeTwoMinutes, and that your daughters are going on the trip.

Would be interested to hear the Headteacher's explanation, though, particularly about the dress code.

The head sounds like she was getting 'offended on behalf of...' as does happen sometimes.

Hi Goblin

The text was sent out following receipt of the teachers pack from the mosque. I am not sure exactly what that pack said, but following my query the teacher organising the trip also rang the mosque on Monday morning to clarify and received the same explanation I did.

The head has therefore decided that girls will not be asked to bring scarves. I think there has been miscommunication on all sides.

zzzzzz - it will not have reduced her education just changed it, she will have learned about something else on that day.

Peace and love to everyone

When is the trip? Are you letting DD go?

I wonder what the OP would have said if she had been told that the class was to visit a Church and that boys would be expected to remove any head covering - hood, woolly hat etc? Surely this is just good manners - like wearing a hat for a man at a Jewish funeral as DH was expected to do the other day or wearing the appropriate clothes for a secular function. A RC church in many places will not allow me in with bare shoulders so on holiday I take a scarf in my bag if I know I'm likely to be going into one. By being respectful of the beliefs of others and well mannered you are not in any way giving up your own beliefs but simply accepting that they are beliefs. Mine happen to include tolerance of things which do no harm so I would actually be acting in accordance with them.

Hi Enough

The trip is in a couple of weeks time. Obviously events have now overtaken us and there may be safety concerns if there are any more attacks on mosques, but that is a separate issue. Now they don't need to take scarves I am once again happy for them to go, as I was when the trip was first announced.

Cat, no I don't think in the requirement for women to wear scarves is as benign as you make out, given the wider context of the treatment of women within Islam. You might want to read some of the posts further up the thread.

Not letting her go would have reduced her education, though - because she wouldn't have learned all the things that the other children learned on the trip.

That said, I am glad the issue has been resolved - it sounds like poor communication, and maybe the school making assumptions.

Trips like this are, in my opinion, a very important part of creating understanding and tolerance between different groups in society. If we know nothing about a particular group, it is much easier for people to stir up hatred against that group, because we don't have the knowledge to set against their inflammatory rhetoric.

For example - killing innocent people is explicitly condemned in the Qu'ran - and the vast majority of Muslims believe this implicitly - and once you know that, you can set that against the 'All muslims are terrorists and killers' rhetoric, and see how wrong that is.

We need to create understanding and togetherness - and trips like this one help do that, imo.

if it was racism they'd be objecting to the visit

YY

killing innocent people is explicitly condemned in the Qu'ran

But by the same token, what is considered innocent? Its open to interpretation isn't it, which is why we are in this mess.

Because ISIS have taken the prophet literally and people who can be killed include infidels, and a whole range of people who transgress the extremely broad criteria.

The charlie hebdo cartoonist were not innocent, they mocked the prophet,

the people in the theater were not innocent, they were drinking, idolizing, having fun..

No it is not open to interpretation, killing is only allowed on the battle field under conditions of war. Women, children, non combatants, elderly, buildings, tress, crops are all not allowed.

wow are the xenophobes out in force recently, not even bothering to hide your hatred anymore.

Thank-you for clarifying that, fuzzy - it is exactly this sort of information that is needed, to fight against the fear that ignorance causes.

Oh I see Fuzzy, maybe you want tell ISIS that, as they follow Islam punctiliously.

Hardly clarifying at all, when we have a sect within Islam who follow it to the letter and carry out these atrocities!

In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers < (ISIS)

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic

But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it

Following takfiri doctrine, the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people. The lack of objective reporting from its territory makes the true extent of the slaughter unknowable, but social-media posts from the region suggest that individual executions happen more or less continually, and mass executions every few weeks. Muslim “apostates” are the most common victims

Taken from atlantic - what ISIS REALLY WANT.

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

They are, as many other extremists over time have done, using and misinterpreting a theology or ideology to validate their actions, Limbo. Like Christians who quote the bible to justify their homophobia, or dictators who use a political ideology to justify brutally putting down any dissent.

But the bottom line in each case is that they are violent extremists, not that they are Muslim/Socialist/Christian/whatever.

Limbo, how do you know ISIS follow Islam punctiliously?

I cannot ask ISIS anything as I have no affiliation with them whatsoever.

Can you discuss with ISIS their religion with them? Why not, you seem to think I could?

I can tell you I follow Islam to as near the letter as possible, and I can tell you I have not and have never had any inclination to commit murder as it is categorically not allowed.

Limbo, how do you know ISIS follow Islam punctiliously?

I am just quoting that article Fuzzy, but its well known, ISIS are following Islam.

stdg have you read that Atlantic article. It doesn't seem that you have.
They are not mis - interpreting it, they are following it.

Its just they are following parts that cant exist in todays modern society which most muslims over the course of centuries have moved on from.

Because ISIS have taken the prophet literally and people who can be killed include infidels, and a whole range of people who transgress the extremely broad criteria.
This.

No the Prophet has never said Muslims are allowed to kill indiscriminately it has never been literally stated it has never been insinuated, the rules of combat are very very clear.

I'm telling you as real live Muslim who has studied Islam and is speaking first hand I am not allowed to kill 'infidels'.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world if killing 'infidels' were allowed by taking the Prophet 'literally' there wouldn't be many 'infidels' left.

Just because you read an article you are now an expert on Islam? I am no expert on Islam but have a lot more knowledge than you and the actions of ISIL, or what they like to call themselves, are completely forbidden by the Qur'an.

the rules of combat are very very clear.

what are they?

Limbo, how do you know ISIS follow Islam punctiliously?

can you explain to us what they are getting wrong and why?

But the bottom line in each case is that they are violent extremists, not that they are Muslim/Socialist/Christian/whatever.

I am not understanding why such people are extremists.

Marx said that the only way to a communist society was through violent revolution.

Christians can find plain justification in the bible for being against homosexuality.

The thing about Islam is that anyone can claim they are the True Followers and everyone else is an infidel. Anyone can claim they are following the Koran and can back up their beliefs with reference to this or that quote or this or that Haddith. It is not a centrally organised religion like the CofE or the Catholic Church, with a unified voice, a spokesperson, a catechism (RC) and a single person authorised to teach (RC). It is a very fractured group with much internecine strife and hatred directed towards Muslims as well as others.

The thing about Islam is that anyone can claim they are the True Followers and everyone else is an infidel.

sure. but you can't just make stuff up and claim you are a true follower. I can't claim that true muslims should bake 5 chocolate cakes a day, and hope that everyone agrees.

and while having a centralised system removes the problem of fractiousness, it doesn't solve the most basic problem: that these books are divinely inspired has no real justification. that claim lends credence to the idea that they should be followed closely, without question.