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

[GelatinousDynamo]

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.

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.

Purity is used to police women's bodies.

Exactly this sort of preventing unapproved relationships by banning working with men has no place in 21century British employment.
Not your employers problem.

Obviously frustrating for the manager, who will have to try and maintain the relationship with the client.

It would at least show she is trying to seek a reasonable adjustment for her employee. She doesn’t have to accommodate what the employee asks for if it isn’t reasonable but it will show she hasn’t just jumped to “sack her.”

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

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.

Well, it seems like it might be necessary in this job...

Which is how you end up with nonsense like „women working outside the home isn’t necessary“. Necessary is very much a subjective concept, but that’s why we need to decide the values that we as a country want to live by because that can then act as an objective reference point.

Doesn’t sound all that different to Christian prohibitions of adultery.

Not all people from "certain middle Eastern or Asian cultures still live in the 7th century". You are talking about millions of people, like any other religion there is a wide spectrum.

No employer in modern day Britain should need to ask a Muslim candidate which century of Muslim dictate do they adhere to.

Has the employee offered any alternative solution? I’ve never refused to do a task that was within my role but if I ever needed to push back on something I’m sure I’d be expected to provide some options

I just came on to respond to Pepjjgf, @Scirocco, and see you worded that post at 11:37 far better than I could have done. The only thing I'd add is that I believe it was Al Albani (?) who judged it to be an "authentic hadith" and I understand there are doubts in some quarters about his repute as a scholar

It was a very interesting post though, so thank you for that

That is really interesting @Scirocco thank you.

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.

Am picturing an employment tribunal where the employee cannot attend because it’s in a room with men …

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

This

No, not this. This is England in 2025, not the dark ages.

Who would be an employer in 2025 ? What has the woman said as an alternative to her going to the meeting ? Imagine a contractor turning up with a chaperone WTF ! Quickest way for a business to lose customers if she can’t do the job she’s being paid for that’s it she’s out. Surely ?

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

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 ?

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.