I feel this is less a Muslim issue, than a human one.

I am a muslim woman who observes the hijab and the face veil and I have to say I would definately not go seeking employment in a unisex hairsalon in a country like the UK where clearly the norms are different from a predominantly muslim society.
I have to say I totally agree with everything that you have said. I don’t know the reasons why Ms Noah chose to search for employment in a unisex hair salon where it was highly likely she would have to touch male clients’ hair etc, but maybe it was under dire circumstances or last resort to look for work. But from reading the article it seems to me that the issue with Sarah the owner was truly not the fact that she was muslim, but the fact that she coverered her hair, which yes I can see why she would think that it would be detrimental to her business. I assume she would not have had a problem with a muslim who didn’t wear a headscarf.

If Ms Noah had searched for a job which had nothing to do with the need for her hair to be exposed, then yes maybe it would have fallen under the banner of discrimination, but in this case I feel Wedge had every right to turn her down, considering the norm of the society as I pointed out earlier. Although I live in Nigeria which is quite conservative especially in the northern part, I studied for five years in the UK and I know that there were many places where I just wouldnt even bother going to look for a job as I knew the environment would be contradictory to my chosen way of dress. And I do agree with you and also Islam encourages muslims who find it difficult to practice their religion and also everyday duties such as halal employment options, etc, to emigrate to a more acceptable society for them. Islam does not allow for us muslims to impose our ways of living and belief on non muslims especially if we are living in a minority.

My question has to do with the hijab — technically, I should have posted in other threads dealing with this matter, but was afraid they weren’t being read as much as they’ve been up for a while, so thought I’d ask here.

A young Muslim woman in Great Britain has just been awarded 4,000 pounds in a discrimination suit against a London hair salon owner.

Now, I am against discrimination based on the hijab. I feel that governments banning it are wrong. If healthy democracies can accommodate Sikhs’ turbans, they can accommodate the hijab. Such dress hurts no one (unless they’re working in a factory, where safety issues are a concern).

However, this case seems different to me. The salon owner, Sarah Desrosiers, is targeting a specific niche in her business — those seeking the “urban chic” look (vivid colors, spikes, etc.). An integral part of this is that the staff appear in the look that clients are seeking. The atmosphere of the salon, in her view, must be itself “urban chic.” Additionally, Desrosiers’ shop, Wedge, depends in large part on being seen by passersby. So, her decision not to hire Ms. Bushra Noah was based on the view that Ms. Noah’s conservative dress — coupled with her own hidden hair — would have a negative affect on drawing clients. This would be true of any woman, regardless of religious identity (many Hindu women, for instance, wear head coverings).

The other-hand argument is that Ms. Noah may have been a very good stylist in her own right. After all, hijab-wearing women don’t have to wear their hijabs in private life, and care every bit as much about their appearance as any other women. It’s entirely likely she could have a lot of talent. Though she dresses conservatively, it doesn’t mean she can’t produce the look that Wedge Salon offers. Some people have suggested that Ms. Desrosiers should have asked for a portfolio, or found a volunteer for Ms. Noah to prove her skills upon. As a small business owner, however, those actions demand more time than she had available.

My feeling is that Ms. Desrosiers, as a private business owner, can choose her staff based on her own decisions. I agree that trendy salons depend on their staff as the “front line” of their image, which is anything but conservative. Ms. Noah’s conservative dress would have had a negative affect on potential clients’ choice of whether to patronize the salon.

I feel Ms. Noah would have had far better luck seeking work at a more conservative salon, or even started up one of her own that exclusively catered to hijab-wearing women. For example — someone like her would instinctively know how to deal with fixing “hat hair” (or in this case, “hijab hair”) and other issues uniquely related to wearing the hijab. I’d be willing to bet she’d have FAR more success than to try and force the issue with an unwilling potential employer like Wedge Salon.

Furthermore, Wedge Salon is unisex. A conservative Muslim woman is forbidden to touch men who are not related to them. I don’t see how she could have reconciled this? Thoughts on this are very much sought.

In a climate of “There those Muslims go again, trying to force their views on us”, this case frustrates me. I want to defend the hijab, even though I’ll never wear it — but I feel this case is a setback.

Enough said.

First of all Hijab is something that the majority of the Ulama have agreed upon is mandatory. A woman not wearing hijab is undoubtedly committing a sin but she should never be looked down upon by others as we are all sinful and have our own trials and tribulations. I never said for the government to force them to wear hijab, or persecute them if they do not. My point was a country like France where a sizable majority is Muslim is one of the few countries with rigid laws prohibiting Hijab. Turkey a Muslim secular country too has this going on. Essentially I believe the powers in those countries are scared that a woman wearing a headscarf will somehow be intimidating by sending some sort of political message. That’s what I find sad.

Please understand what I was trying to say before accusing me of being a hypocrite