NationStates Jolt Archive

There seems to be a lot of focus on US internal affairs here (normal, I guess, since I assume that a lagr number of you actually live in the US), so I wanted to bring in a bit of discuession about a legal case that has been going up to the highest court in Germany and was finally decided some time last year:


Muslim teacher in Germany loses case over headscarf ban

A Muslim teacher who insisted on wearing her headscarf in the classroom lost her challenge to a state ban on religious symbols in schools yesterday. Derek Scally, Irish Times
Ms Ferestha Ludin (29), maintained she had a right to wear her headscarf and that it was not a religious symbol.
However, the constitutional court in the state of BadenWürttemberg disagreed, ruling that Ms Ludin's headscarf was a Muslim symbol that contradicts state law banning all religious symbols in schools.
The "headscarf case" arose after Ms Ludin, who teaches in a private Muslim school in Berlin, was rejected for a job in a public school in Stuttgart because of her insistence on covering her head. Last year a lower court ruled that although Ms Ludin was suitably qualified for the job, she was rightly disqualified for wanting to wear "a religiously motivated head covering".
Ms Ludin alleged the decision infringed her right to freedom of religion, as guaranteed in the German constitution and said she was "disappointed" with the decision.
The end of the "headscarf case" came as church organisations and the opposition Christian Democratic Union mounted a case in Germany's constitutional court to return religious education to the curriculum in the state of Brandenburg, beside Berlin. In 1996 the state replaced religious education with a course called Civic Values, Ethics and Religion.
Brandenburg's minister president, Mr Manfred Stople, said religious education is necessary in schools to redress the "spiritual impoverishment" caused by the isolation of religion in East Germany.

The German constitution states religious freedom as well as a very strict seperation of church(es) and state.
So, what's your opinion on this?

I have no problem with it, as long as the ban is applied the same to all religions.

I have no problem with it, as long as the ban is applied the same to all religions.

Well... as far as I know no teacher has yet been suspended for wearing a cross pendant or something similar.

That's really stupid. The muslim girls in my school are allowed to wear those head scarf things.

Oy, fucking, vey. This is ridiculous, this is clealy disrimination towards Muslims due to fear.

That's really stupid. The muslim girls in my school are allowed to wear those head scarf things.

she's a teacher, not a student.

And in germany teachers are not allowed to show religious affiliation with overt symbols.

So if I chose to wear a head scarf when I went to my new job in a German school but declared it a nuetral headscarf with no meaning other that looking great, it would be okay. But if on the second day I suddenly and quietly in class said, "This is a statement of my religion." it would transform in to a violation of the seperation of church and state? A headscarf? A piece of crossed metal I wear around my neck?
Ah the oddities of the world never cease to amaze me.

she's a teacher, not a student.

And in germany teachers are not allowed to show religious affiliation with overt symbols.
Really? Boy is my face red.

I dont see any harm of wearing a piece of cloth, a cross or a hat specific to one religion or another. Its every humans right to express themselves and wearing clothing or jewelry was not offensive last time i checked, and as long as they`re not promoting violence through that simbol they should be able to keep it.

I'm really not a fan of the headscarfs, too sexist in my opinion. The conflict between church and state is a bit irrelevant to an anarchist, though.

If she were a Mennonite and wore a homemade dress, would she be fired?

Unless that one teacher is the only teacher the students ever see, or she abuses her position by using it to preach, there is no reason she should not be allowed to wear clothing that she feels is modest.

Would we be sitting back and saying it was ok if it was a Christian woman who refused to wear tank tops and wanted to always wear a bra?

I'm really not a fan of the headscarfs, too sexist in my opinion. The conflict between church and state is a bit irrelevant to an anarchist, though.

A headscarf is sexist? That is gonna shock the hell out of a lot of women who simply though it was a fashion accesory. :D

What a bunch of bull. Should there be seperation of Church and State? Yes.
Should the State then ban freedom of expression and religion in schools? NO!

The laws in Germany and France banning religious symbols in schools are ridiculous. They serve the opposite purpose to what they were intended to do (I think they create anger and resentment) and are downright anti-religious. How does someone wearing a scarf, hat or cross violate anyone else's rights?

and are downright anti-religious.?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's a good ruling. The state should not be in the business of condoning silly superstitions.

Not being able to wear a headscarf is ridiculous. As Kervoskia said "Oy, fucking, vey. This is ridiculous, this is clealy disrimination towards Muslims due to fear."

There seems to be a lot of focus on US internal affairs here (normal, I guess, since I assume that a lagr number of you actually live in the US), so I wanted to bring in a bit of discuession about a legal case that has been going up to the highest court in Germany and was finally decided some time last year:




The German constitution states religious freedom as well as a very strict seperation of church(es) and state.
So, what's your opinion on this?

It's not a symbol of religion. In the Muslim faith, females must wear those things, not to advertise their religion, but to supposedly "Keep them pure".

It's not like wearing a cross. It's more like wearing a Yarmulke.

It's a good ruling. The state should not be in the business of condoning silly superstitions.
It's not a matter of condoning them; it's a matter of tolerating them.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
I don't know about you, but I like to think of myself as tolerant. (I am an atheist, BTW.)

It's not like wearing a cross. It's more like wearing a Yarmulke.

Actually, it's more like wearing a bra. I'm sure people aren't going to complain if I wear a bra to my workplace, right? Why complain if I wear long sleeves and cover my hair?

I'm also an atheist, but I see nothing wrong with religious expression in school. Not allowing religious expression is as ridiculous as banning pro Republican or Democratic stickers or sports jerseys.

Bloody stupid, in my opinion.
This borders (again, IMO) on enforced atheism in schools. Im sure even the atheists dont want ENFORCED atheism, due to the resentment this would create.

The one thing I'm hving trouble and concerns with regarding this case is that it siply is unfair.
I wouldn't mind if NO teachers were allowed to wear ANY religious symbols, be that a cross, a headscarf, a prayer cap or a Krishna bead necklace. That would be ok, I could understand that, given the fact that teachers are state-employed and should - to some extend - be an example the children should follow. In a strictly secular state, teachers should not be allowed to promote their religion by wearing religious symbols, same as they shouldn't be allowed to endorse any political party in class.
But to create a legislation that allows teachers of one faith to display and therefore endorse it at school while prohibiting teachers of another faith to do the same thing is discrimination. Nothing else.

The one thing I'm hving trouble and concerns with regarding this case is that it siply is unfair.
I wouldn't mind if NO teachers were allowed to wear ANY religious symbols, be that a cross, a headscarf, a prayer cap or a Krishna bead necklace. That would be ok, I could understand that, given the fact that teachers are state-employed and should - to some extend - be an example the children should follow. In a strictly secular state, teachers should not be allowed to promote their religion by wearing religious symbols, same as they shouldn't be allowed to endorse any political party in class.
But to create a legislation that allows teachers of one faith to display and therefore endorse it at school while prohibiting teachers of another faith to do the same thing is discrimination. Nothing else.

it's quite fair. all religious symbols are banned, not just headscarves. read the original post

i support religious expression of students, but NOT teachers.

Well... as far as I know no teacher has yet been suspended for wearing a cross pendant or something similar.

Maybe that's because they don't wear them. :headbang:

Well... as far as I know no teacher has yet been suspended for wearing a cross pendant or something similar.

she wasn't suspended, she was refused a state school job. quite a difference

What a bunch of bull. Should there be seperation of Church and State? Yes.
Should the State then ban freedom of expression and religion in schools? NO!

France bans students from wearing religous symbols. So what's the big deal? School uniforms for students and teachers, that will solve the problem. :D

Brandenburg's minister president, Mr Manfred Stople, said religious education is necessary in schools to redress the "spiritual impoverishment" caused by the isolation of religion in East Germany.

Anyone worried about that bit and its implications?

Maybe that's because they don't wear them. :headbang:

Or because a cross can easily be put under clothing so noone sees it, while a headscarf is hard to hide.
As to the ruling: I agree in principle. A teacher is an example and authority figure (or should be for those kids anyway), and as such should be neutral while fullfilling her function.

I'm trying to figure out just when a headscarf became a Muslim religious symbol. It's an accessory, nothing more. It isn't even required. Oh well ... ignorance abounds.

I'm trying to figure out just when a headscarf became a Muslim religious symbol. It's an accessory, nothing more. It isn't even required. Oh well ... ignorance abounds.

when certain countries adopted a very anti-woman feeling, under the flimsy disguise of religion

I'm trying to figure out just when a headscarf became a Muslim religious symbol. It's an accessory, nothing more. It isn't even required. Oh well ... ignorance abounds.

It became one when the women wearing them themselves said it was a religious symbol.

The thing in Germany is that most teachers work for the government simply because teachers are considered civil servants. If they don't work for the government yet, they're usually in the process of becoming civil servants. This is the foundation for the ban of religious symbols in public schools, since the government isn't supposed to propagate a given religion.

it's quite fair. all religious symbols are banned, not just headscarves. read the original post
Just to add my comment on this,
the highest court did not decide all religious symbols are banned. After education is left to the member states of germany, it only ruled that a state may ban all those religious symbols or may not ban any at all.
So there is no discrimination in this ruling.
The point is BadenWürttemberg and other states are claiming the headscarf is NOT religious but rather political motivated.
And because the political intention of the headscarf cotraticting the constitution. So the question is if the headscarf is indeed purely religious or if there some other intentions, too.
I'm not certain on the second point, if a religion has to be taught in school.
Mainly I think religion should be part of the private, so it is enough if you teach general things and ethics in school.
On the other side I recognize the desire to keep the traditions on which the community may be based.

It's not a symbol of religion. In the Muslim faith, females must wear those things, not to advertise their religion, but to supposedly "Keep them pure".

It's not like wearing a cross. It's more like wearing a Yarmulke.

If you are wearing something because your religion requires you to do so then that "someting" you are wearing becomes a symbol of your religion.

I'm trying to figure out just when a headscarf became a Muslim religious symbol. It's an accessory, nothing more. It isn't even required. Oh well ... ignorance abounds.

Some Muslim sects like the Wahabi claim it is a requirement. Some theocratic states like Saudi Arabia require their women to wear them in public or face punishment.

It became one when the women wearing them themselves said it was a religious symbol.

So, if I hung a dog turd around my neck and said it was a religious symbol of Christianity, would that make it so?

I don't think so.

Some Muslim sects like the Wahabi claim it is a requirement. Some theocratic states like Saudi Arabia require their women to wear them in public or face punishment.

Like I said ... ignorance abounds.

What a bunch of bull. Should there be seperation of Church and State? Yes.
Should the State then ban freedom of expression and religion in schools? NO!

students are not affected by the seperation of church and state because they themselves are not employees of the satae
when employed by the state, teachers become representatives of that state and there for cannot show any affiliation to a religion while they are working
it is a comleatly different topic while they are off the clock

Maybe that's because they don't wear them. :headbang:

I went to school in Germany, and they do. and no court case ever got started about that.

So, if I hung a dog turd around my neck and said it was a religious symbol of Christianity, would that make it so?

I don't think so.

If you truly believe it to be a symbol of Christianity, it would actually. Of your own Christian sect, consisting of 1 to be exact (or if you prefer: your own personal interpretation of Christianity). If you get followers it could in fact even become a symbol recognised and used by the majority of people calling and believing themselves to be Christians - and which point it is a general symbol of Christianity.
At this moment about 70% of the female moslims (dutch spelling) I meet in the Netherlands either wears a burkha or headscarf - and there are quite a few living here. I imagine it is similar in Germany.

The problem with the headscarf thingies is that they are sometimes used by more fanatically inclined muslims in their puberty as a means of expressing identity, and by doing so they tend to "put down" the more moderate muslim girls - for not "being true". As such, it is used not as a religious symbol, but more as a means of agressive distinction between "true" and "untrue". But that's just the students.
For teachers, it is somewhat inappropriate because of the above mentioned students. The moderate muslims will feel "alienated" and even betrayed by what should be a neutral personality in their individual upbringing.

I went to school in Germany, and they do. and no court case ever got started about that.

But there has been a ruling to remove the "Kruzifix" in the classroom in Bayern. If anyone in that class demands that...

Well... as far as I know no teacher has yet been suspended for wearing a cross pendant or something similar.

I will assume that, like France, the ban is on overt symbols - so presumably a pendant worn under a shirt or whatever would be acceptable. Wearing one over the shirt wouldn't be.

What a bunch of bull. Should there be seperation of Church and State? Yes.
Should the State then ban freedom of expression and religion in schools? NO!

As a teacher, she is an agent *of* the state, which has no religion - ergo no scarf.

She can still be a muslim, the ban is purely on the overt symbol.

If her faith is that fragile, tough.

Bloody stupid, in my opinion.
This borders (again, IMO) on enforced atheism in schools. Im sure even the atheists dont want ENFORCED atheism, due to the resentment this would create.

Nonsense. The woman is not being banned from *being muslim* - the ban is on wearing overt symbols of that religion. Any religion.

There is no prohibition whatsoever on her having a religion - she just has to keep it to herself.

People are happy to support free speech when the person speaking is saying something they like to hear. The opposite is true as well.

Wearing the hijab is not a requirement for Muslim women as stated in the Qur'an. Many women worldwide are forced to fully veil (such as in Saudi), and other women choose to wear a hijab or scarf because, much like the scarf of a Catholic nun, it is a sign of virtue. It is a sign of respect to the woman and to the people around her, and the Qur'an does say that men and women should dress in a manner respectful to themselves and others. The Qur'an teaches us that a woman is more that just her body, therefore you must not look upon a woman as a sexual object. Covering the body helps that. An analogy would be women who wear sweats and no make-up. Bad analogy, but same principle.

So, as far as hijab being a religious symbol, it is true that many women, Egyptian women as an excellent example, took to wearing the hijab as a means of reclaiming an Egyptian Nationalist/Muslim identity at the end of thier colonization, replacing a failed foreign system with something that culturally belongs to the Egyptian Muslims.

I don't know how Germany defines it's religious laws, but in the U.S. it would be an interesting Supreme Court case. It would probably hinge on expert opinion of hijab as either a cultural or religious symbol, and as the Qur'an does not say that women must be veiled (it says that the Prophet's wives must, because of whom they are married to), then making her not wear it would not violate her excersizing her religion. By the same logic, crosses and Stars of David could come off to, because wearing them is not demanded by the religion.

I would like to think that we live in a society were a teacher can wear his or her religious symbols, but recognize thier duty to the children and to the secular nature of the classroom.

As one member pointed out, if she was wearing a little gold cross, no one would complain. But because of western fear and ignorance of Islam, we have to discuss, analyze, and hopefully learn from it.
Insha'allah!

women wearing Burkhas is offensive to men.

The implication is men cannot view women as anything other than sex objects unless they are hidden.

People are happy to support free speech when the person speaking is saying something they like to hear. The opposite is true as well.

Wearing the hijab is not a requirement for Muslim women as stated in the Qur'an. Many women worldwide are forced to fully veil (such as in Saudi), and other women choose to wear a hijab or scarf because, much like the scarf of a Catholic nun, it is a sign of virtue. It is a sign of respect to the woman and to the people around her, and the Qur'an does say that men and women should dress in a manner respectful to themselves and others. The Qur'an teaches us that a woman is more that just her body, therefore you must not look upon a woman as a sexual object. Covering the body helps that. An analogy would be women who wear sweats and no make-up. Bad analogy, but same principle.

So, as far as hijab being a religious symbol, it is true that many women, Egyptian women as an excellent example, took to wearing the hijab as a means of reclaiming an Egyptian Nationalist/Muslim identity at the end of thier colonization, replacing a failed foreign system with something that culturally belongs to the Egyptian Muslims.

I don't know how Germany defines it's religious laws, but in the U.S. it would be an interesting Supreme Court case. It would probably hinge on expert opinion of hijab as either a cultural or religious symbol, and as the Qur'an does not say that women must be veiled (it says that the Prophet's wives must, because of whom they are married to), then making her not wear it would not violate her excersizing her religion. By the same logic, crosses and Stars of David could come off to, because wearing them is not demanded by the religion.

I would like to think that we live in a society were a teacher can wear his or her religious symbols, but recognize thier duty to the children and to the secular nature of the classroom.

As one member pointed out, if she was wearing a little gold cross, no one would complain. But because of western fear and ignorance of Islam, we have to discuss, analyze, and hopefully learn from it.
Insha'allah!
Makes me feel bad because I don't exactly dress in a modest way :(

Like I said ... ignorance abounds.

Well, I've been in Saudi Arabia so what I said is based on first hand knowledge which is hardly ignorance. Nuf sasid.

Well, I've been in Saudi Arabia so what I said is based on first hand knowledge which is hardly ignorance. Nuf sasid.

i suspect the intention of the poster you quoted was to imply the Saudi authorities that enforce such a rule are ignorant of Islam

Well, I've been in Saudi Arabia so what I said is based on first hand knowledge which is hardly ignorance. Nuf sasid.

You missed the point. Ignorance abounds among Muslims as well. You mentioned the Wahabi and the Saudi government that say it's compulsory to wear hijab, when it is not. Hence, the Wahabi and Saudi government are the ignorant ones.

That, however, is a long known and established fact.

Some Muslim sects like the Wahabi claim it is a requirement. Some theocratic states like Saudi Arabia require their women to wear them in public or face punishment.

Like I said ... ignorance abounds.

[QUOTE=Kaledan]Wearing the hijab is not a requirement for Muslim women as stated in the Qur'an. Many women worldwide are forced to fully veil (such as in Saudi),[QUOTE]

Point, counterpoint, point.

You missed the point. Ignorance abounds among Muslims as well. You mentioned the Wahabi and the Saudi government that say it's compulsory to wear hijab, when it is not. Hence, the Wahabi and Saudi government are the ignorant ones.

That, however, is a long known and established fact.

I think they base the requirement on the Hadiths (sp?) and not the Koran, but am not sure.

The point is though that the headscarf has become a religious symbol even if it was never intended to be because both Muslims and non-Muslims interpret it to be a religious symbol.

its my understanding that a moslem woman is expected to dress modestly and that just what constitutes modest dress varies from culture to culture. in taliban run afghanistan it was the burka, almost like wearing a portable tent. back when the US had many female students frmo iran you saw them wearing a particular kind of scarf and being fully covered on their arms and legs, pants being common. in some areas they wear beautiful flowing dresses with head covered and small veil over the nose and mouth. some just dress modestly and are not obvious to the non-moslem eye as being moslem at all.

it seems to me that what germany is doing is banning "turkish clothing" (if the woman is turkish, just an unfounded assumption) and preventing her from dressing modestly as her culture and religion demands. the scarf marks her as moslem to a non-moslem since christian germans dont dress that way but its not a religious symbol, its a cultural one.

its my understanding that a moslem woman is expected to dress modestly and that just what constitutes modest dress varies from culture to culture. in taliban run afghanistan it was the burka, almost like wearing a portable tent. back when the US had many female students frmo iran you saw them wearing a particular kind of scarf and being fully covered on their arms and legs, pants being common. in some areas they wear beautiful flowing dresses with head covered and small veil over the nose and mouth. some just dress modestly and are not obvious to the non-moslem eye as being moslem at all.
That would be hella awesome if the hair was let loose.

That would be hella awesome if the hair was let loose.
wouldnt it? i suppose thats why its considered modest to cover the hair, it would be so beautiful hanging loose.

wouldnt it? i suppose thats why its considered modest to cover the hair, it would be so beautiful hanging loose.
Although I'm a Muslim woman, I don't dress too modestly because I feel comfortable in my style and appearance. The way I dress is my way of representing myself in the way I see fit.

it seems to me that what germany is doing is banning "turkish clothing" (if the woman is turkish, just an unfounded assumption) and preventing her from dressing modestly as her culture and religion demands.

A great majority of the women I saw in Turkey wore western clothes. Very, very few wore scarves. It isn't a "Turkish" cultural thing. About half the women I saw in Malaysia wore headscarves. Most of the women there who wore headscarves also wore western style clothing. Those who wore the headscarves were Muslim. I do think headscarves are more of a religious than cultural symbol.

A great majority of the women I saw in Turkey wore western clothes. Very, very few wore scarves. It isn't a "Turkish" cultural thing.
In fact as far as I know the headscarf is even banned from universities (even for students its prohibited) in Turkey, isn't it?

Although I'm a Muslim woman, I don't dress too modestly because I feel comfortable in my style and appearance. The way I dress is my way of representing myself in the way I see fit.

Well, as a Muslim man, I do follow the general rules for modesty. Long sleeves, beard, long shirt fronts, hair covered for the most part, etc. I feel more comfortable that way.

Thing is, though, it's a choice. Most people - even a lot of Muslims - don't realise that it isn't required. But that's because they've probably grown up their whole lives with someone telling them that it's hijab or die. Not that different from the blind flocks of Christians who've never read a Bible, but only take a preacher's word for it.

I find it kinda sad.

Well Perezuela, it is your choice. And God admonishes us against judgement of one other, because we never know another's intentions. There are so many great aspects of the Qur'an that seem to be forgotten by people.
Yeah, we men are suppossed to be modest, but as the Prophet said, "I am only a man."

"Almighty god created sexual desire in ten parts; then he gave nine parts to women and one to men."
-Ali ibn Abu Taleb

Saudi is a special situation. As housing the Holy sites of Islam, the al-Sauds have to be VERY careful in what they allow and what they do not allow. If they try to become too secular, then extremists will FLOCK to kick them out. If you thought Iraq was bad...

"Almighty god created sexual desire in ten parts; then he gave nine parts to women and one to men."
-Ali ibn Abu Taleb


*giggle*

*giggle*
:D

Why was that funny?

Why was that funny?
Just think about it. I see the funny and I'm only 14.

Why was that funny?

It's just part of that wonderful Muslim sense of humour. Guess you had to be there. I mean, these words coming from the Caliph Ali. Show me a Pope with that kind of delicious observational humor.

Why, because Islam is not afraid of sex? Its only natural. Too bad the Pope can't figure that out.

That's going a bit far. btw, its the same in France. Here we have too much religion: "...under God..." a pledge/prayer itself

Why, because Islam is not afraid of sex?

Exactly. That, and it was a nice joke from the Caliph. A very early, "Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars" kinda joke.

Hilarious!

That's why I giggled.

Well, as a Muslim man, I do follow the general rules for modesty. Long sleeves, beard, long shirt fronts, hair covered for the most part, etc. I feel more comfortable that way.

Why the beard? I notice that some Muslim men wear one while others don't. I was wondering what the reason for wearing a beard is. Thank you in advance for your answer.

Why the beard? I notice that some Muslim men wear one while others don't. I was wondering what the reason for wearing a beard is. Thank you in advance for your answer.
It's basically Sunnah. In Islam, the Arabic word sunnah has come to denote the way Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the Messenger of Allah, lived his life.

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/misc/beard_in_islam.asp

It's basically Sunnah. In Islam, the Arabic word sunnah has come to denote the way Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the Messenger of Allah, lived his life.

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/misc/beard_in_islam.asp

Thank you.

If you truly believe it to be a symbol of Christianity, it would actually. Of your own Christian sect, consisting of 1 to be exact (or if you prefer: your own personal interpretation of Christianity). If you get followers it could in fact even become a symbol recognised and used by the majority of people calling and believing themselves to be Christians - and which point it is a general symbol of Christianity.
At this moment about 70% of the female moslims (dutch spelling) I meet in the Netherlands either wears a burkha or headscarf - and there are quite a few living here. I imagine it is similar in Germany.

And in Eastern Orthodox regions, most Christian women cover their hair. So?

It is a show of modesty, based on the personal definition of modesty held by the woman wearing it.

Edit: And no one has yet answered my question. If a Mennonite woman (who generally wear modest clothing that is home made because their religion expects it) wore a home-made dress to teach, would she be fired or refused a job?

Well, as a Muslim man, I do follow the general rules for modesty. Long sleeves, beard, long shirt fronts, hair covered for the most part, etc. I feel more comfortable that way.

Thing is, though, it's a choice. Most people - even a lot of Muslims - don't realise that it isn't required. But that's because they've probably grown up their whole lives with someone telling them that it's hijab or die. Not that different from the blind flocks of Christians who've never read a Bible, but only take a preacher's word for it.

I find it kinda sad.

What's even funnier is that the bible forbids the cutting of hair or the triming (much less shaving) of beards and the wearing of more than one kind of fabric (I believe color differences are also prohibited). Despite this there are many christian institutions that expel male members who don't shave everyday, who have hair long enough to touch their ears, or wear something other than a 3 piece suit (though Pat Robertson claims that good christians wear jackets that don't match their pants).

Why the beard? I notice that some Muslim men wear one while others don't. I was wondering what the reason for wearing a beard is. Thank you in advance for your answer.

The beard itself is from the Jewish part of me as I'm commanded by Lev. 19:27. As a practising Muslim, I consider it part of my hijab.


Despite this there are many christian institutions that expel male members who don't shave everyday

Ezekiel was told to shave his beard in preparation for the coming destruction (Ezk. 5:1). Christians believe the end times are upon us and, thus, many keep shaven. To each their own, I suppose.

It's basically Sunnah.

Aye ... but you should know me better than that. I believe Hadith and Sunnah should be abolished. I'm a Qur'an purist. :) I don't ask myself, "What would Muhammed do?", rather, I ask myself, "What would be pleasing to Allah?".

Did not Allah give us Torah as well? :)