A triumph of religious freedom in the US

In an 8-1 verdict, the court handed victory to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that sued the company on her behalf. Ms Elauf was 17 years old when the discrimination occurred during a job interview at a shop in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 2008. The apex court based its ruling by […]

In an 8-1 verdict, the court handed victory to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that sued the company on her behalf. Ms Elauf was 17 years old when the discrimination occurred during a job interview at a shop in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 2008. The apex court based its ruling by invoking the country’s 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.
Groups representing Christians, Jews, Sikhs, etc., also filed court papers backing Elauf, who told reporters she sought to protect the rights of people of all faiths at work. Thus, it’s a triumph for everybody regardless of his or her faith.
On the other hand the defendant had the backing of business groups including the US Chamber of Commerce.    
“We welcome this landmark ruling in defence of religious freedom at a time when the American Muslim community is facing increased levels of Islamophobia,” said Nihad Awad, the national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Monday’s ruling was the second decision by the high court during its current term in favour of a Muslim over discrimination. In January, the justices found that an Arkansas policy prohibiting inmates from having beards violated the religious rights of a prisoner who had wanted to grow one in accordance with Muslim beliefs.
Muslim groups said in court papers in support of Elauf that employment discrimination against Muslims is widespread in the country. Often, the act of a woman donning a headscarf triggers the discrimination, they said. According to EEOC, Muslims file more employment claims about discrimination and the failure to provide religious accommodations than any other religious group in the country.
The case came at a time when some Western nations are struggling with culture clashes relating to accommodating Muslim populations – where early this year, in Germany we saw the biggest anti-Islam rallies organised by PEGIDA movement. However, the United States has not faced the same tensions as some European countries like France – where in 2004, authorities banned Muslim women from wearing hijab in public places. Not to mention series of provocative publications by French satirical weekly magazine, Charlie Hebdo. But the irony is that these took place in a country home to a Muslim community of nearly six million, the largest in Europe.
Outside Europe, Myanmar is also infamous for repressing religious freedom of the Muslim ethnic minority group, the Rohingyas. They lack legal protection from the Government of Myanmar, are regarded as mere refugees from neighbouring Bangladesh, and face strong hostility in the country-often described as one of the most persecuted people on earth.
More worrisome is the fact that even in our climes, similar cases of discrimination over headscarf have been lost in the court. For example, the recent case of the Muslim students in Lagos and Osun states who sued their governments for the right of Muslim girls in public schools to clad in hijab in which the court ruled that they were not entitled to that right.
To quote one Islamic cleric on Western world double standard on headscarf:  “A nun can be covered from head to toe in order to devote herself to God, right? But, then if a Muslim woman does the same why is she oppressed?” The hijab, according to Hajiya Hafsah Badru, Amirah of the Muslim Students’ Society of Nigeria in Lagos, is an apparel of honour, modesty, dignity and also a bulwark against immorality.