Abaya as Dress code for Female Staff at Dubai Bank Justifiable?

Comments

18 responses to “Abaya as Dress code for Female Staff at Dubai Bank Justifiable?”

1. 

   Syed Hussain Mustafa Gillani

   August 27, 2009

   @Yusha: Dear do you really know why there is a dress code for women not for men although there is a dress code for men that they have to cover the satar only…

   Millions of reasons, Dude men without shirt will not create any sex appeal but vice versa in case of women. Women is a made beautiful that is why in Islam she is said to be in Parda otherwise you know what really is happening in our society, Sexual harassment Rate is increasing day by day. People are going away from Islam… well I don’t want to take the discussion away from your critical Article on Abaya in Islamic Bank because that debate of dress code is too long… It’s about what Islam recommends and what Islam not. One fact that we can never neglect there may not be a difference in man and women intellectually but physically men are stronger and different then women. One rule can be implemented for one category not for all. Based on the physical difference and Beautiful appearances dress code of PARDA is implemented in Islam. It is not degrading women but giving honor and respect to women by all this…

   Reply
2. 

   Faraz

   August 27, 2009

   @Yusha; try to learn how to read and understand discussion threads. Dont always get defensive or offensive. Regarding your question about dress code for men; it is mandatory to cover the ‘satar’ both for men and women. In case of women, the whole body is satar thats why an abaya is the ideal way of ensuring that satar is always covered. In case of men, do you believe men come in office in briefs that there is a need to formalize a dress code for them? Don’t just argue for the sake of argument. Try to be a little open minded and have a holistic approach in thinking.

   Reply
3. 

   Mohammad Yusha

   August 27, 2009

   @Faraz, Hussaini and Mr Gilani: If this step is so good, why is it only for women. Why isn’t there an Islamic dress code for men? I asked this question in my post, along with a lot of other questions, but no one has been able to answer any one of them. (The first question though, is that is the abaya really a dress code?)

   I no for a fact that no one will reply, because all my questions concerning this move are unanswerable.

   Reply
4. 

   Syed Hussain Mustafa Gillani

   August 26, 2009

   Dear Yusha, I really don’t know why are you so angry on this action of implementing Abaya. Well how can you judge the intentions of Bank officials setting the policy regarding Abaya?

   As far as the dress code is concern being an Islamic Republic of Pakistan this dress should be implemented in all public and private organizations of Pakistan. Dear if they are taking an initiative whatever their intention is question arises are doing anything wrong? What effect of this decision will have on the Society? What effect it will have on the Image of Pakistan?

   Well I may be wrong but I think this is a good decision whatever the intention is. It will force other banks to think on their dress codes. As well as it is not about Islamic Bank it is about a Bank in Islamic Republic of Pakistan so ideally it should be like that from 1947. But unfortunately it couldn’t be.
   If I would be the Prime Minister or the President of Pakistan this policy would be implemented in all the Organizations in Pakistan benchmarking Saudi Arabia.

   As far as the dressing of men is concerned it should be decent and should not bring sex appeal. This is the way how we can reduce the cases of Sexual Harassments in Working Places.

   Regards:
   Syed Hussain Mustafa Gillani

   Reply
5. 

   Faraz

   August 26, 2009

   It is a simple operational policy that a particular bank is going to follow a particular dress code – just like millions of companies follow their own dress codes, airlines for instance.

   Reply
6. 

   Mohammad Yusha

   August 26, 2009

   The proposal, signed by Shaikh Mohammad Taqi Usmani, Chairman of the Fatwa and Sharia Supervisory Board of Dubai Bank, says the move will gain customers’ confidence and help market the bank’s products.

   The above was stated by Taqi Usmani. As you can see, women are not forced to wear an abaya because Taqi Usmani wants people to follow Islam. It is to market the bank’s products. What a shame! Islam is implemented to earn money, not for Allah SWT.

   The word implemented can easily be substituted with the word forced. On this point, can Taqi Usmani show me where it is mentioned that anyone can be forced to do anything in Islam. Prophet Mohammad never forced a woman to wear an abaya, or forced anyone to do anything.

   Also, why have they hired women. Since Taqi Usmani is so bent on having (read forcing) people follow shariah, does he not know that women must not look at “strange” men, and vice versa. (Why do mullahs use the word strange – Doesn’t it mean weird?). Either this is blatant hypocrisy, or Taqi Usmani does not know Islam himself, in which case he should not have anything to do with Islamic banks, unless of course he wants to admit that these banks are not Islamic.

   Reply
7. 

   James Killian Spratt

   August 25, 2009

   @Faraz and Syed: You guys could be a little more civil, and helpful, if you’re able. Mr. Yusha’s trying, and I don’t think you need to jump on him for not knowing everything about banking. We’re all learning.

   Okay, so Islamic banking doesn’t have it all worked out yet; that’s probably because money and money-handling provide many, many temptations for wickedness, and anyone who sets himself up as a full-time, professional money-handler is automatically suspect. The enormous thefts that have been perpetrated recently by American money-handlers prove that they don’t have it worked out, either, and in my view Islam is quite correct in viewing western banking methods and motives with great suspicion.

   One thing that I think would make Islamic banking superior to western banking, or western banking greatly improved, and set an extremely positive precedent, is for a defaulting borrower to not lose every penny in payments that he has paid back on his loan prior to defaulting. If a bank is forced to foreclose on a mortgaged property, it must PAY–SOMETHING–back to the borrower for it.

   I see it as highly unlikely that most defaulters intend to default when they take out a loan, so I think the risk should be shared more equitably, possibly with the initial seller involved by being required to take time payments rather than a lump sum at closing. Three heads–seller, buyer and bank–are better than two at resolving problems when they all have a vested interest in the same success.

   The burst housing bubble in the States has resulted in banks holding many, many properties which they obtained through foreclosures, and must sell at big discounts, just to get something out of them, and their “dump sales” have driven everyone’s property values down by about 25%. We have a property we’re selling, and possibly another, and now we’ll have to take a serious loss or wait an unknown time for values to rise again to their former levels, and to say the least I’m very put out with the situation.

   Banks should not be competing with the economy, they should be merely advising, assisting and keeping track of the economy. Banks are not producers of real value, like farming or manufacturing–they are overhead–and should not be operated for profit, lest they turn predatory, as they have done here. Greed kills. A lot of people here were set up, knocked down and fleeced by greedy lenders, and now we’re all in a hole. You, too; you might have gotten an extra billion or two in aid if we were doing better–think about it. The world’s getting small, ain’t it?

   Another good thing would be to keep bank surcharges in line with fees paid for similar clerical work in other types of business. Interest rates are impossible to explain and justify to the layman, who will be most of a bank’s customers. 2 rupees for every signature and stamp and piece of paper come across as a little pocket-picking game. Simplify.

   @Shakir: I agree with you on the idea that Islamic and western banking should not ultimately differ in any way other than the costumes of their employees; they’re doing the same jobs and will ultimately need the same toolkits, by conservation of form and process. I don’t agree with you that interest should be given unreserved approval, but until someone looks at the world macro-economic picture with an innovative eye and makes sweeping, humanistic changes in the industry world-wide, interest is likely to remain a necessity.

   It’s probably a really good thing that Islam (you hard-headed holdouts, you 🙂 ) are looking at banking with a jaundiced eye, scratching your heads and asking yourselves “What is WRONG with this PICTURE?”

   Tell me I’m not just kidding myself.

   Reply
8. 

   Shakir Lakhani

   August 24, 2009

   It’s so easy to make fools out of Muslims. In the UK, all you have to do to sell something to Muslims, is to call it “sharia-compliant”.
   The kind of interest called “haram” is actually “riba” (to multiply 100 or 200 times). Bank interest cannot be classified as “haram”, as held by many scholars (including the Shaikh of Al-Azhar University in Cairo). This so-called Islamic banking is merely a ploy to fool rich Muslims into parting with their easily-earned money and make people like Taqi Usmani wealthy.

   Reply
9. 

   Syed Hussaini

   August 24, 2009

   Ignorance……..!!!

   This is the first time I am reading the article posted by this gentleman and I can smell ignorance or to be precise total ignorance.

   Firstly, when he mentioned that the” Taking advantage of a person’s situation is a heinous sin and a crime, and Islamic banks do that to perfection”. It’s a shame and utter ignorance of the individual to post this kind of irresponsible comment. I really don’t want to go into details but I would appreciate if the gentlemen read and understand the Islamic monetization process before concluding his decision. I do accept Islamic banking industry are immature, non-standard and in an initial stage and got a long way to go.

   Coming back to our main discussion i.e. dress code for female workers at Islamic Banks. Firstly on personnel terms, I totally disagree employing non-Muslims in a Islamic banks, the reason nothing personnel but dealing with Islamic banks and the non-Muslim Islamic bankers from a while I came to an understanding that the non-Muslim bankers will never understand neither will appreciate the ideology and sensitivity in dealing with Islamic Banking products. But barring them will deprive the industry from the much needed talent pool in developing new products and services.

   Off course Islamic banking is expensive, customers needs to understand that the process of Islamic Banking is expensive the reason is due to non-standardization of the process flow and invlove a lot of third party transactions, the cost is partially passed on to the end users but moving forward, as the industry become more matured and sophisticated we will see a gradual reduction in the cost.

   Women in Islam should cover them-self, Thatz the bottom line, whether you like or dislike, and women looking for employment in an Islamic Bank should follows Islamic dress code. As stated earlier on Islamic Banking is immature and got a long we to day. I believe this step is in the right direction…

   Insha-allah, very soon we will find our self banking with a true Islamic Bank and some where down the line you will encounter a ignorant individual dropping some nonsense comment, but it will not stop us from heading to the right direction.

   Reply
10. 

    Faraz

    August 24, 2009

    Yusha,

    yaar tum ko Islamic Bank phobia hogaya hai. Get a life!

    Reply