No Drill For You! - Muslim dentist 'refused to treat female patients unless they wore Islamic dress'

image by Rees

A modern day 'Dentist Nazi' - NO DRILL FOR YOU!
Rees



from the Daily Mail Online
By Tom Kelly
May 7, 2009

Muslim Dentist Enforces Strict Islamic Dress Code On Patients

A Muslim dentist refused to treat patients unless they wore traditional Islamic dress, it was alleged today.

Omer Butt, 32, ordered women to put on head scarves or he would not register them or their families at his NHS-funded clinic, it was claimed.

At least two patients were left in pain after they declined to follow his self-imposed rules, the General Dental Council heard.

It is the second time that the dentist - who is the brother of a former spokesman of the radical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun - has appeared before the council's disciplinary panel on similar allegations.

Two years ago he was reprimanded for telling an Asian mother-of-two he would not register her unless she wore the Muslim hijab.

The GDC heard how Butt believed it was his duty to stop Muslim patients committing what he believed was Al-Kaba'ir, a religious sin.

He even put a laminated sign on the wall of his waiting room telling patients they would have to adhere to his strict dress code or find another dentist.

John Snell, for the GDC, said: 'He sought to impose a dress code on patients attending his practice.

'He required that women cover their hair with a head scarf, or hijab, and that male patients remove any gold jewellery.

'If he had simply expressed a preference, without imposing any compulsion to adhere to this dress code, there may be no cause for complaint.

'However, he insisted - and those who did not comply were refused treatment.

'He made compliance with Islamic dress code a condition of treatment, which is entirely inappropriate under the auspices of the National Health Service.

'Patients should have access to NHS treatment regardless of their religious observance, or otherwise.'

One patient, referred to only as Mrs F, told how she went with her husband and three children to register as patients at the Unsworth Smile Clinic, in Bury, Lancashire, in 2006.

While they were waiting to be seen, Butt called her husband into an office and told him he would have to tell his wife to wear a head scarf or the family would not be seen.They promptly left and made a formal complaint to the NHS.

Mrs F told the panel: 'I was extremely annoyed. It's my choice if I wear a Hijab or not. But he told my husband he wouldn't treat any of us until I did.

'He even offered to provide one for me to use, but I didn't want to wear it. I shouldn't have to wear it to get treatment.

'I had great pain in my tooth at the time, but I wasn't going to stand for that so we left.'

Another patient and her family had to leave the clinic in June 2007 because she would not wear the religious headdress after spending a year looking for a dentist in the area, the hearing was told.

The woman's husband, known as Mr C, was also called into a private room at the surgery where Butt asked him to impose a dress code on his wife.

His wife said: 'My husband came out and he looked quite angry and his face was red. He said 'let's go'.
'
He shouldn't say to me that he can't treat me unless I wear the hijab. He said he could provide one for us, but I didn't want to wear one. I was in pain that day.'

Butt, of Prestwich, Manchester, denies charges of misconduct for his treatment of two patients at the clinic.

If found guilty he faces being removed the dental register.

In September 2007 Butt was formally reprimanded by the GDC for similar behaviour and found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The hearing, being held in London, continues.
Click to read the article and the comments

Islam 'insulted' by alleged child killer's mug shot, says husband

Let's see, she was wearing a headscarf and tanktop when arrested, but she is concerned about her modesty? Am I missing something?
Rees

from The Chicago Sun-Times
April 10, 2009
By KIM JANSSEN, Staff Writer

The police booking photo of alleged child killer Nour Hadid released Tuesday is an "insult against our religion," says Hadid's husband, Alaeddin.

Orland Park police detectives say the 26-year-old Muslim woman was treated as any other suspect in a murder probe would be, and they did not intend to humiliate her when they photographed her Sunday without her headscarf and wearing only a skimpy top.

Nour Hadid is accused of beating her 2-year-old niece Bhia Hadid to death over four days at her home on the 9000 block of West 140th Street. The child had 55 separate bruises and was beaten "from head to toe," according to prosecutors, who say Hadid confessed.

But Alaeddin Hadid - who insists his wife is innocent - said Orland Park police are "really going to be in big trouble" for releasing the woman's booking photo to the news media after she was charged with first-degree murder.

The Hadids are Muslims and Nour "never leaves the home without covering up," said Alaeddin, who's vowed to sue.

By custom, some practicing Muslim women wear the hijab, or headscarf, and cover their arms and legs when in public.

In the mug shot, a bare-headed and obviously emotional Nour appears to be protecting her modesty with her hands.

Suicide threats

Orland Park police Cmdr. Chuck Doll said the mug shot was taken "for identification purposes" before Hadid made her confession. Her headscarf was handed back to her after the photo was taken, Doll said.

"A matron was with her at all times while she was in our custody," Doll said. A matron is a law enforcement official who works with women held in custody. "She was wearing a tank top, and she had the headscarf when she was interviewed."

The headscarf later was taken from her after she made suicide threats, he said.

Respecting the accused

Islamic advocacy groups seem wary of taking up Hadid's cause.

Spokesmen for the Council on Islamic American Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the Bridgeview Mosque Foundation all declined to comment Thursday.

But Dr. Mohammed Sahloul, chairman of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Chicago, said that while police should follow the usual procedures with all defendants, "they should respect the modesty of the accused."

Sahloul, who made it clear he was not aware of the Hadid case and was speaking in general terms about the hijab, pointed out that Muslim women are allowed to wear hijabs in photos for their state IDs.

"If it's for the purposes of identification and they cover in public, then that's going to be more effective in identifying them anyway," he said.

Former chairman Kareem Irfan said, "It's particularly humiliating because she appears to be in her underwear.

"I don't condone what she's alleged to have done.

"But if it was a nun accused of these crimes, would they treat her the same way?"
Click to read the rest of the article

Court: Muslim cop can’t wear head scarf

By STEPHEN ZOOK

Philadelphia Daily News
zooks@phillynews.com

A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia Police officer Wednesday lost her court fight to be allowed to wear her head scarf while on duty.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that granting Kimberlie Webb an exception to a regulation banning religious symbols while in uniform would impose an "undue hardship" on the city of Philadelphia.

Webb, a Philadelphia cop since 1995, requested permission in February 2003 to wear her head scarf while on duty. She was denied that permission, and filed complaints with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In August 2003, Webb showed up to work wearing her head scarf. When she refused to remove it, she was sent home. This was repeated on two additional days.

"There is a history of allowing palms in police cars on Palm Sunday," said Jeffrey Pollock, Webb's lawyer. "[Washington,] D.C., New York City and Chicago all allow officers to wear religious symbols.

"Why can't the Philadelphia Police make the exception?"

In October 2005, Webb brought a lawsuit against the city, claiming religious and sex discrimination.

The court's opinion said that "uniform requirements are crucial to the safety of officers (so that the public will be able to identify officers as genuine, based on their uniform appearance)."

The appeals court also declined to consider Constitutional issues brought up by Pollock. Those issues were not raised at trial, so the court did not have to consider them, according to the opinion of the three-judge panel.

A lower court already had ruled that the city would suffer undue hardship if it were required to accommodate Webb's request.

"I respect [the judges], but I'm obviously disappointed," Pollock said.

Pollock said that no decision has been made about whether to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Click to read the article and comments