Am I in the wrong field?

A clarification

I was advised by a friend that I should go ahead and explain the beard issue. I was hesitant because I am not the best at explaining things. But here it goes:

Allah, the Creator, revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) to order the Muslim men to grow their beards and trim their mustaches. The reasons were:

1. In order to be distinguished from women.

2. In order to be distinguished from some non-Muslims of his time who use to shave or cut their bears.

I can't recall if there was a third. The legitimate Scholars of Islam have agreed that the beard is an obligation for the Muslim man. The one who is genetically capable and does not do so is committing a sin. The first few generations of Muslims did not shave. Some of them would trim their beards but not like you see today where a man would have a little piece of hair under his lip and call it a beard. That is the "modern" beard. Some of the Prophet's Companions used to hold the beard with the the hand and trim what is under the hand. Then there may have been some who trimmed more than that but for the most part the Scholars only mention what was famous and well know from the actions of the Companions. Finally, some Scholars take the order on face value i.e. don't touch it unless you are sick and need to cut it for treatment or it is deformed or has a blemish so you trim to fix that. Trimming for beatification is not permissible because the beard in it self is beautiful. Then there are those who, like I said, cut what is below a hand hold. The later generations copied the customs of the non-Muslims and stopped growing the beard. Some of them even claim that it is not an obligation and they are incorrect. This is by no means the best and most complete explanation. I just wanted to give you guys an idea without getting into too much detail and using allot of religious jargon.

Thanks
 
irregardless of the reasons behind the beard.. if you want to be an EMT, lose the beard. If your religion wont let you do that, then your religion wont let you be an EMT.

Plain and Simple.
 
just a few questions pertainant to the thread

First of all, I am not muslim nor do I have an interest in becoming one.

Secondly, I do not attribute the acts against the USA to be the work of all muslims.

Thirdly, as a student of history, I can not help comparing public sentiments towards muslims with that towards the british loyalists just after the revolution, ethinic japnese and germans during WW 2, and ethnic russians during the cold war.

BACK TO THE BEARDS....

You mean to tell me with all the specialized equipment available in this country to the public safety professions, have you seen the Galls catalog lately, that NOBODY has come up with masks that would accomodate beards...?

What about Hatzolah ? Many of them have some heavy beards ? What about SRCA ? EMS in muslim nations ?
 
FLEMTP said:
irregardless of the reasons behind the beard.. if you want to be an EMT, lose the beard. If your religion wont let you do that, then your religion wont let you be an EMT.

Plain and Simple.
Click to expand...

Why should he when so many others have them?
 
I don't think there is much of a market for alternative masks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you work in an environment with a true need for more than a standard surgical mask. The PAPR works with beards as it requires a loose seal.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/bridge/model/persona/perset.htm

"Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR)
The air purifying respirators described previously depend on the wearer inhaling to draw the air through the respirator filter. The powered air purifying respirator uses a battery-powered blower that passes the contaminated air through the filter. The face covering can be a half-face mask or a full-face mask with an air flow rate of greater than 4 cfm (cubic feet per minute) for a tight fitting face-piece while 6 cfm is necessary for a loose fitting PAPR. Under normal conditions of use, the worker is supplied with more air than he/she can breathe so that the inside of the face-piece is under positive pressure and no contaminated air can leak in. Under positive pressure, all leakage should be outward rather than inward."
 
purely objective response

The OP needs to pick one of two things:

1) and ems agency that will allow the beard

2) a muslim congregation that will allow a clean shaven face
 
akflightmedic said:
No such word...plain and simple. :)
Click to expand...

Really?

From the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary :


Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
 
It is a double negative.

Did you read the last sentence of your post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

Quote: It should also be noted that the definition in most dictionaries is simply listed as regardless (along with the note nonstandard, or similar). Merriam–Webster even states "Use regardless instead."

Also from Merrian-Webster is the definition you posted however you left off the last sentence which is seemingly the most important.

Do not debate with half responses and pick and choose facts which seem to support your point but actually do not when viewed in it's entirety.

Here it is in its uncensored form...(Be sure to read the last sentence which you omitted)

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
 
I find it sad that people who, as part of their chosen profession, are expected to interact with and show basic respect for people of extremely diverse cultures, religions, backgrounds, and socioeconomic status are being so, well, disrespectful.

You may take issue with Islamic tenets, but who cares? Don't convert. About "religions that tell you what you can look like"...

1 Timothy 2:9 (NIV): "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes."

1 Corinthians 11:14: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

Deuteronomy 22:5: "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this."

Leviticus 19:27: "'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

Christianity, Islam, Judaism... you'll find restrictions on dress and appearance in every major religion. Of course these are all subject to interpretation and some followers will abide by them and some will not, but they're all there.

Obviously having a beard in EMS may be problematic. The issues here are safety and hirability... not which religion is right or wrong.

Legally... according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964... "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

The important language comes in the definition of religion... "The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business."

It's that "undue hardship" part that's up for interpretation. It could be very easy for an employer to claim undue hardship based on potential safety problems and the cost of accommodating a beard.


Title VII

Here is an interesting case regarding two Islamic Newark police officers who refused to shave their beards (Federal court ruled in their favor).
 
I'm agnostic, I don't agree with most of the stuff that goes on in denominational churches. As to the irregardless posts, it is a word, if it is in the dictionary and has a definition it is a word, irregardlessof what would be a better choice of vocabulary.
 
Yeah I consider myself agnostic too, but I don't see why that would motivate me to doggedly question another person's own religious practices. I have my own reasons for my beliefs, and everyone else has their reasons for their belief system too, and those reasons, and consequently their beliefs and practices, are no more or less valid than my own.

Believe me, there are some things that some religious groups are doing that I find highly objectionable... such as televangelists defrauding innocent people, Muslim extremists blowing up innocent people, Christian extremists blowing up innocent people, etc etc (hmmm some kind of pattern here - people with ulterior motives flying under the banner of a particular religion while the vast majority of adherents to that religion don't do such things or approve of it).

If one of your biggest concerns is one guy who wants to keep his beard for religious reasons and be an EMT, or that common interpretations of some religions require men to be bearded, you need to open your eyes and see what else is going on.
 
irish_handgrenade said:
I'm agnostic, I don't agree with most of the stuff that goes on in denominational churches. As to the irregardless posts, it is a word, if it is in the dictionary and has a definition it is a word, irregardlessof what would be a better choice of vocabulary.
Click to expand...

Even when the very definition is to tell you it is wrong and to not use it? :)
 
Yes it's still a word, however bad a word it is it is still a recognized word. And as for openly questioning his religion, I think I should have cleared this up sooner. I voiced an opinion on his original post, and I also asked some questions that popped into my head that i was mildly curious about, but not enough to get off my butt and Google them myself cuz who knows what kinda stuff I would have ended up looking at. And then he seemed to get pissed about my questions more than my opinion which made me more curious so I pursued it.
 
irish_handgrenade said:
Yes it's still a word, however bad a word it is it is still a recognized word. And as for openly questioning his religion, I think I should have cleared this up sooner. I voiced an opinion on his original post, and I also asked some questions that popped into my head that i was mildly curious about, but not enough to get off my butt and Google them myself cuz who knows what kinda stuff I would have ended up looking at. And then he seemed to get pissed about my questions more than my opinion which made me more curious so I pursued it.
Click to expand...

Having worked with several observant Muslims in various environments, I'll answer those based on my experience. Any particular Muslim's answers will likely vary based on their interpretation of the Quran and ahadith. If they answer at all, that is. They're used to people asking those questions because they want to discredit them, not because they actually want to know the answers, so it's usually not worth it.

Women driving: That's a Saudi thing, and not a law anywhere else in the Muslim world. I drove. Nobody cared.

Treating female patients: It's nice if there's a female crew member with equal or better training who can do it, but not an issue if not.

Treating non-Muslim patients: Also not a problem for those that will apply for the job.

Female coworkers wearing typical Western clothing: If anyone cared, I never heard about it.

Praying when working: If you actually need to be doing something, like taking care of a patient, you can make it up later.

Praying for hours each time: Think about it. 2 hour prayers at 5 points in the day? No Muslim would ever hold any job. It usually only takes a couple minutes.

Beard: OK for EMTs in some companies; not OK for any FFs I've heard of because of the facepiece issue. PAPRs are great if there's a specific, known hazard, but you need different filters for different stuff, so they don't work for everything. SCBA, which will protect you regardless of what's in the air, is the way to go for firefighting. I'm not aware of any masks that work around that. (Of general interest on the dress code subject, though, there's a case of a female FF who wears a headscarf on duty. Apparently a standard hood works just fine for the religious requirements when fighting a fire, and it comes apart if a patient tries to yank it.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^^ Reading the case of the female FF it sounds like they reached a pretty good resolution.

I think the optimal solution is compromise on both parts. An employer may be able to get specialized masks that are adapted to a short beard. If they are willing to get those masks, the employee needs to decide if shortening his beard to the length that will work with the mask is acceptable.
 
FLEMTP said:
Really?

From the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary :


Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
Click to expand...

Really? Just stop. I found AIN'T in the dictionary as well, doesn't mean it's a proper English word. Before long, word's like "cuz" will be featured as well. It's not a proper word, so don't use it.

To the OP, my question is, and I'm not trying to incite any kind of discussion about it, why would you want to work for a city that obviously isn't too receptive (read: hateful) towards Muslims?
 
Aidey said:
^^^ Reading the case of the female FF it sounds like they reached a pretty good resolution.

I think the optimal solution is compromise on both parts. An employer may be able to get specialized masks that are adapted to a short beard. If they are willing to get those masks, the employee needs to decide if shortening his beard to the length that will work with the mask is acceptable.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but I can't find any evidence that those masks exist. Even a little hair--OSHA claims that one day's stubble is enough--can supposedly interfere with getting and keeping a good seal on the facepieces that are in common use. Then again, some departments allow up to a quarter inch. From what I can dig up, it seems like some people can pass fit tests with very short beards, while others can't. While that's pretty important, I wish they'd conduct fit testing in more realistic conditions... sweat makes a big difference. I'm somewhat skeptical about whether it's really possible to maintain a good seal with a beard in actual fire conditions.

The DCFD court decision seems to partially rest on the fact that a leaking facepiece still shouldn't allow any air in. That's true, but it also will run down an air cylinder too quickly. Part of their decision also takes an earlier ruling that firefighters can be utilized in other capacities when APRs are needed into account. I don't think that's a great solution, either. Unfortunately, DC seems to have failed to provide much data on the actual impact of either problem. I suspect that this case could have easily gone the other way if they had, as a similar one did in Pennsylvania.

I've also heard of people who put Vaseline on their beards to get a good seal. For obvious reasons, I think that's quite possibly the worst safety idea ever...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top