The Burqini

[Karlos]

@X-Ray

And that's how you run, that is... ;-)

But...my question is, what is Islam's stance on this woman performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on a strange man, should the need arise?

Considering the alternative of letting the person die, I am surprised you even have to ask. There's nothing sexual about emergency resuscitation of someone half-drowned. Who would consider being a life-guard if they had any qualms about this?

From the purely religious perspective, I think the following hadith applies quite succinctly: "On the day of judgement, whosoever has saved a life, it will be as if he saved the whole of mankind."

Do the Aussie life-savers have a first aid protocol that doesn't involve mouth-to-mouth?

No idea, but even I've seen squeeze-bulb resuscitators before. Never actually seen one used though.

[Karlos]

My take on this is that she simply feels uncomfortable wearing  the normal attire for the job which I can only assume is somewhat more revealing (her outfit still seems to be fairly tight fitting so perhaps that's a moot point if those are her reasons).

Anyway, this is presumably about what she regards as appropriate for her appearence rather than the application of life-saving skills appropriate for her job. I don't think you have to be scampily clad as a lady to resuscitate someone by mouth-to-mouth.

Though if the patient is a young man, I dare say it might help :lol:

[Karlos]

Let's face it, if you were drowning and running the risk of being swept away, would you care what the life saver was wearing? Some dude in an Elvis suit would be just fine provided he can do the job properly ;-)

[Karlos]

Looks like the difference between a churidar suit and shalwar kameez to me. The latter being longer and straighter hanging.

In a way, it's a bit sad that we are sitting here taking the p!ss when, as nadoom suggests we should be happy that there muslim people out there training to save lives as opposed to the flavour of the month stereotype of their scheming to destroy them.

[Karlos]

X-ray wrote:
That's your pyjama set, that is.
That's what you wear in bed.

I don't wear pyjamas...

[Karlos]

@Cymric

Regarding the hydrodynamics of said outfit, I would imagine the designers had thought of that to some extent. It's made from the same sorts of materials (according to the site x-ray linked in his post) as "conventional" swimwear so I don't think you'd have to wait for it to dry and we're just assuming the material flaps around like anything and catches nice big air pockets just because it seems not to fit like a second skin. Without actually seeing one in action, how can you be sure? It might be the case the design squeezes any air pockets out as you enter the water, who knows? A single shot of a woman running somewhat comically in the spume is no indicator, really.

On a straight out comparison, I am sure a normal bodysuit would win a hydrodynamic performance test. However, unless this suit absolutely cripples swimming performance as opposed to just being marginally worse, then I don't see an issue.

[Karlos]

@PMC

The instruction given is that both women and men should dress modestly. Specifically, one should not wear clothes designed to "show off", wether it's your body, or you wealth, status or power.

Relatively simple clothes that cover the body are therefore deemed modest. However, try to get any two people to agree on the finer issues... ;-)