As Shahid Malik, the Labour MP for Dewsbury, observed, the ruling by an employment tribunal upholding the dismissal of Aishah Azmi for wearing a full face veil while teaching children in a primary school was “spot on”. The tribunal upheld her right, and that of any woman, to choose what she wears, but insisted that this right could not override the need for a teacher to dress in a way that did not create a difficulty in her work. And it found that Kirklees Council had not discriminated against her on religious grounds. The tribunal’s wording was moderate, exuded common sense, and its award to her of £1,000, on the pretext that she had been victimised, was a useful gesture to show that it was not taking her claim lightly or automatically siding against her.

Mr Malik, himself a Muslim, also made the wise recommendation that Ms Azmi should not now pursue an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. He said Muslim parents among his constituents had themselves objected to having their children taught by a veiled teacher, and that Ms Azmi had isolated herself. The danger goes farther than this. By pursuing an appeal, she would further politicise a case that has already provoked widespread controversy and could have damaging consequences for all Britain’s Muslims. As the head of the family affairs unit at the Muslim Council of Britain remarked, her stance was “exacerbating the misunderstanding” of Islam in Britain. The council, however, should not be allergic to public discussion of these complex issues — it is not Islamophobic to discuss the role of the veil in contemporary Britain.

David Cameron gave a warning yesterday against politicians and others “piling in” on the issue. He said that Jack Straw had first raised the issue in a “calm, moderate way”. He noted, however, that many Muslims were feeling “slightly targeted” on the issue. Politicians have every right to comment on issues of national importance, and the integration of Britain’s Muslims is indeed such a case. It is wrong to denounce Tony Blair for voicing his concern that the veil is a “mark of separation”. It is a mark of separation. But these are sensitive matters that should not be sensationalised.

The Koran certainly does not demand that women wear a full veil. The relevant verse urges women to lower their gaze and “not display their beauty except what is apparent of it”. That phrase has been open to differing interpretation. But it also forms part of the theological dispute between mainstream Islam and some of the narrower and more puritanical sects, including the Deobandis, who originated in India. Ms Azmi comes from a Tablighi Jamaat background, a sect even more puritanical. Those insisting on the veil are a small minority of British Muslims — perhaps no more than 5 per cent. But they form part of the fierce political struggle going on for ideological supremacy and leadership among Muslims from different countries, ethnic groups and religious traditions.

In some areas, such as Keighley and Dewsbury, these disputes are fuelling extremism, especially among young Muslims. The issue has been under- reported: that is no longer the case. No community should be judged by its extremists, and the vast majority of Muslims are uneasy about radicalisation from within. And the vast majority of Muslim women are rightly uncomfortable with a very male interpretation of the sacred text.