Several people have criticized me for posting this story, pointing out that the women were merely protesting the fact that they were promised exercise facilities separate from those of men, and then the gym reneged.
Fair enough. I am not in favor of anyone breaking a contract. But the only comment I put on the piece was "Sharia in Dearborn," and that is all I wanted to highlight: the fact that a gym in Michigan would even offer separate exercise facilities for Muslim women indicates that the Muslim presence in the U.S., or at least in Dearborn, is growing in size and clout -- and that therefore we will see much more calls for implementation of various aspects of Sharia.
And now, an interesting side note: Ammerah Saidi, one of the Muslim women protesting the gym's reneging, showed up at Debbie Schlussel's site with some interesting remarks. She defends homicide bombers and says "If it [America] falls to Islam, so be it." Read what she wrote on Debbie's site. And that, of course, raises larger questions about Sharia in the U.S., and the ultimate goals of the Muslim community here.
I live in a suburb in southern California which also has a high population of Muslim immigrants as well as several second-generation Muslims. Last year, my hair stylist told me that a Muslim female customer in the salon demanded that the salon owner tell an eldery man, the husband of another customer, that he had to leave the salon. The reason? She didn't want a man--even an elderly man--to see her having her hair cut. (My, yes, I'm sure he would have jumped out of his chair and sexually assaulted her had he glimpsed her hair.) Fortunately, the owner refused to ask the man to leave. However, I was truly stunned that the Muslim customer had made such a demand in the first place.... How can anyone live longer than five minutes in this society and not realize that men and women may mix freely in places like hair salons?
I am literally disgusted by these muslim females who are working to shove their supposed belief system down the throats of Americans! If these women really wanted to exercise, they would have signed up with CURVES, which is ALL females ONLY! They know this, too.
Islam followers are working in the USA to gain control over everything by using our own laws against us. Americans need to ignore them or simply pay no attention to them. Why are they in America? I saw these women on TV speaking in accented English, so they are not natives of the US.
I have joined and researched a lot of US gyms: their contracts are very carefully figured out as is their pricing, and people in the US generally understand that verbal "promises" which involve major changes in the way a gym operates must be put in writing.
My supposition is that these Islamic women are not naive, and that they are using the US judicial system, media, and "court of public opinion" in the same way, and in emulation of, how American blacks have used these venues to gain more rights and privileges. The difference is that American blacks by and large have a genuine case for their historical oppression in the US, while Islamic immigrants do not.
And, reviewing the postings on Schlussel's site, most specifically Ammerah's (see below in quotes):
"Duh, Debbie, I condemn anti-semitism...I am semitic, You silly goose ;-)"
Here, she weasels out of an answer to Schlussel's question.
"America is a nation that will rise and fall like every other nation in history. If it falls to Islam, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it. But, just like Rome, it'll fall. Or do you not acknowledge the repetition of history?"
Here, she does not unequivocally advocate Islamic dominance, but she does not show any love or favoring of her adopted country.
"And lastly, Fitness USA is not a private business. It is recognized by the MDCR and Michigan government as a place of public accommodation and it is susceptible to wills and wishes of its PAYING members, I being one. Now, Debbie, stop reading what you want and get the facts straight."
Here, she is the one who reads what she wants. She conflates public and private with a typical Arab distortion(I don't know if she's Arab or not but her use of words is). Private has a very specific legal meaning in the US. It is contrasted under US law with entities that are run by or funded in some way by governmental entities.
"The contract I signed says that the rules and regulations may change at the sole discretion of the supercenter. I have said over and over again that we are not saying that the business is in breach of contract. We are simply saying that they are; 1) not taking into consideration the huge Muslim demographic in this community when making business decisions, and I am talking huge and 2)they are taking back a tradition of gender privacy which was a selling point of theirs for 50 years. "
She is certainly trying to enforce her will by appeal to numbers (probably false) and embarrassing the business by causing bad publicity. This tactic unfortunately sometimes works initially. Many businesses do not want court fights or bad publicity, no matter who is right, since these things often impede business.
And finally,
"In regards to Islam and it's imposing it's beliefs on others, Allah has stated in the Holy Quran: There is no compulsion in religion. If you find anything that contradicts this, you are taking it out of context...PERIOD."
This says it all. The two choices about this woman are that she is knowingly deceptive (my choice) or that she is ignorant. Either way, she's trying to be a 500 lb gorilla.
The misleading quotation of that perennial favorite, Sura 2.256 (the same one Bush likes to quote), but not Sura 2.257, and not the hundreds of other verses that say quite different things about how to treat the Unbeliever (and these, as in Sura 9, have not been cancelled out by abrogation), the entire blague and nonsense repeated by this Ammerah (and her loyal "Catholic" friend Jace, who has carefully been kept from reading the Hadith and the life of Muhammad, and who has no doubt been fed quite a line about the Qur'an by his good friend Ammerah). The whole thing is absurd.
The solution for the Muslim women, and all those "Christians" this Ammerah ostentatiously keeps referring to (on the same level as this "I'm a Semite, too" so how-can-I-be-antisemitic?) who apparently are equally outraged by this gym's policy, is to join together, and start their own gym. Yes, a line of Muslim-owned gyms. Possibly for women only. Why not? Isn't that the solution? Perhaps a grant from Saudi Arabia, that takes care of its own (look at all those mosques the Saudis pay for all over the world, and not only for the initial building, but for the subsequent maintenance. And those madrasas. And those campaigns of Da'wa. And so much more that the modest Saudis do not boast about -- in fact, do not speak about at all).
Yes -- For Women Only. Or For Muslims Only. Or best of all: For Muslimahs Only. Just set it up yourselves. No one has forced Muslim women to join this gym. The gym is under no contractual obligation -- so you admit. So what is the problem? That's the end of the matter. You have no right to force changes in American businesses -- not now, not ever. And the more fuss you make, and the more nonsense and lies about the content of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, the more suspicions you arouse even in the formerly unwary. Keep it up -- keep arousing those suspicions.
For the same reason, at JW we deliberately do not delete revealing postings from Muslim apologists, and we finally cut off their access only after they have provided a useful display of their mental and emotional wares, there fore all to contemplate. Of course, special cases get exemptions for longer periods, should they be especially useful in the making of a point -- not the point they think they are making, but the point that they make, without realizing it, for us.
This shows the importance of understanding what it is that we are fighting for. When blacks were fighting battles of this sort, it was in order to gain rights that were theoretically guaranteed by the Constitution - especially the fourteenth amendment - and available to all other citizens. They were fighting for American law, and, quite rightly, they carried American flags. Similar movements across the Western world, from South Africa to Brixton, had the same legitimate claims (whether or not some moron here or there ended up imitating the worst of white behaviour by inventing their own brands of supremacism or separatism).
What is being imitated here is not the motive, but the procedure. These people want to appeal to public memories that are recent enough to be living but old enough (a generation has passed since the Brixton riots, twelve years since the end of apartheid) to be historical; but, in typical Muslim fashion, they want to mess with our understanding so that we do not see that, while the black movement of one or two generations ago demanded the application of Western law and Western values, this one demands their removal and progressive replacement with Muslim law and whatever it is that Muslim value.
C.A.I.R. is involved in this. Need I say more?
Can't their husbands just beat them a little more for their daily exercise regimen?
Fleeing is the best aerobic workout Mohammad ever invented.
Mr. Fitna, himself.
Or are they worried that the second wife is getting more attention from their master at home?
But, ultimately, who cares what they think, since, in a Sharia court, it only counts for half of a man's testimony?
(Emphasis on the teste.)
Yes,
Ameerah is apparently attempting to be the proverbial 500 lb gorilla. She is misinformed about Islam. Many of us know more about it than she apparently does. And her statements at Debbie Schlussel's site give her true views away. Unlike the impression expressed by another poster, I suspect that both of the interviewed women are US converts. They, and people like them, should be challenged and chastised for their erroneous statements and views when it is advantageous to do so.
But I personally don't think this is one of those cases.
Here's what the Fitness USA website advertises under 'Women's Fitness':
http://www.fitnessusa.com/WomensFitness.asp
Separate Exercise Facilities
All Fitness USA locations provide separate exercise facilities for women, giving you a comfortable environment to support a healthy lifestyle. Here in total privacy, your fitness needs are analyzed. Personalized programs are designed using all of our state-of-the-art equipment and professional supervision.
The Fitness USA membership for women includes:
- Free certified personal trainers
- Free exercise classes (aerobic & non-aerobic)
- Supportive staff
- Specialized cardio equipment
- Private Showers
- Private Dressing Rooms
- Lockers
- Weight machines
- Use of all special amenities
- Swimming pool
- Whirlpool
- Sauna
- Steam room
While no one forced them to join the center, if they plopped down their money based upon the above advertisement, I don't see their demands as creeping sharia, and the easiest way for the center to end this, IMO, would be to refund the money.
When I think of the Seattle public pool situation, I think shari'a.
PRCS-
From what I read, they already had "seperate" [ladies only] exercise facilities throughout the gym, but one room, with specific workout devices, was known to be coed, and these Ummah chicks wanted that space to be curtained off down the middle.
Changing the known rules of the center to suit themselves.
No refund.
Not if they try to alter the agreement after the fact.
pb,
Perhaps we're reading different info.
From what I've read, it was the creation of a specialized cardio room, which could be used by both sexes, on days that the center had previously set up for women only.
From that, my opinion is that the center altered the agreement after the fact (which, according to their contract, I believe they do have the right to do).
But from an ethical perspective, I think the center inadvertently created this situation.
I don't think the women brought up the Muslim issue until after the situation had developed, and the women are trying to elicit sympathy, for a non-Muslim issue, from within the Muslim community.
It would be nice if the center would issue a statement. For now, we're just hearing one side of this.
Do you get the idea that the two women are native-born American converts?
Lunacy is spreading like cancer:
Country men pool their resources
Kate Uebergang
24nov05
WOMEN will be shut out of Shepparton's swimming pool each evening to allow men to swim in privacy.
The ruling will see women barred from entering the Aquamoves centre during evening swim sessions.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted the Equal Opportunity Act exemption, citing the needs of Muslims and men with poor body image.
"Some religions require that their adherents cannot appear undressed in mixed company, except in front of their immediate family," deputy tribunal president Cate McKenzie said.
Ms McKenzie said some men, because of sexual orientation, past experiences or poor body image, "prefer to exercise in the company of the same sex".
There are more than 5000 Iraqis in Shepparton's large Muslim community.
The pool already runs women-only sessions.
The male-only sessions will be held at the Aquamoves centre after 5.30pm.
Http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...55E2862,00.html
Muslims demanding exclusive use of facilities is not confined to the USA. Is anyone here at JW surprised that the above ruling came out of the state of Victoria, the same state that ruled against the 'Catch the Fire Ministries?'
"Allah has stated in the Holy Quran: There is no compulsion in religion. If you find anything that contradicts this, you are taking it out of context...PERIOD." -- Ammerah
"The misleading quotation of that perennial favorite, Sura 2.256 (the same one Bush likes to quote), but not Sura 2.257..." -- Hugh
A very good discussion of the notion of "context" in the Koran is an article Facing the Global Jihad by someone whose nom de plume is merely "Carlos". He demonstrates in his long article how the context of these verses is even worse than the verses themselves. Or as he puts it:
"Islam's apologists love to accuse their critics of quoting passages out of context. We will have much to say about context later in this series. More often than not, context works against the interests of the apologists."
As Carlos proceeds in his analysis, he says with the ingenuousness of a dove, "Muslims rightly caution us against quoting verses from the Qur'an out of context. Therefore we will not simply quote isolated verses but will comment on the context as we go along."
As he examines the "jihad" of verses 9:73, 66:9. 25:52, and 29:68-69, Carlos notes:
"In each case this "striving" (jihad), a Muslim's duty, occurs in the context of opposing, or striving against, the unbeliever. The striving of jihad is primarily the striving to spread Islam and Islamic rule."
(And he adds the necessary corollary: What forms is this striving to take? Muhammad himself was a warrior, and there is no doubt that at least one significant form of this striving is physical combat. Some apologists for Islam make a distinction between a "greater" and a "lesser" jihad, the former consisting of a nonviolent spiritual struggle for virtue, while only the latter refers to making war. As we shall see, in actual practice this distinction has hardly any relevance, and in any case it is unlikely that Muhammad himself ever made such a distinction. In one hadith Muhammad speaks of the greater vs. the lesser jihad, but most authorities consider it spurious and a forgery (3). And even if it were only a "lesser" jihad, military jihad would still be jihad and thus a duty and a virtue.)
Carlos provides many other useful identifications of this "context" that supposedly saves, but really damns, Islam.
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad02.htm
OT, but the earlier thread in which this is mentioned is probably dead by now.
I suggest:
A is André de Chénier and the literature in question is French.
C is Adam Mickiewicz and the literature here is Polish.
B escapes me.
Both A and C are mentioned in this post:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004382.php#c61439
I should add that I have never heard of A or C, and doubtless B would be unknown to me as well. I doubt I'd be alone, and it's no surprise no one has cracked the competition yet. It is rather difficult.
However, dare I suggest that might have been the point?
-- from the post in which both Chénier and Mickiewicz are mentioned.
what will be noteworthy is whether the firm offers to return money, at least on a pro rata basis (as most firms would) and the women refuse to accept the refund. is the point just their disappointment with the lack of segregation of men and women (a segregation that is not itself objectionable); or is the point that the business must fulfill this aspect of sharia?
do the women wish to resolve the situation or to use it as an elbow in the owners' midsection (perhaps to be followed by real elbows, as the boys get involved)?
the immigration should stop.
I am actually for the idea of separate facilities. Not just for muslim women, but muslims in general.
We could have separate lunch counters, so they won't get offended by someone eating a ham sandwich. Separate bathrooms and drinking fountains, so they won't be forced to use the facilities after some unclean kuffir has.
They could sit in the back of the bus, so my lustful eyes don't undress their women, naturally muslim men would have to sit back there too (in separate seats) to protect them from my advances.
Muslims should pin green felt crescent moons on their clothing. That way when I see them on the street I'll recognize them for who they are, and won't accidentally offend the prophet or their tender sensibilities.
Hey, how about "gated communities"? They could live in completely separated from the rest of population. We have large tracts of urban areas that are undeveloped that would suffice.
We could call it "Separate But Equal". How come no one has thought of this before?
The game this woman is playing goes further still. Muslims are still a small minority in the US and within that minority, I expect those who wish sexually segregated facilities are a minority. "Observant" Muslims aren't the only group who believe in "modesty"; Orthodox Jews do too, but they would develop their own facilities and not put demands on others to accommodate them.
Yojimbo (and Hugh); B sounds like Pushkin to me - he died in a duel, and, while I do not know much of his life, a Russian of his time would not be unlikely to have something to do with Constantinople.
Yojimbo--
"B" is Pushkin. Pushkin is the first poet in Russian literature; Mickiewicz in Polish. Chenier ranks not quite so high in the French pantheon, but he is high, and certainly Pleiade-worthy.
The full answer, however, requires a thorough discussion of what linked Chenier, Pushkin, and Mickiewicz to Constantinople (very different links), and what their relations were, if any, to each other.
I shall, I assure you and others who have expressed their impatience with me, that all that will soon be up. Yes, I've been dilatory. I've been here, at my Dilatory Domicile, clipping those coupons -- Banque de Suez, the Verenigde Oostindische Tulipische Compagnie of Den Haag, the South-Sea Bubble Company (John Law, Prop.), the Metropolitan Hot Crumpet Society, the Kreditanstalt, Credit Immobilier, bonds issued by the Provisional Government in Czarist Russia -- those coupons which, so many of you allow yourselves to beleive, must surely exist, and just as surely, there is no need to respond to that hand held out, with no gush or nonsense about it, in Eleemosynary Position #1.
This is sickening. Next the muslims will want the women only sidewalks, passenger lanes, restaurants, DMV, hospitals, or anywhere they want.
They want to throw us back into the 7th century. Well, let's not let them. If those people don't enjoy what we have in America, they are welcome to leave. And they need to be told that at every whine.
Assimilate you people. Get with the program. You are in a free country and the NOT hellhole you left. Leave your baggage at the gate!
Getting back to the big gorilla thread, we should remember what happens to big gorillas. They may climb to the top for awhile, but eventually they get shot down and take a hard fall.
I'm pleasantly surprised, because I've heard of him. I confess I haven't read him, although I have enjoyed several Russian authors - in translation. The last Russian book I read was Peter Constantine's translation of Gogol's Taras Bulba, which the jacket records was said by Ernest Hemingway to be "one of the ten greatest books of all time". Not as amusing as Dead Souls but vivid writing.
When one sees the stories that come up here day after day and the import of which is - apparently - ignored day after day by the powers that be one can only reflect that JW is a worthy cause.
I've just made a belated payment into JW's paypal account. Not much, but what I could afford. I hope Robert gets it at your end.
Again we see
Muslims come to the USA
Then bring all of their relatives..
Then breed like crazy..
Then Start demanding Special rights for muslims..
Then Demand that WE submitt to them????
NO....
I will not obey any islamic decree..
I will not bow down to the false god called allah
I will not stand idly by while muslims demand genocide of all jews and christians..
but scream bloody murder when their demands for sharia law are not met..
I and my family will never bown down to the false demonic teaching of Islam...
Give me liberty from islam
or give me death..
kaffirchick~ Didn't the ask- the- iman site say that a woman who goes to the hairdressers will go to hell?
The poster at Debbie S.'s site proves what Robert has been saying all along, Even when the Muslims are compelled to fight and then, as a consequence, subdue the land, their duty thereafter is to establish Allah’s law in the land and uphold justice for all people, Muslim and non-Muslim. It is not their right to coerce their subjects to accept Islam against their will. Non-Muslims under Muslim rule must be allowed to remain on their own faith and must be allowed to practice the rights of their faith, though they will be expected to respect the laws of the land.
If Allah's law is the law of the land and non-muslims must respect those laws of the land they are forced to live in an islamic theocracy. As dhimmis. And we know what the dhimmis rules are. She proves the point without even knowing it. Saying there shall be islamic justice for all is no justice for non-muslims.
Perhaps its time to kick this walking sackcloth out to one of those countries which are world-renowned for respecting women's rights - like Iran and Saudi Arabia. I'm sure she'll love the famed tolerance of the Basij or Mutaween as regards womens rights. Still, it shows how mental it must make oneself when indulging in the 35 headbangings on the floor a week ritual. But then after reading this story, you sometimes wonder whose heads have had the most sense knocked out of them - her or the PC-infused immigration authorities.
Spirit,
Excellent point. If our friend was deported to Iran or SA she'd shut up fast. The only reason she can even think of getting away with this is because she lives in a free country.
What is it with these idiots? They use our laws and freedom to change things so that they can go back to being enslaved with no choices. Doe anyone think ANY woman in Iran or SA can go to a gym, put on skimpy work out togs and go for it? Who are they kidding? And if they are so into modesty, why do they need to workout in the skimpy stuff? Are they trying to turn on the other girls? I thought homosexuality was a sin punished by hanging in Iran and SA. Totally illogical.?!
/shrugs. Maybe they're shy about the bruises and whip marks and think that other women will "understand" them.
What did Aisha say again? "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"
From what I've read, it was the creation of a specialized cardio room, which could be used by both sexes, on days that the center had previously set up for women only.
That's easy, then PRCS - all she needs to do is wear her burkha in that room.
In any case, I'm sure that training in a burkha would be just as good as the Purification Rundown devised by Mr Hubbard, and it would be cheaper than wrapping yourself in clingwrap to sweat out those impurities faster.
And if policewomen in Iran can train in full cover, I don't see why a muslimah in the mighty US of A would have a problem with it.
kaffirchick,
I am guessing that is Glendale, Burbank or perhaps Van Nuys.
Why don't these hijabs read the name on the sign outside of the gym: Fitness USA
That's the United States of America...not the United Sheep of Allah
I've asked this question on this issue before. I'll ask it again, Dosen't Michgan have a chain of Women's Workout World? These Muslim females could have joined there instead of Fitness USA. Seems to me they may have wanted to scope the men without being scoped. Muhammad may not be doing it for them at home. Besides, I thought Muslim females weren't allowed to go out without a Muslim male escorting them?
Once again, just asking.
OT,
Check out my hometown newspaper the Chicago Sun Times. There is an article that is related to the subject at hand.
Go to suntimes.com. The article title is "Protesters plead guity but claim 'important victory.'
It's an eye-opener.
I just read Debbie Schussel's website and she said Fitness USA has caved to the islamists.
BOYCOTT FITNESS USA!!!!
I've asked this question on this issue before. I'll ask it again, Dosen't Michgan have a chain of Women's Workout World?
"Curves" is for women only. According to their website there are 350 "Curves" fitness centers in Michigan alone.
That kinda goes to prove why did this sham, Roxanne. To slowly erode the American way of life.
If the moslems that immigrated to America think that the American People are going to roll over and let them impose their ignorance on the mainstream they are sadly mistaken.
The Fitness USA should not have caved into the demands of the woman. They were thinking about dollars and the surrounding Muslim Community.
Instead of changing the rules they should have refunded the monies.
Too many young men, women and great leaders have given their lives for the American Constitution and our freedoms.
As a veteran it hurts me to see newcomers attempt to fly their flag of other states on US government property disrespecting the host country.
It hurts me to see women who have been given the greatest opportunities in the world refuse to accept their freedoms and regress in the name of religion.
America is about choice and it is their choice to remain bound by society that continues to deny the very beings who created the society equality and respect.
It is just too bad and so sad.
They should enjoy their freedoms given to them by young American Soldiers who gave all for them to have their choices and freedoms.
Like the 82nd ABN states "Rest well tonight America because the 82nd is on point".
"Allah has stated in the Holy Quran: There is no compulsion in religion. If you find anything that contradicts this, you are taking it out of context...PERIOD." -- Ammerah
Al-taquiyya...PERIOD.
I just read Debbie Schussel's website and she said Fitness USA has caved to the islamists.
BOYCOTT FITNESS USA!!!!
Posted by: freewoman at April 26, 2006 05:39 PM
YEA! SCREW FITNESS USA!!!!
All this discussion about Islam vs Civilization. I just can't believe that the husbands of these conservative muslims do allow their property..oops women to go to the gym...covered or not. This is just a way to make the infidels pay the jizya. Next they will ask for a prayer room in the gym.
Men are protectors and maintainers of women; women must be devoutly obedient, if not then beat them...4:34
I think they don't get enough beatings at home. What's happening to Muslim men nowadays????
Islam considers women inferior....these muslim women are out to prove it
Majority of women are in hell...( Shahih Bukhari 1.6.301)
Women witness is half of men...2:282
Women, slaves and camels are same; must seek Allah's refuge from all these...(Sunaan Abu Dawud 11.2155)
A prayer is annulled by a passing woman, dog and a monkey...( Shahih Bukhari 1.9.490)
Menstruation is a defect in women for they cannot fast and pray during their periods... (Shahih Bukhari 3.31.172)