When non-Muslims travel in Muslim countries, they have to adapt to Islamic mores. When Muslims immigrate to non-Muslim countries, non-Muslims have to adapt to Islamic mores. Got it?
Here again, people will say, What's the big deal if they wear skirts? Are you seriously saying that Somali Muslim janitorial staff wearing skirts in Phoenix is some threat to Western civilization? No, of course I'm not.
What I am saying is this: The Muslim Brotherhood's strategy in the United States is, in their own words, “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
That's from "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," a 1991 presentation by Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram.
In that memorandum, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) is listed as an allied group. From the IAP came CAIR, which is behind this decision in Phoenix.
When a group has a declared supremacist agenda, aiming step-by-step and piece-by-piece to subvert American culture and impose Islamic norms upon the society, would it really be wise not to see initiatives like this one as part of that effort? After all, it reinforces a precedent that has already been set in other contexts: when Islamic practices are at variance with American ones, it is the American ones that must give way. What will be the outcome of following that precedent over a period of years?
Stealth Jihad Update: "Sky Harbor Allows Special Clothing For Somali Muslim Janitorial Workers," by Ray Stern for the Phoenix New Times Valley Fever blog, August 27:
Who wears the pants at Sky Harbor airport?Not 30 Somali women who fought for the right to wear skirts on the job, and won.
The Muslim women balked at a planned policy change by their employer, GCA Services, (that's GCA's logo pictured above), that would have forced them to wear pants and a tucked-in shirt as they did their janitorial duties.
They'd been previously allowed to wear skirts; pants are too immodest for them.
After discussions between GCA managers, aiport officials, the Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Somali Association of Arizona, it was agreed the 30 women could wear black skirts and aprons in addition to a white shirt. Their right to wear the Muslim headscarves known as hijabs was never in question, says Hakim Osman of the Somali Association of Arizona.
Osman says that after hearing of the women immigrants' concern when GCA announced plans for a new uniform late last year, he wrote the company a letter asking for "reasonable accomodations."
The change was supposed to take effect on August 21, but never did, Osman says. Which is good, because the Somalis would have refused to wear pants on religious grounds, he says....
Do they take time off to pray five times a day? Where? Do they have a special prayer room, or is there a non-denominational chapel? When they do so, do they leave their cleaning carts unattended? Do they make up the time they have lost, or do they work less than their non-Muslim fellow-workers? These are some of the questions that naturally arise, in the minds of anyone, including those fellow workers who may find themselves disheartened and demoralized by the unequal treatment, and that kind of thing is never good for any workplace.
The atmosphere in the workplace, and the effect on non-Muslim workers when Muslims are given special dispensation for this and for that, is something to think about before making hiring decisions.
And it is not only this kind of thing that should be considered. What about the atmosphere in a work setting? The presence of Muslims, dour and ready to pounce, possibly even to sue, could inhibit free and easy discussion -- discussion about the treatment of women, discussion of religion, discussino of foreign policy and world politics, discussion of all kinds -- offering a chilling effect on those who work, in law firms as in universities, on those who supply services or make goods, of all kinds. The exercise of one of the pleasures of life that makes the workplace more endurable, conversation, the easy give-and-takeof banter or the possibility of a serious exchange of views -- becomes impossible, for it will be, in the presence of Muslims, so carefully, painfully constrained. And who can talk about Islam itself, a major problem for the Western world that must be discussed, if there are Muslims present?
Where I work, there are five or six people who have not been there for twenty-five years or longer. It's very difficult to get rid of old farts with Union membership, and there are more than enough of us to stop the line. Built on Hugh's questions, this is what we old farts would do, in similar circumstances...
Do they take time off to pray five times a day?
If the answer is "yes", we would time them, and see how long we could take off for independent extra-curricular coffee breaks. And we'd by God take them, too. We'd take our own time, by clocking out, or take the company's time, by remaining on the clock--Whichever the devout Mohammedans did.
Where?
Wherever it is, that's where we'll take our coffee.
Do they have a special prayer room, or is there a non-denominational chapel?
It would have to be non-denominational, in our workplace. The company is so PC, it's sickening. However, if they were to make it a prayer room only, as in "no coffee allowed", I'm sure we could all stand to pray a little. I could pray five rosaries a day, no sweat.
Do they make up the time they have lost, or do they work less than their non-Muslim fellow-workers?
They'd damned sure better have to clock out and take lost time, if the company thinks its going to discriminate in favor of Muslim prayers, by prohibiting and punishing non-Muslims for taking similar liberties.
That's what the rest of us have to do, when we have mid-shift appointments with dentists, doctors, etc. And, we do not get to make up the time.
Hugh alludes to the inhibition of conversation, and that's where we would be screwed. I've already seen this, first hand. Been involved with it, in fact. We might be able to prove that our workplace had been made hostile by this favored group--unless they beat us to it...
When you put the chill on conversation in the workplace there's nothing left to say unless it's complaint, gossip, or tattle.
I don't care what muslims wear to clean the toilets, as long as they clean the toilets.
Janitorial is ordained by Allah, so traditional muslim clothing is appropriate dress for the job.
I can see the stealth jihad in such demands, but in this case, the public should know who it is that is cleaning up rest room mess left by kuffars.
No one can mess up a rest room like a kuffar, ask any janitor.
It's amazing that any muslim would even take such a job...But I guess Allah is willing it...he always does...
We should force them to wear distinctive clothing.
Imagine the howling and wingeing....!
Somalis would have refused to wear pants on religious grounds, he says....
fire them until they learn to adapt to the expected standards in the usa thats what all immigrant groups have had to learn to accommodate the peaple that were already there why should muslims be any different
Sheik yer'mami makes an interesting point, although I'm not sure he quite intended to make it. We are not making them wear distinctive clothing, they are choosing to wear those clothes. Consequently, they are making themselves very conspicuous to others; they are obviously not "typical Americans." This will, one might surmise, make them the object of stares and even potentially harassment. They will be singled out for not conforming. They may even be made to feel "uncomfortable." Their co-workers may not respond this way, but the general public might, especially since they work at an airport. In other words, they are making themselves more obvious, and consequently, making themselves open to more scrutiny, which I don't think is a bad thing.
Make them wear PINK>..just like some other loonies do..they will easier to spot and the PINK color will give fair warning to normal people...
Hugh,
It is important to note that in the workplace, the determining criteria for "religious insensitivity" is that someone who heard the remarks "perceived them as offensive."
I did some work for a company with a sizable contingent of Muslim employees and it was made known that, "since we have people of many different religions," discussions of religion, politics and sex were forbidden as people had different cultural perceptions regarding these issues. Of course, "people of many different religions" was just the latest euphemism for Muslims.
These rules give Muslims tremendous power. A Christian employee asked someone from human resources whether it is "offensive" if someone asks him about his church during lunch and he tells them about it. The response from HR: it depends if a third party hears the comments and "perceives them as offensive."
There was a prayer room that we were told was there for anyone who wanted to use it...just remove your shoes. I never heard anyone that wasn't Muslim say that they use it.
fOR WORKING AT THE AIRPORT . I THINK IT IS OK.
AT LEAST WE CAN TELL WHO IS WHO...
"The response from HR: it depends if a third party hears the comments and "perceives them as offensive.""
4infidels,
That's the very same criterion used in my company. Unbelievable, isn't it? Once upon a time, when someone "perceived" an offense, he was free to quit the offensive job, and find another, more to his liking.
I find myself in disagreement with many of the comments here - not that I disagree that CAIR has this agenda, but that I don't believe it is reasonable to see this as primarily an example of it. In this case, as the article indicates, the women were told when hired that they could wear skirts - presumably they would not have taken the positions otherwise. Now the employer was proposing to change the rules in ways that would have forced them to quit (Orthodox Jewish women would have had the same issue). That makes the proposed rule change de facto religious discrimination, if the employer cannot demonstrate that it is necessary for proper on-the-job performance, which they clearly cannot in this case.
"Their right to wear the Muslim headscarves known as hijabs was never in question,..."
Is that true? Its my understanding from a few HR folks I know that an employer has a right to require a workplace that is free from disruption. Frankly, my sense of being an American is totaly disrupted by seeing non-assimilatating muslims in the workplace. Like the other quote above I would "perceive it to be offensive..." So much for the customer always being right.