CAIR must have Jesse Jackson on the payroll as a consultant.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at August 1, 2008 2:14 PM

What if this young female applicant were a nudist, per her religious beliefs? Should she be allowed to work naked?

No one is denying her right to religion, and whether or not she's a Muslim should have no bearing on her work qualifications for the job. The objection is to a Muslim 'dress code' that goes against company policy. It's not as if she's being asked to work topless at a dance bar, or wear short shorts are Hooters. What a crock! It's like having a rastafa working in a hair salon. Some things just won't work.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 1, 2008 2:19 PM

And another example of how the hijab is religiously mandated when a muslim wants to sue, but voluntary when someone points out that it is a sumbol of islamic oppression of women. It's almost as if some mulims are not always truthful!

Posted by: Rucker at August 1, 2008 2:26 PM

Wear hijab...or else?!
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2008/08/disfigured-with-acid.html
Such nice people. What if it'd been a burkha in contention at Abercrombie's; same argument from CAIR?

Posted by: DaninVan at August 1, 2008 2:28 PM

"...because of the applicant's religiously-mandated headscarf, or hijab."

So let me see if I have this right:

If an article is about Islamic oppression of women, we will be told the hijab is optional.

If an article is about businesses refusing to hire Muslim women because their clothing conflicts with the businesses' fashion preferences or safety requirements, we are told the hijab is "religiously-mandated."

Must be that dual nature of Islam coming to play. The hijab is optional, except when it's not.

Posted by: CJ at August 1, 2008 2:31 PM

The hypocrisy of CAIR's offense is amusing.

Over and over again, we are instructed that Islam is superior to our decadent Western ways because it demands "modesty" from its adherents. Yet here is a good Muslimah, her face doubtlessly bulging like an overyeasted muffin from her tightly wrapped religious headgear, supposedly seeking employment at an establishment repeatedly accused of purveying "soft pornography" in its catalogs and advertisements.

But I digress. I hate to say this, but it will come to pass: we're going to lose on the hijab issue, and we probably should. While most people who know what the hijab actually means are offended, disgusted and threatened by its presence (especially non-Muslim women -- see, e.g., the good Imam Hilaly and his "uncovered meat" analysis) the hijab simply does not interfere with the performance of most types of work. That's where the rubber hits the road -- or the siwak hits the spouse, if you will.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at August 1, 2008 3:10 PM

When Obama becomes King, get ready for more of this grievance theater. All the victim pimps across the globe are already licking their vampire fangs.

Posted by: jsla at August 1, 2008 4:17 PM

I'd ditch the religious thing if I was them.

Posted by: Ian at August 1, 2008 4:18 PM

Fashion bias? This is like saying that having pork as the only meat available at a company picnic is just a gastronomic bias. Sorry, but Abercrombie Kids is being stupid. Headscarves are not the things we need to battle about -- unless, of course, there is a bona fide reason, such as some safety concern, to forbid them. To say they don't fit the corporate image is, legally speaking, cruisin' for a bruisin'. Islam is evil, and needs to be confronted for what is evil in it. Not for headscarves.

Posted by: Karl Pov at August 1, 2008 4:34 PM

"Islam is evil, and needs to be confronted for what is evil in it. Not for headscarves."

Sorry, Karl Pov, but the headscarf is a visible symbol of that evil, and should be eradicated from public places.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 1, 2008 6:20 PM

"A voice in my head said, 'And you don't know anything about Islam.'

Generally speaking people who listen to voices in their heads don't qualify as experts.

The Macon mayor is a revert. Georgia is a loony bin. I speak from experience.

Posted by: Beagle at August 1, 2008 6:31 PM

Oops. That comment seems a bit more relevant on the last thread.

The hijab is a license to subjugate, harass, and rape unhijabed women. Full stop.

Posted by: Beagle at August 1, 2008 6:32 PM

A hijabed woman is most decidedly NOT in keeping with the Abercrombie image. And they should have the right to hire whom they wish, but we've already made sure companies no longer have such rights, haven't we?

I imagine Abercrombie will grovel on this one. Too bad. I, for one, will never enter one of their stores if I see a covered woman at work there.

I hate the sight of the hijab (or any other Islamic gear, as it surely trumpets the ideals believed in.

Posted by: Vee at August 1, 2008 7:22 PM

"Employers have a clear legal duty to accommodate the religious practices of their workers," said CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi. "To deny someone employment because of apparent religious bias goes against long-standing American traditions of tolerance and inclusion."

Bullshit. What's next, hijabbed Hooter's honeys?

The goal here is to saturate the workplace with hijab and create an atmosphere of intimidation with punishment for any dissent. Once CAIR succeeds from there it's just two skips to demanding that all women in America wear hijab and then acid attacks for any women who doesn't obey. LOOK IT UP! That's how they've been doing it over in the M.E.

BTW Marwan's Daughter,

"Yet here is a good Muslimah, her face doubtlessly bulging like an overyeasted muffin from her tightly wrapped religious headgear." Oh-my-gosh, that was hilarious!

Islamic Hijab: making pretty girls look butt ugly since 622 AD

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at August 1, 2008 8:12 PM

Thanks, Isabella. Our local hijabis have been looking even more pop-eyed than usual lately. I've been wondering if the viselike wrapping is just a fad ("I'm more pious than you! See, I can't hear *at all*, and there's no blood getting from my neck to my head!"), or whether the imams have been hammering on hijab on Fridays.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at August 1, 2008 10:36 PM

How far would the KKK get in supporting a lawsuit by one of its members who was refused employment because he/she insisted on wearing their hood?
It's just like the Grand Rapids bus business. If one can wear a hood or mask in public, then anyone can wear any sort of hood or mask.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 1, 2008 10:44 PM

Marwan's Daughter,

LOL!!

But seriously, the whole thing just gets on my last nerve. Constant, perpetual, obsessive preoccupation with sex. Covering up with those damned ugly scarves as if that will protect these girls from that obsession. Demanding everyone go along with what the Muslims want.

Well I want what I want for a change, dammit! I'm sick and tired of even having to hear about what Muslims want. I don't give a flying flip what they want.

It's time for us to stop being on the defensive and go on the offensive. That is the only thing that encourages them to get the memo.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at August 1, 2008 11:22 PM

Here is a gem from Islamophobia Watch's Site:
"Islamophobia Watch has been founded with a determination not to allow the racist ideology of Western Imperialism to gain common currency in its demonisation of Islam."
Racism, imperialism, wonder if they are projecting Islam's values?

Posted by: Dumbo at August 1, 2008 11:42 PM

Dumbo,

Great catch! I wonder if these a$$holes even read/analyze the substance behind each of their posts:

Islamophobia Watch has been founded with a determination not to allow the racist ideology of Western Imperialism to gain common currency in its demonisation of Islam.

Islamophobia, as a racist tool of Western Imperialism, is strongly advocated by the political right but has also found an echo in the left, particularly sections of the left in France and the countries that make up the United Kingdom.

Islamophobia Watch will regularly report opinion columns and news items which match the editorial brief of the website, both articles that we believe advocate Islamophobia and those writers and organisations taking a stand against Islamophobia.

Further proof that muslims have only the "We are the victims" defense.

You all know the rest of this story.

Posted by: boneshack at August 2, 2008 2:22 AM

So if what you wear is part of their religion you can't discriminate. I would like seek a job in their children's department as a Voodoo Mojo witchdoctor with rooster heads and bones around my neck and my face painted blue.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at August 2, 2008 11:50 AM

The fashion police rule all.

By the way, nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that the women must wear "Islamic" dress. "Islamic" clothes being coverings designed to turn women into giant black Hefty bags.

Posted by: tanstaafl at August 2, 2008 12:03 PM

I agree with Abercrombie in this -- any company should be able to dictate its own employee's attire.

Potential employees can either accept it or go somewhere else. If their attire is so extreme and/or outside of normal society's convention, they may have their employment limited -- in this example, working for a muslim-run company.

Abercrombie has a right to its own image, and to expect its employees to uphold that image.

However, I do think Abercrombie and some other companies that have recently come into the news for the same reason are not very smart.

Why tell a perspective employee that she is not going to be hired because of the hijab?

I can't remember a single case when I have been turned down for a job and they told me outright what the reason was.

Usually companies just send a form letter saying "We appreciate your interviewing with Company XYZ. You are a desireable candidate, however, we don't believe you are a good match for this position at this time. We will keep your application on file for the next 6 months in case a position opens for which you are better qualified....etc"

Such letters are purposely vague for just such a reason... to avoid having some candidate get angry and sue.

In this day and age of CAIR and other litigious Moslems, why go out of your way to ask for legal action by telling someone "Your Hijab isn't acceptable?"

Posted by: StephenDvd at August 2, 2008 12:53 PM

In a letter to Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Michael Jefferies, CAIR-OK asked the company to 1) offer the Muslim applicant a formal apology, 2) clarify the company's policy on religious accommodation, and 3) institute workplace sensitivity and diversity training.

Proposed corporate reply:

1) The corporation acknowledges that no formal apology to the company from the applicant is required.

2) The corporate policy on religious accommodation recognizes that employees can practice any religion they desire when they are not on the company payroll or premises.

3) The corporation recognizes that civil law, based on objective actions, governs the behavior between individuals in a civil society. Workplace sensitivity and diversity training programs encourage individuals to place their personal emotional comfort over the freedom of other citizens and promote the subjective interpretation of the emotional state of others as a basis for harassment. As such, these programs promote neither sensitivity nor diversity, but instead represent self esteem programs for emotionally intolerant and immature individuals. In the corporation's view such programs are unconstitutional, inherently fascistic, Marxist-Islamic, and extralegal. Coercive techniques such as sensitivity and diversity programs, despite their emotionally appealing descriptions, have no standing in a free society governed by the rule of law, nor do they in our corporate environment.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at August 2, 2008 2:19 PM

Since when do employers have to explain why a person wasnt called?

Posted by: Mr.Fitnah at August 3, 2008 12:03 AM

Abercrombie and Fitch has every right to hire whoever they please, if someone goes to an interview at abercrombie and fitch and does not have the brains to wear abercrombie and fitch clothing they are asking to not be hired.

If abercrombie and fitch did hire the hijabbed one they would be telling any potential customers that their clothing is not good enough for those who work there.

I do not believe the account where the hijabbed one said a manager told her that she could not be hired because her headscarf did not fit the corporate image, I think she was probably told she was not a fit with the company and imagined that it was her hijab.

There is an old rule that if you want to be hired by some company you do a little research on that company, it seems to me that this woman was probably a shill for a lawsuit.

In other words CAIR is merely maumauing the flackcatchers, the real goal is probably to buy into sensitivity training and propagating their part of the PC industry pie, in other words the goal was a lawsuit, not a job.

Posted by: stickman at August 3, 2008 12:54 AM

Muslims Do Not Accomodate
"Islamic Human Rights Commission on Runnymede Trust report:
The report itself is not without fault. In particular it advocates that Muslims, as a self-help measure should be more accommodating towards the Jewish community regarding events in the Middle East. It suggests we should condemn every action taken that offends Jewish sensibilities in the Middle East, almost regardless of the rights and wrongs of each individual incident. The Runnymede Trust published a similar report on anti-Semitism in 1993, and no similar recommendation was made to the Jewish community. ..."

Posted by: getrealnow4 at August 3, 2008 8:36 PM

Head scarf and hijab are not religiously-mandated head wear - they must proof this using quran or koran. They are stupidly madated head wear. muslims are using our laws to viciosuly push stupid head wear. They are dressing up as extreme muslims specifically to discourage any potential employer from hiring them. This way they stand to sue for the big bucks. They should be defeated or they will bring the US to it knees. No one is happy to employ muslim extremists that look stupid deliberately or otherwise.

Posted by: American at August 4, 2008 11:12 AM