“Citing the reason for the action, the company known as Advance America said it requires all customers to remove any hoods, hats, sunglasses and other head coverings as part of its safety policy.” But safety must fall by the wayside, you see. Concern for safety is a “fossilized” policy. Advance American needs to come up to “the modern time.”
It might seem absurd for Dawud Walid of Hamas-linked CAIR to say such a thing in defense of a garment connected to a seventh-century dress code, but Dawud Walid is right: given the clueless, capitulated and complicit political and media elites of today, the hijab is the wave of the future.
“Michigan Muslim woman denied service for refusing to remove hijab,” Iran’s state-run ABNA, August 22, 2015 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
In a fresh Islamophobic attack, a Muslim woman has been denied service in a Michigan store after she refused to take off her Islamic hijab, according to media reports.
The problem erupted when Nadia Kamal said she was denied service by the clerk at Advance America Cash Advance in the Detroit suburb of Westland on Wednesday.
“The lady she told them just take it off a little bit and put it back,” her husband, Fatah Kamal, said. “She said, ‘I can’t, I’m in a public place I cannot do that.'”
Nadia feels comfortable removing her hijab only in the presence of “very close family,” her husband said.
The Muslim woman reported facing ill treatment when she was denied services and kicked out of the Michigan cash advance store.
“This is really about ignorance, it’s really about fossilized policies and people being stubborn and not coming up to the modern time,” Dawud Walid, of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said on Wednesday.
Walid added that women are permitted to wear headscarves to do everything from go to the bank to take driver’s license photos.
Citing the reason for the action, the company known as Advance America said it requires all customers to remove any hoods, hats, sunglasses and other head coverings as part of its safety policy….
Loves God says
Hmm, this place is not unlike a bank – where the money is. Some criminals have worn them (and more) to commit robbery. Safety, as defined by the company, is about being able to identify people later if need. Nothing personal about the policy.
What doesn’t make sense is why she would be going there. I thought Islam had prohibitions about paying interest. I thought that was the whole reason Islamic banks needed to exist was to be able to dance around how to buy large ticket items without interest.
Karen says
Hmmmmm…..very good point about the interest rate. I’m guessing that this company doesn’t loan at prime + 1%. Possibly a CAIR test case/put-up job?
ninetyninepct says
We can think of this in two ways.
1. Advance America must not charge muslims interest in order to obey sharia law. They would then have to provide free loans to everyone otherwise they would be charged with discrimination.
2.Advance America must refuse to deal with muslims.
#2 is the better choice.
I worked in the middle east for a few years, on rotation. On trips home, we used to walk by Arabs on the plane and take their drinks and little bottles of liquor, saying simply that we were helping them be good muslims and we were obeying Alla’s will. Not a damn thing they could do about it.
Steph says
I can’t figure why she needed to go into AdvanceAmerica in the first place, given Islam has prohibitions about paying interest, she would either be a dressed down puppy holding Mr.Muslim’s right hand.
Or it’s a scam ??
take out a loan then shuffle back home ??,
Mr Muslim claims she wasn’t allowed to take out loans, or
just a way of getting their stealth into the media ..
Mirren10 says
”Safety, as defined by the company, is about being able to identify people later if need.”
Apparently this bint was wearing a hijab, not a niqab.
But this is typical mohammedan supremacism. They’re too special to follow the rules that everyone else must follow.
” I thought Islam had prohibitions about paying interest”
It does, so as you say, what the hell was she doing there ? I think Karen’s probably put her finger on it. I seem to remember that in every case where a mohammedan bint refused to remove her slave rag, and sued, CAIR was involved.
Just another little step in the stealth jihad – special accommodations for *muslims*.
Herman says
Look no further: PURE PROVOCATION!
Jaladhi says
If they love hijab and Islam so much, why don’t they go live in any of those 57 countries that follow this seventh century dress code??
Diana says
I thought it was 56 countries plus the disputed territory of “Palestine” which isn’t actually a country … but I digress.
For the first time in my life I actually have to agree with CAIR : – “This is really about ignorance, it’s really about fossilized policies and people being stubborn and not coming up to the modern time,” Dawud Walid, of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said on Wednesday.
Yes Nadia (the purported victim in this news report) and her hijab wearing ilk really are all about defending ignorance and fossilized [sic] policies and not coming up to the modern time. Why else would she wear the hijab if she was not indulging in fossilised practices.
Please note that “the company known as Advance America said it requires all customers to remove any hoods, hats, sunglasses and other head coverings as part of its safety policy”…. AND that safety policy has been enacted in no small part due to the current world-wide wave of jihadi violence. Oh the irony!
So can someone please explain to me exactly how it can be that no Christian, Jew, Rastafarian or Calathumpian can go into this bank-like institution and it is ONLY EVER a muslim who ever gets offended????
Mark says
How true how true what you say is true lol 🙂
Jaladhi says
It’s in Muslim DNA to get offended by everything we do!! They can’t help it, its the only reaction they know.
Huck Folder says
@ Diana, beat me to it:
“This is really about ignorance, it’s really about fossilized policies and people being stubborn and not coming up to the modern time,” Dawud Walid, of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said on Wednesday.”
ROTFLOL Was he looking in the mirror when he gave that little PROJECTION?
I think Pamela and Robert and others should use that quote freely, and when questioned on it, bounce it back to its imbecile source.
O/T Canada’s CBC (Communist Bullshit Circus) TV News Sunday Aug 23rd (today) 9 -10 pm had a gob-smacking example of family benefits under the three main parties heading to Oct 19 federal elections. The first was a single mum with a child, the second was an all-Canadian nuclear family of two heterosexual parents and two children – the woman’s name was Nadia (!), the man’s name was MOHAMMED! I kid you not.
That’s how far PC/MC brain-rot has penetrated the CBC (and they wonder why they are under fire). The worshipers of mo themselves claim that they are one million, but they are just a little bit wont to exaggerate, so say about 3%.
What about the OTHER 97%. If they’re not all one group, couldn’t they have picked ‘typical’ one parent and ‘perfect’ family names from that majority? What have the majority done wrong to be tossed aside in favor of supremacist fifth-column moles? The Canadian government reported 1.4 million First Nations people in 2011, and growing faster than the average. Why were they not used as an example rather than the febrile worshipers of caravan bandit mo? Deliberate insult.
I hope Ezra Levant at The Rebel can pick this up.
John spielman says
If she was a serious muslimah, she would stay home and inside her husbands house and NOT allowed outside unless accompanied by a male realize who would do the financial transactions
Noel Eliscu says
Let her go somewhere else. Are all the places to eat going to have to serve Halal food in the future.
Ginger says
It’s already well-advanced in the UK in schools and hospitals. Supermarkets stock a huge amount of halal meat but refuse to label it, despite protests. The only meat you can guarantee won’t be halal is pork.
Judi says
You beat me to it Ginger. Recently, I had an online dispute with the Customer services at the Head Office of Tesco. My argument was that how can I be sure that the meat or chicken I buy isn’t halal? Her reply was that the only alternative was to buy organically raised chicken or beef ( which is way more expensive). Pamela Geller rightly predicted this back in 2008 when she enlightened us to the fact that the UK were importing 5000 Paki butchers. Welcome to Britainistan 2015.
HKSIG45 says
What is a muslim doing in a cash advance business?
Sharia prohibits interest and fees on loans. That would have been the next compliant. They infidel won’t give me free money…
mortimer says
Excellent point…sharia law proscribes paying interest. They should not be applying to pay interest in the first place, since it is usury.
‘Advance’ is an ironical name as well! Muslims want to WITHDRAW and RETREAT to their discriminatory 7th century, rather than ADVANCE to equality in the 21st century.
There should be one law for everyone. Many Muslims have used the veil as a means of concealing their identity in the commission of crime.
For that very reason, the FACE of the client must be FULLY revealed…to prevent crime where the criminal is unidentified.
Mark says
What I emailed to Advance America;
Thank You for not folding on your requirements that all customers to remove any hoods, hats, sunglasses and other head coverings as part of its safety policy.” If you drop your dress code to this the next step they will fight for is wearing the full black tents that cover the hole body and you will not really know if there is a woman or men under that….
duh_swami says
Who’s safety is being protected? Around here cash advance clerks are armed…just in case…
As long as they require Fester to remove his straw hat, and Kenny to remove his hood and sun glasses, I don’t see the problem of removing the woman”s head covering…The religious aspect should be of no concern to the company…
Karen says
Yes, exactly. Equality of treatment for everyone. No privileged classes. If Ms. Kamal freely declines to engage on these equally-applied and reasonable conditions, then she cannot obtain a loan from this particular company. Her remedy is to find another loan company that she feels she can work with. Problem solved.
George S. says
It’s partly a power grab by muzzie men – well it’s their archaic way of enslaving women. Come on, muzzies – this is the year 2015, not the 7th century A.D. (A.D. stands for Anno Domini or “Year of our Lord”). The bags that muzzie women wear is meant to protect them. Again, come on, this is the 20th century, muzzies. O.K., in the 7th century and right up until recently, there were muzzie bandits, gangs of raiders, murderers, and sex-crazed hordes of retards wandering around and the women were told to cover themselves so that they wouldn’t be a temptation to some muzzie retard, but here we are in the 20th century – right?
They still use that excuse if they rape a women or a child – “Well, she wasn’t covered. She was asking for it by the way she dressed.” That retarded attitude has even been used successfully in defense in UK Courts.
It’s so sad, and so immature. Some imams, mullahs, or clerics or whatever have even said that if a woman or child was raped then it was her fault for not covering up. So, so sad.
The headbag, and the burkha or hijab or whatever should be banned outright in the west. I have no sympathy for the woman in this story, none whatsoever. The store – like most good restaurants – have the right to refuse service to a customer if they pose a security risk, of a risk of offending normal customers. In restaurants around the west you often see the notice “No shirt, no service.” We should start insisting on a new notice, “Wearing a headbag? Sorry, no service available because of security concerns.”
Mind you a small typo can sometimes make things hilarious – in Vanderhoof, B.C., my wife and I popped into a small Chinese restaurant for a coffee and lunch on a long drive and had to laugh at their version of the old notice – “No shit, no service.”
pdxnag says
Muslim men create this problem because they are a threat (rape and beatings and such) against uncovered women. If you exclude Muslim men from the store then a Muslim woman can let her hair flow freely. You see, it is a Muslim on Muslim violence thing (man on woman, asymmetrically) and the kaffur just mess up this sadistic male domination game played by Muslims. It is a problem of their own making, so STFU.
Search on Sadomasochism and Islam and up pops this article trying to make sense of Islamic evil:
SADOMASOCHISM AND THE JIHADI DEATH CULT
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/188892/sadomasochism-islamist-death-cult
AnnaK says
Safety, security, hygiene ( female muslim nurses demanding to wear their er..”Modern” ? tent with long sleeves when dealing with patients as one instance) are all “fossilised” ?
Oh, but returning to the seventh century isn’t fossilised ? The mind boggles.
Mark says
Good one
mortimer says
Fossilized practices of the 7th century?
To a Muslim, progress is regress.
ninetyninepct says
Good one, AnnaK. Muslim nurses cannot be allowed to deal with patients if they wear long sleeves. They carry and transmit disease and filthy germs. We all must refuse any interaction by muslim nurses for health reasons if nothing else.
Steph says
Yes the hygene issue is scary, to me the headwear is a flag so we can avoid ,,,
Once in a hospital that is fighting the superbug, I had a Indian nurse drop all my medication on the floor picked it up and tried to give it to me .. then argued she would have to do paperwork to get me some “clean” medication .. I then became a difficult patient >>>>>
So yes hygene is huge ..
Shmooviyet says
“In a fresh Islamophobic attack….” that line started the reading of the article out with an LOL.
Could this be considered part of “the anti-muslim backlash” as well?
Raymond Solomon says
In a NUTSHELL the following is ISLAM and no amount of sugar coating can change it. Some very astute person put together the following GEMS~
Know Islam — No Peace
No Islam — Know Peace
There must be (otherwise should be) a group of volunteer lawyers who would take CAIR, SPLC & any (and ALL) Islamic groups to court for TREASON since every Muslim and or Muslim Sharia compliant entity CANNOT ever be LOYAL to the American Constitution (because it is NOT from Allah) nor can ANY of them be loyal to the 97% of non Muslim Americans (because they are Kuffar/ Infidels)!
Kaffir007 says
I surprised that pious Muslima would go to such place. If husband was there why not he engage in transaction? If he not there, why he let wife out UN-escorted?
Looks like someone was Hoping for lawsuit
somehistory says
That was my thought too. Why was she out without her *owner* conducting business? If he wasn’t along, then doesn’t the same beastly book that tells her not to go out *uncovered* also say she is not allowed out without a male who is *close* to her?
If he was with her, then she could wait outside while he conducts the business. If that isn’t acceptable…to *wait outside alone*…then she could wait at home with all of his other *belongings and property.*
This is nothing more than 1. muslims are superior and no law that applies to infidels, applies to them (the creeping unlaw of islam ) 2. This cash place has a lot of money, good for a lawfare suit, 3. Any thing else they might dream up, making it easier for other muslims to make inroads and cause other businesses to fold.
It also makes it easier, if they win, for theft. Bank-robbery by burqa comes to mind.
Mirren10 says
Well said, somehistory.
No doubt CAIR will shortly be instigating a lawsuit.
I hope this company digs its heels in and refuses to kowtow to attempted mohammedan supremacism.
Know Thy Enemy says
“Looks like someone was Hoping for lawsuit”
That is exactly why they do it. Filing lawsuits and denigrating non-Muslims (in the media) is one way of practicing the Quran’s injunctions to subdue kafirs and to be harsh with them.
Muslims know that if they go to a currency exchange or apply for a job at Abercombie & Fitch, places where these business have strict dress-codes, they are very likely to have a case for lawsuits. These are places where Islam does not even allow Muslims to go. They purposely go there, not to disobey the Quran, but to look for opportunities to actually obey its commands!
The business ends up getting harsh treatment from everyone (authorities, media, etc) and gets penalized, while the Muslims not only satisfy their religious requirement but also go home richer. What can be better!
Mirren10 says
Yep. In a nutshell.
Huck Folder says
A pity mo and 0’s fathers didn’t keep them in their nut-shells.
SoCalMike says
Send the 7th century animals who can’t assimilate back and their left wing allies with them.
They don’t belong here because they aren’t qualified to live among 21st century humans.
Angemon says
Muslim conwoman trying to profit from a variation of the “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service” policy.
mortimer says
The real purpose of the Islamic veil is COUSIN MARRIAGE. No one but her first cousin is allowed to see her so he may have first right of refusal.
The Islamic veil is not concerned with modesty.
Falafel_Akbar says
” “This is really about ignorance, it’s really about fossilized policies and people being stubborn and not coming up to the modern time,” Dawud Walid, of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said on Wednesday. ”
Well, he’d be correct if he was talking about the hijab itself. This really is about people being stubborn and “not coming up to the modern time” – a seventh century religious dress code has little business being adhered to in a modern society, and the laws of a modern society supersede it.
Diana says
That “fossilized” 7th century dress code was actually invented by the profiteer mo-ham-mad (P be upon him) because he was unable to constrain himself (and his unbridled lust) after seeing his daughter-in-law Zaynab in a state of partial undress when his own adopted son was absent. So very conveniently, his alter-ego allah helped him out of the dilemma – problem solved! Mo married Zaynab after his son ever so thoughtfully divorced her so sugar-daddy mo could marry her. Note this was when he was already “married” to his best mate abu bakar’s daughter Ayesha – poor child was “married off” (or sold) to mo when she was only 6 – and the “marriage” was consummated by him when she was the ripe old age of 9.
And to prevent mo’s ungodly male followers (heaven forbid) from being similarly led astray he invented the idea that women should be veiled. Get it? HIS lust = her fault! That is why all good muslimas must be veiled – makes sense huh????
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
You’ll note this ‘slime woman says nothing. Her ugly ‘husband’ (dear God I can smell him from here, his rotten breath and B.O.) does all the talking. For her.
CAIR puts it out that the hijab/nikab show how islam ‘treasures’ its women. The idea that islam ‘values’ and ‘protects’ women is enough to finish me off altogether.
What woman in her right mind would author, much less consent to, laws that rob her of so MUCH power, given by God, i.e., her youth and beauty?
No woman, that’s who.
Now I’m nauseous; and here it is Sunday when I vowed not to contemplate the subhumans! Well, never mind. Now I’ll watch the video of our hero Marines who once again showed how it’s done, trussed up the jihadist in Paris while the French apparently crawled into the train toilets in fear. Some things never change.
Vive les Americaines, vive les Marines!
gravenimage says
Good point about the Mohammedan male doing the talking, Kathy.
mortimer says
Another example of Islamic Stockholm syndrome: “I ENJOY being a SLAVE.”
gravenimage says
Posters here have already covered most aspects of this Muslim supremacy.
Here’s one more:
In a fresh Islamophobic attack, a Muslim woman has been denied service in a Michigan store after she refused to take off her Islamic hijab, according to media reports.
………………………….
Notice that Iran’s state-run media is describing the incident as an “Islamophobic attack”, as though this Muslimah had been assaulted, rather than just denied service.
This is not at all uncommon. When Shahrukh Khan, a Bollywood actor, was questioned at Newark airport, he described it as an “attack”. Pastor Terry Jones’s plan to burn a Qur’an has been described as an “attack”. Anti-JIhad graffiti has been described as “attacks”. Bacon draped over a door handle of a Mosque has been described as “attacks”.
When people here the term attack, they think “violent physical assault”. This is intentional–an effort to make decent Infidels think that Muslims are being violently targeted by vicious “Islamophobes”.
Throw in the wide-spread phenomenon of *faked* “islamophobic” incidents, and many Kuffar believe, quite mistakenly, that violence against Muslims is widespread. It is not–except from their fellow Muslims, of course.
somehistory says
You made some good points, as always. Words have a lot of power and they are deceitfully adept at using them to try to make a case for their claims of *backlash* and *oh poor us* victims of *hate.*
gravenimage says
Thanks, somehistory. This is the whole point of the “Islamophobia” scam.
Betty says
go to Cair web site and see what they are up to. wanting FBI to check in to hate crime against so and so. as always it is some thing done to a muslim but never to any one else. except when Cair and muslims are involved. like some of the riots that is going on witch Cair is involved. and where Cair is more than old man Al. S. Jessie J. and some others are involved.beginning to think Al and Jessie and a bunch of others are converts to islam.
Angel Gabriel says
“In a fresh Islamophobic attack”
Notice the language — how they are trying to make it sound equivalent to “a fresh jihadi attack”. Sickening.
Paraquat says
They violated her human rights by forcing her to check the suicide vest by the door.
I see Israel’s hand in this.
gravenimage says
Grimly hilarious.
Thomas says
This is only the beginning of a battle the west is going to lose. all of the world will be under sharia law within 10 years.
gravenimage says
Thomas has done this many times before–told us everything is hopeless, and that we might as well surrender.
These are, in fact, the only comments he ever posts here.
But he is *wrong*. Right now, the US is less than *1%* Muslim. The idea that opposing Islam is hopeless is just grotesque. We can oppose it—and win—if we have the courage and resolution to do it.
Diana says
Agree gravenimage – and isn’t it interesting that here he calls himself “Thomas”- of the doubting variety no doubt! His only purpose seems to be to discourage us. Disregard his posts please.
Well the fight ain’t over – it’s only just started and we here on this forum and others like it are in the vanguard to save everything we hold dear. Whilst there is breath in my body I will NEVER give in to pure unabated EVIL. NEVER EVER!!!! Got that doubting Thomas????
We can and will win this fight because the whole of civilisation is at stake. Do not lose hope – continue the fight FOR FREEDOM. Let us not think of ourselves as AGAINST this enormous evil but instead as FOR all that is good and right in this world.
Medina says
Of course the Moslem man pushes his wife up to the counter for the grievance. A few years ago in St. Louis, a moslem couple purchased a mattress with a check. The woman, wearing a niqab, wrote a check but could not produce picture ID and her face was covered anyway. They made a stink, and the asst. manager lost his job for following company procedures. Radio talk lines were jammed–“What if a nun wanted to buy a mattress with a check?–I did manage to get on KMOX to point out no religious order covers their faces.
I now understand that moslem women are issued driver’s licenses without removing head coverings .DMV signs clearly state NO hats, head coverings–but hey, there are always exceptions for moslems.
Kaffir007 says
Maybe it time to use “adult suckling” wife can make male clerk her adopted son, then no problem to show herself uncovered.
Muslims say this was abrogated.
Mohamed married Zaynab sometime round March 27, 627 to June 8,632 – about 5 years before he died.
We know from Sahih Muslim 3421 at least 2 missing Quran verses concerning this matter, one said suckle 10 times, was abrogated by one saying 5 times. Aisha had verses with her when Mohamed died and a sheep ate them. Seems like these would be newer/better than S 33:37
Must be Allah realized how silly it was to give a verse and in less than 5 years make 2 abrogations.
Steph says
“We know from Sahih Muslim 3421 at least 2 missing Quran verses concerning this matter, one said suckle 10 times, was abrogated by one saying 5 times. Aisha had verses with her when Mohamed died and a sheep ate them. ”
A sheep ate them ???
this shows how holy and important these scriptures are if they let sheep eat them …
ninetyninepct says
Advance American is offending and violating islamic doctrine and orders of the koran by dealing with muslims. Advance American must immediately stop all business with muslims before all staff get executed under orders from CAIR. Muslims are forbidden to pay interest and therefore Advance American is offending islam.
Advance American must show respect for islam and immediately ban muslims from entering their establishments. All bars, hotels, liquor stores and every establishment selling, delivering or offering liquor must also ban muslims. Even trucking companies must refuse to deal with muslims in support of their beliefs as trucking companies often transport liquor. TV networks must not let muslims subscribe as liquor advertising is a significant part of their revenue.
Refusing to deal with muslims is NOT islamophobic or “racist”, it is respecting islam. Nadia Kamal must be publicly beheaded or flogged to death by CAIR for intentionally ignoring the orders of CAIR. Dawud Walid of Hamas-linked CAIR must also be severely punished for failing to enforce sharia law.
In order for islam to retain any respect by civilized countries, both must be severely punished.
Steffen Larsen says
““This is really about ignorance, it’s really about fossilized policies and people being stubborn and not coming up to the modern time,” Dawud Walid, of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said on Wednesday.”
Erm …yes.