“The EEOC argued that the company could have easily reassigned the drivers but did not and sued it for religious discrimination.” If that is true, then the company was indeed in the wrong, although not necessarily to the tune of $240,000. More often, the Muslims who bring these kinds of suits have refused reassignment to positions that would allow them to practice their religion without hindrance — as in the notorious case of Imane Boudlal, who insisted on wearing her hijab while working at Disney, and sued after refusing multiple offers from Disney to place her in positions where her hijab would not violate their longstanding dress code.
These cases are generally attempts to compel American businesses to change the way they operate in order to accommodate Muslim practices. The EEOC willingly aids them: “EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices.” But this case doesn’t support equal treatment in the workplace. It establishes Muslim truckers as having a special right to choose what they transport and what they do not — a privilege the other truckers do not have. And gaining special rights for Muslims, above and beyond what non-Muslims enjoy and in accord with the elevated status of Muslims over non-Muslims in Islamic law, is what these cases are really all about.
“EEOC wins discrimination case for Muslims fired for not delivering beer,” by Sean Higgins, Washington Examiner, October 22, 2015 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won $240,000 in damages for two Muslim truck drivers after it sued their former employer for religious discrimination for firing the drivers for refusing to make beer deliveries.
The EEOC said that Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated their religious rights by refusing to accommodate their objections to delivering alcoholic beverages.
“EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices,” EEOC General Counsel David Lopez announced Thursday. “This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.”
The case involved Star Transport’s firing of drivers Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale, both of Somali heritage, in 2009 after they refused to make beer deliveries for the company, citing their adherence to Islamic law. For devout Muslims, consuming or even being in contact with any alcoholic beverage is prohibited.
The EEOC argued that the company could have easily reassigned the drivers but did not and sued it for religious discrimination. Star Transport admitted liability in March. The jury awarded Mohamed and Bulshale $20,000 each in compensatory damages and $100,000 each in punitive damages. The judge awarded each about $1,500 in back pay.
“This case makes me proud to be American,” Bulshale said.
How proud? Proud in 120,000 ways.

Angemon says
Want to refuse to do the work you signed up to do AND get money out of it? Convert to islam, the religion of perpetual victimhood!
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Actually, many white guys over the past 20 years or so simply had their kids check the African American box on their college applications. Not only did this get them into colleges they otherwise have not been admitted into, it got them fat scholarships. There are hundreds of cases of this. When the white-not-black kid shows up at the university, nobody blinks. Like Infidels dealing with Moslems, what’s a racist college administrator gonna do, take an action that publicizes an active policy of racism against whites?
Once a realm of activity goes fictive, it remains so, even when reality intrudes in a way not favorable to the fiction maintainer.
RonaldB says
Actually, there are some real benefits to the situation of white guys checking the black boxes. It would raise the graduation rate of minority students, showing how well the policy of affirmative action is working.
Doug says
Sounds like what I’m gonna have to start doing, declaring micelf to be Moslem on a job application, so when they DON’T hire me, I can scream “RACISM” (I have a Class A truck license, but because I have no experience driving tractor trailers, no on will hire me), I’m in a Catch 22 situation, I can’t get hired because I have no experience, but I can’t get experience because no one will hire me without experience.
So…for the next few applications I send out, I’m gonna list my “religion” as Islam, and when I’m not hired, I can get CAIR to sue them on my behalf. Sounds like a perfect plan, I don’t know why I didn’t think of it sooner.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Re: “The EEOC argued that the company could have easily reassigned the drivers but did not and sued it for religious discrimination.” If that is true, then the company was indeed in the wrong, although not necessarily to the tune of $240,000. But this case doesn’t support equal treatment in the workplace. It establishes Muslim truckers as having a special right to choose what they transport and what they do not — a privilege the other truckers do not having.”
(“DO NOT HAVING!?” Robert – I always knew you were a Pakistani LOL!)
… and your own accurate claim that: “Once a realm of activity goes fictive, it remains so, even when reality intrudes in a way not favorable to the fiction maintainer.”
EXACTLY. Which is why there should be no “protections of religions laws” at all!
Religions are all, at best, no more or less than speculations presented as facts.
We already have laws against lying (“fraud” and “slander”) because lying is the most basic form of theft: it’s the (at least, attempted) theft of the Truth. Since all crimes are forms of theft, lying is a crime.
underbed cat says
You know that was exactly my thought, what a great way to enrich oneself. Also for the beleivers who want to destroy our economy it is a perfectly innocent way to earn what most have to works 30 years to attain, and drain the economy of the infidel. Of course this type of lawsuit really makes me wonder just who can justify these work rules or laws. Insanity has ruled for a number of years, to justify a person who knowingly applies and gets a license to drive a beer truck to deliver beer and then informs his employer of his religious convict not too. Do employers have a right to this knowledge before hiring a person.?
Would that not have something to do with availability? or even skills for the job?
Tricky stuff. So is this following sharia or u.s law? Seems like the courts are sleeping and aiding the enemy.
underbed cat says
religious conviction =religious convict opps.
BommelBen says
And it is discrimination when Muslims are not hired.
Doug says
I was thinking just the same thing. These muzzies KNEW they’d be delivering beer when they took the damned job!!!
Now, muzzie-trash, man up and DO YOUR JOB!!!
Dr. Divinity says
In my day…If you refused reassignment in a job then the next day you were on the streets looking for a
job. Of course when this muslim applied for the job it should have been in writing ….if you refuse to deliver beer we can’t hire you. You drive for us we don’t drive for you!!!!.
Connie says
Maybe they should ask if the job has any duties that is contrary to their religion. Saves everybody time and moneyl
particolor says
The Judges need FN Sacking ! And also what the Person said Above is RIGHT !! 🙁 🙁
particolor says
Make the Sneaky Jizra Thief deliver Holy Water to the local Church !! And Sack that STUPID ” TAKIYYA MUSLIM” Judge !! 🙁 🙁
Jovial Joe says
Some infidel trucker needs to refuse to transport halal products on the basis that he/she is opposed to animal abuse; then we’ll see if this precedent concerns ‘equal treatment’ of employees.
cxt says
I’m also looking forward to vegetarians getting jobs in meat factories and environmentalists in car factories, and then saying they can’t do their job because it contravenes their belief system.
Anonymous says
If they do, then the public at large would begin to see all parties as equally guilty of filing frivolous lawsuits. It’s much better to educate people to use their common sense and start an outcry against such outrageous sentencing.
Neil Jennison says
Too fu**ing right…….surely some organisation with mass support like Robert Spencer’s could fund such an action? I live in the UK but I will be prepared to donate £20 to the cause……what is that? About $30? I am sure others would chip in.
This legislation needs to be shown to be a disaster on both sides of the Atlantic. But more importantly, it needs to be shown to be discriminatory……against the rest of us who are of the violent “religion of peace”.
Neil Jennison says
Sorry…..no edit…who ARE AGAINST THE VIOLENT RELIGION OF PEACE
Omi-san says
That would make him an islamophobe.
Rejecting Western values= Awesome
Rejecting Islmamic values= Racism.
EYESOPEN says
Spot-on!
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Focus should also be put on the judge and jury. Judges are responsible for seeing that the law is carried out, and over the last few decades have taken to actively undermining it to fit the goals they learned in their law schools, nearly all of which hold strong anti-American feelings. The jury is to apply the law within the framework provided them by the judge, but they too are prone to delivering on the messages they receive over the TV set.
A disastrous example of this having nothing to do with Moslems, was about 20 years ago when a California judge ruled that the schools there were legally responsible for educating the children of illegal aliens, which has resulted (along with some other causes) in the collapse of public schools there. It never occurred to the judge that the children were there illegally, and therefore entitled to exactly nothing. The ruling should have been issued to the state police to remove the children from the country immediately.
When a bad law envelopes a bad lawsuit, both survive, even flourish. This is the slippery slope. In the same way, Islam is fundamentally unfriendly to freedom and equality, much as illegal aliens are unfriendly to the rule of law and sovereignty, and thus their constant pleas for prerogative in the name of equality should be squelched by any good honest judge, and the plaintiff forced to pick up the costs of the defendants.
TexianWife says
But…but…this makes complete sense!! And we certainly can’t do that because it wouldn’t be PC!!
underbed cat says
Well ya know they both wear robes…..birds of a ….
pdxnag says
I believe that all religious accommodations and remedies (judicial and legislative) must themselves be religiously neutral. Here that would mean that every employee could choose to not haul alcohol — or nobody could object.
bill muldoon says
And if Bulshale didn’t win, would he now be ashamed to be an American?
If you travel the mos lem world, the vast majority of mos lems blame the US for their miserly lives and countries, yet if you offer these mos lems an airplane ticket to the US, with American citizenship in hand, 100% would ask “when is the plane leaving”
More Ham Ed says
“These cases are generally attempts to compel American businesses to change the way they operate in order to accommodate Muslim practices.”
Bud Light.
Jihad Light.
DRHazard says
So now all trucking companies have to find out about what their drivers will and will not deliver. I guess they will also be forbidden from not hiring somebody who won’t deliver what they transport. A Hindu driver, for example, might refuse to deliver meat of any kind. Will the Muslim drivers also refuse to deliver bacon? If there are any Jewish drivers can they do the same? Must an Amish driver must be accommodated with a horse team and giant buggy instead of a truck. And what if they were shipping Bibles – can anybody who isn’t a Christian say no? Is there anybody except a Muslim who thinks the world has to go along with their beliefs but NEVER thinks they have to compromise for the rest of the world.
I bet the Muslims who brought the suit don’t even pray five times a day or pay Zakat which is 2.5% of their income. They just wanted to make a point that confirms their identity as victims and legally steal money. I wonder if there were any Jewish lawyers working on their case?
rubiconrest says
Can’t a good lawyer have some undercover work done to show that these cases are scams? The drivers in question may drink, visit restaurants where alcohol is served, pass by cases in the supermarket where alcohol is sold etc… Delivering beer is not drinking. They are not even touching the product directly. If some muslims will deliver alcohol how can others claim their religion forbids it?
neversink says
Go to Dubai and you will see Muslims selling liquor. You will see them order liquor, but they put it in a water glass to hide it. You will see Muslims in many countries working in liquor stores, restaurants that serve spirits. This is stupidity and insanity on the part of the EEOC.
d says
If an employer knowing hires a Muslim, he’s asking for it. Doesn’t matter if there is liquer or pork or dogs or standard uniforms involved in the business somehow… somehow, some way, you’ll pay for hiring a Muslim.
KnowThyEnemy says
The problem is that if the employer does not hire, and the applicant can show that he was refused the job because of his religion, then too the employer gets into trouble with EEOC. So it is a case of being stuck between the rock and hard place….
IMO the solution to this is to cause awareness of the unfairness of such laws. Both the people and the political candidates for various offices need to be made aware of how such laws are abused by scammers. Then we vote for those candidates who promise to be tough on such abuse and who promise to appoint officials who won’t accommodate such lawsuits. This needs to be done not only at the national level but also at the state and local level.
Jim says
Just about every muslim-owned gas station sells alcohol. If it were truly against Islam for a muslim to handle alcohol, why do so many muslim-owned gas stations sell it?
They also sell pork (hot dogs).
I’m with Robert – this is just an attempt to force Islam onto the USA.
Or maybe it’s an attempt to collect the jizya from the infidel.
EYESOPEN says
Both!
Arthur says
Something tells me that lawyers just need to “Islam-proof” the hiring contracts, specifying that, as a condition of hire, the employee must dress according to company dress codes, which may change without notice, not refuse assigned job responsibilities, and work proscribed hours with breaks only as mandated by management, subject to change without notice. And that refusal to perform duties, regardless of the cause, is willingly surrendered at the time of hire with resignation as the only alternative. This is nothing new, really.
RonaldB says
I think you’ve pointed the direction that makes this case so insidious.
The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution state the purpose of government is to serve the people, to bring them the benefits of law.
This case, when you get down to it, is a government agency using vague regulations not directly approved by a legislature, bringing a huge penalty on a law-abiding company that had no clear path as far as the law.
This is not freedom by any measure. This is tyranny. This case shows a complete subversion of the original focus of the Constitution.
To get to your point directly: you propose a solution in the form of a pre-employment contract clearly laying out the conditions of the job, agreed to by both parties. It’s good in theory, but I doubt its effectiveness under a government that takes laws and liberties so lightly.
Arthur says
I cannot disagree with you.
Constance Hingert says
Arthur< you are so right:
"And that refusal to perform duties, regardless of the cause, is willingly surrendered at the time of hire with resignation as the only alternative. This is nothing new, really."
Refusing a duty creates a hardship for fellow workers and supervisors who will have to change their schedule around, just to accommodate people who accepted the employment but wanted to make their own rules.
mccode says
It seems reasonable that a Muslim will not imbibe alcohol or consume pork. Fine with that.
Where is it forbidden (haram) to transport such items, or be employed in a business having commerce in them? That should to be the germane issue. Therefore, the lawsuit should have been dismissed as without merit.
“Next case on the docket….and, Bailiff, toss those bums out of my courtroom immediately.”
somehistory says
So what happens when a Christian takes a job at a bakery and the boss says make a cake that goes against the religious belief of the Christian? Does the Christian get to bake something or decorate something else, or does the Christian refuse to do any baking, and then sues cause he/she was told to bake a cake that violated the conscience?
The eeoc has bias, just like the aclu. And the Christian would bake something else
Unlike the Disney scarf-wearing moslim who refused to take the religious accommodation and actually work. They must get jizya…extortion money…somehow and suits get them money and further compliance with their unlawful code they are trying to force on everyone.
The beast is gaining in every which way, because it has the devil working for it and its demise is yet future. But when the beast of islam does go down, there is going to be a loud sound of joy going up.
EYESOPEN says
Yep.
P. Smith says
Islam advances in America. I heard thet there is a prophecy where mohammad says that islam will rule the east and the west, it starts to happen now. This proves that Mohammad was smarter than american forefathers
KnowThyEnemy says
No….. Muhammad was not that smart. The reason why Islam keeps winning is because the non-Muslims of today are stupid, corrupt, apathetic, and are willfully ignorant* of what Islam is doing all over the world!
*(since it is a lot more comfortable and convenient to remain ignorant)
Evolution says
I have to handle halal food at work despite how insulting it is to me and my history.
Despite how disgusting and noticeably different it is to normal food.
It smells different, like wet carpet.
I’ve said I don’t like handling it, but I still have to because we’re living in a functional society where people are expected to do their jobs.
Where is my payout ?
The only pay I’m getting are my weekly wages.
I work, I get wages and that’s how it goes.
Start your own business if you don’t like working for someone else.
EYESOPEN says
So the stupid courts in the U.S. are enforcing sharia law now? This should NOT be!
EYESOPEN says
I had been looking for the link to an excellent article which describes how the U.S. Constitution, properly read, is both our sword and our shield against the izlamization of America. Here it is.
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/08/19/why-islam-is-not-protected-under-the-us-constitution/
RonaldB says
I read the article very carefully. It is a morass of confused thinking and confounded concepts. It is trying to make the point that the US can protect itself against Islam, which is true, but its reasoning is faulty and its concepts are vague and unsupportable.
Two of the confused concepts in the article are the claim that Islam can legally not be considered a religion under the First Amendment (very shaky and unsupported claim) and the claim that the Constitution does not require accommodation to the practices of a religion (true..there is nothing requiring that Muslims have the right to refuse to deliver alcohol).
“Therefore, Muslims do not have a First Amendment “Right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement Sharia in our country.”
The author of the article is pulling Constitutional principles out of his hat when he says the government can prevent the construction of mosques or prevent Muslims from proselytizing. We may not like it, but it’s in the Constitution. On the other hand, the argument that US law totally reject any part of Sharia law is completely sound.
“Therefore it’s incumbent on every American citizen to insist that our federal, state, and local governments immediately STOP the Islamization of OUR COUNTRY—starting with an immediate cease and desist on the construction of all mosques!”
If I knew as little of the Constitution as the author of this article, I wouldn’t want to display my ignorance. I do think there is a good argument to be made to bar Muslim foreigners from citizenship on the grounds their religious creed is incompatible with the US Constitution. Foreigners are not protected by the Constitution anyway, so a law preventing the naturalization of Muslims is not against the Constitution.
“Contrary to revisionist historians and secular progressive’s claims, the United States of America was founded on Christian principles. Jesus Christ is recognized not only as the Supreme Being of The Declaration of Independence, but also as the God of Article VII of our Constitution…”
This is an example of the mystical thinking of the article. In fact, the Constitution is effectively deist. I should note that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent immigration laws favoring Christians (or Jews), since the Constitutional rights do not apply to foreigners. But, this principle is logical, rather than mystical.
This article is effectively useless on any legal, logical rationale to prevent Islamization. It perfectly confuses the valid idea that government does not have to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of a religion, with the pulled-out-of-the-hat idea that the government can somehow declare Islam to not be a religion, and thereby effectively ignore the First Amendment.
Dave says
Wait til these mooslims get arrested for raping somebody or trying to go jihad somewhere, they’ll say they were drunk and didn’t know what they were doing.
David says
This is ridiculous. The EEOC is a disgrace.
Hook says
Pathetic
mortimer says
Have the judges considered that people choose their own jobs based on the suitability of the job to their beliefs? Or is that too commonsensical?
This goes for all religions…some jobs are incompatible with practicing many religions. Though legal, the religion may see some jobs as scandalous and/or sinful.
Muslims who choose to work in a job where handling alcohol is part of the job description are intentionally deceiving their employer.
madmemere says
Seriously, the company needs to appeal this in court, and keep on appealing to a higher court (if necessary). Plain and simple, if you sign on with a company, to do a job, then you do “the job” you are assigned to. If the muzzies knew they would be asked to deliver beer, they should not have applied for the job; chances are they didn’t bother to “inform HR” that they were even muslims – – -so, THEY “applied under false pretenses”. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the rag heads applied for that particular job, with a lawsuit in mind. That EEOC lawsuit can operate both ways,
islam :- the religion of leaching says
I can’t understand how someone smart enough to run a truck company, didn’t see this coming, if the muslims didn’t state they were muslims, with all the BS that goes with that, the muslims must be in the wrong,
I would have thought the trucking company would have moved the muslims and given them basic and manual jobs, $120,00 can pay for years of manually loading trucks, ,, but then that would bring up security issues with pilfering etc..
A company as brilliant as Disney, you have to acknowlege Disney is one of the smartest & most successful companies in the world, if the girl that applied to Disney didn’t wear a scarf & declare she was a muslim, then she must have been lying to HR & should have been fired for lying..
As with the truck drivers she could have been reassigned “out the back” until she got sick of it and left ….
The thing we must learn from this is to be aware, infidels will get ripped of under any pretence, employment contracts need to be re-written and employee selection needs to be re-focused …
Never have a muslim “be the out front” connection to the customers, they are much more suited to taking out the trash or other jobs that are reflective of their IQ
RonaldB says
I’ll make the same comment to you as I did on previous posts.
Your idea is good, but I’m not sure it will be effective with a government that chooses to ignore the law, as the Obama administration so blatantly does.
Raja says
This is a classic case of Islamic slavery of the entire govt system. There are so many others who may not want to move bear. Why do the Islamist take up the job in the first place?
This is the problem with the present West when all “religions” are painted with the same brush. There is nothing like evil religion, propaganda / nuisance value religion with potential to annihilate nations etc (like Sep 11) in the thought process of the stupid West, To pander to the multi-culturism the authorities/judges would bend over backwards to appease
What kind of message is EEOC sending out to the world? May be they are content being laughing stock of the world.
RonaldB says
“What kind of message is EEOC sending out to the world? May be they are content being laughing stock of the world.”
I think it’s a question of bureaucratic power and self-interest. The EEOC has got to justify its existence, and by showing “successes”, justify its existence and more money, power, and personnel. It’s a classic case of “public interest”, where bureaucrats act out of self-interest to control more money and people.
It’s also a matter of throwing away our bedrock Constitutional principles in favor of social engineering. The more immigrants we get, the more we dilute our native population, which is more likely to actually appreciate the concept of a limited government.
mach37 says
Muslims are causing non-Muslims to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices for the benefit of Muslims. How is this in compliance with he First Amendment? Non-Muslim lawyers need to get on this and take it to court- the Supreme Court if necessary.
The EEOC needs to be taken to court over the inconsistent application of Muslim claims of discrimination – if one Muslim will deliver beer or pork, how can another Muslim make a valid claim that his religion forbids it?
Seriously – lawyers need to get smarter.
Rumplestiltskin says
Not being an American, I had to look up on Wikipedia what “EEOC” means. I found the following…
“On March 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
This current situation under discussion doesn’t sound to me like employees were treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. The Muslims in question were given special treatment. They get to choose which cargo they will transport. Something is not right here.
Beyond that, I would like to know who decides what the requirements of their religion are. I am sure the Quran doesn’t say anything about transporting beer. Robert Spencer, being an expert on the subject, should have shown which verses of the Quran apply.
If I am correct that the Quran does not directly prohibit the transport of beer (as opposed to consumption), then who’s interpretation of Islam rules? Is there a single school of Islam who speaks for all Muslims everywhere? There is most certainly not. There are endless interpretations of what is Islam, so therefore the EEOC is placed in a position they are not qualified to take – that of defining Islam. This entire affair stinks, and needs to be taken to the Supreme Court.
Question: why is the text in this comment box so faint I can hardly read it? This is an accessibility issue for the website. This site is not usable for people with moderate visual impairments like me.
Connie says
Refusing a duty creates a hardship for fellow workers and supervisors who will have to change their schedule around, just to accommodate people who accepted the employment but wanted to make their own rules.
Yaakov Watkins says
The principle of accommodation is long standing. Jews use it to avoid working on our Sabbath as do 7th Day Adventists.
HOWEVER. As one who has asked for, and received the accommodation I believe that I have a moral obligation to try to help out in return. When I was in retail and my employer gave me Saturdays off, I worked almost every Sunday and every Christmas and Easter.
Being a pain in the rear end doesn’t win friends.
Mike says
So as a non Muslim, if i am a truck driver working for a company that directs me to deliver stones to a Muslim group who intend on stoning a young woman to death because she come home late from a date. What should I do? Deliver the stones which I know will be used to stone the young woman to death? Don’t deliver the stones because stoning to death a human is against my religion? Then when I am fired I can expect the same support from the EEOC as they came to the rescue of these two drivers.
Yaakov Watkins says
Okay, you raise a pretty stupid comparison. But to answer it, stoning someone is illegal. If you have strong suspicions that murder is being planned, you should notify the police.
As for the EEOC, they are politicians and I have no idea what they will do.
The law is that employers have to make reasonable accommodations for religious issues. If the company only delivered beer and nothing else, a reasonable accommodation could not be made. In these case, presumably they could have switched with another driver.
Similarly if an electrician objected on religious grounds to being sent to a brothel in Nevada, or a marijuana growing building in Denver, or an abortion clinic to do repairs, a large company would be required to send someone else. If it was a small company then the employee would be out of luck.
The same rules apply to doctors in clinics assigned to do abortions, or pharmacists assigned to provide a morning after pill.
On a less formal basis the same rules applied in the county clerk’s foreclosure office in a major western city. An elderly man was being evicted from a house he had lived in for decades. He was in tears. He looked exactly like the clerk’s own grandfather and the clerk could not deal with it. So someone else did.
It’s called taking care of each other.
Bob says
this is stupid working for a company that delivers beer and not want to deliver it what a stupid jury and judge to do that
Fran says
If you’re a Christian, this should SCARE YOU! We can go to jail if we refuse to violate our religious convictions, while Muslims get rich over it. It’s obvious who our government and judicial system favor.
Ben says
The employer should have told these guys to invite their God to a meeting to discuss possible options.
Cons R Trash says
The difference is that working with alcoholic beverages is actually against the Muslim religion.
Nothing in the bible demands that you not serve gays, or bake them cakes.
CONSERVATIVE FAIL!!!!
mach37 says
The 9/11 hijackers were known to party it up in bars while they were in pilot training before that fateful day. There are many reports of liquor sales and consumption by Muslims in Shariah countries. Muruna, kitman, tawriya,- all ways that Muslims violate Islam without feeling guilty.
Yaakov Watkins says
The fact that some Muslims violate Muslim religious law is not a proof that the laws don’t exist. Many Christians and Jews are less than perfect also.
mach37 says
Of course the laws exist – but it demonstrates that “devout” often depends on which religious laws you choose to follow most devoutly. Because these two guys choose to live in a non-Shariah country, almost certainly they are picking the most lucrative laws to claim adherence to.
Yaakov Watkins says
Nobody has refused to serve gays or refused to bake cakes for them. They have refused to help celebrate gay weddings.
Your lies don’t help anyone. They merely convince Christians that pro-gay supporters are intolerant of other opinions and want to make it illegal to disagree with gays.
KnowThyEnemy says
Cons R Trash is a moron but like a broken clock that is correct twice a day, he is correct regarding his claim that “working with alcoholic beverages is actually against the Muslim religion.”
……. But as they say: the devil is in the details.
There is this principle in Sharia that if some action, or some thing, is haram (forbidden) then anything that can lead to the haram activity is haram too. (See Sharia at wikipedia). So for example the presence of a liquor shop can lead to a Muslim getting tempted to drink, therefore not only is liquor haram but the liquor shop is haram too. Similarly, girls getting an education can lead to the violation of Quran 4:34, therefore educating girls is haram and the girls schools are haram too.
Working with alcoholic beverages can lead a Muslim to drink, so by Sharia working with alcoholic beverages is indeed haram to a Muslim.
Now I can already hear people saying “how about this…. coming to a non-Muslim country too can lead Muslims to drink, so is it not clearly haram to come and live in non-Muslim countries?” Well…. common sense would say yes it is, and that Muslims should stay in their Islamic paradises instead of doing haram things like going to infidel countries. ….. Except that Islam’s plan is more devious than what most people can imagine, and Muslims like to do things by that plan. Let’s call it “the Islamic way”.
The Islamic way is to blame others for Muslims’ weaknesses and look for ways to advance Islam. A non-Muslim eating during Ramadan?….. it is his/her fault that Muslims got tempted to eat. The Muslim can call the authorities on him. There is a liquor shop in the neighborhood?….. It is the liquor shop’s fault that Muslims got drunk. Women walking around without niqabs?…. it is their fault for tempting Muslims. The Muslims can bring in their friends and destroy the haram liquor shop and attack/rape the women. Boss said to deliver beer as part of job?….. it is his fault for tempting the Muslim (to drink) and needs to be sued!
And if anyone confronts Muslims regarding such behavior, then they advance Islam by telling us that we should look for ways to have peace, should not eat during Ramadan, should stop selling liquor, should require our women to cover up more, and should not require Muslim employees to do anything that is against their religion.
If we agree to these conditions, Islam wins a battle, which is the goal from the beginning. Unknown to the non-Muslims who compromise, there are going to be *more* battles.
Hence, blaming others is the Islamic way. Except I have no intention of putting up with such behavior and I hope other Islamo-realists do not either. Islam MUST LOSE! We need to elect leaders (local, state, and federal) who will turn the tables on Islam.
mach37 says
That is a most excellent post, KnowThyEnemy. It goes into my new list under the title “IslamoRealist, not Islamophobia.”
BALONEY TONEY MAHONEY says
The Bible, both Old & New Testament, clearly states that homosexuality is a severe sin & transgression against God…To FORCE PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS TO SERVE HOMO WEDDINGS is a violation of Freedom of Religion, Conscience & Association, therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL !!!