Oklahoma Muslim denied job because of Islamic scarf

The Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) announced today that it has filed an EEOC complaint on behalf of a Muslim woman who was allegedly denied employment at an Abercrombie Kids store in that state because of the applicant’s religiously-mandated headscarf, or hijab.

The woman told CAIR-OK that a district manager claimed he could not hire her because her Islamic headscarf “does not fit the Abercrombie image.”

“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.”

Continue reading

Joint statement: divisive study for divisive ends

British Muslim students have long contributed to the success of Britain. Muslim students have gone on to become doctors, business people and public servants, and all have been part of making Britain the vibrant society that it is today. ‘Islam on Campus’ a survey published on Sunday that supposedly charts UK student opinion is silent on this, just as it is silent on seeking positive good practise examples of British Muslims reaching out, seeking the common good.

The latest report on British Muslim students by the Centre for Social Cohesion serves only to strengthen bigots and demagogues keen to sow discord amongst British people. The authors of the report cannot hide behind a purportedly scientific survey to justify their own agenda of creating anything but cohesion in society. We refer to more concrete polling data that illustrate the commitment British Muslims have to British society and the people around them. The authors cite their unsatisfactory sampling to extrapolate ideological and biased conclusions to serve their own divisive ends.

We are a cross-section of British people who believe in the importance of meaningful social cohesion, where British people from all backgrounds and persuasions can live together without maligning each other. The Centre for Social Cohesion is opposed to this, and we reject their conclusions utterly.

We do not deny that the terror threat is serious, nor do we object to the notion that separatism and bigotry should be challenged, including from within the Muslim community. However the report incorrectly ascribes guilt by tenuous association with those national Muslim organisations who have been firm and innovative on both counts. Moreover, these organisations are theologically diverse, and yet the study insinuates that they favour one Islamic tradition over another.

The report reserves a lot of its fire for the Islamic student societies that operate from campus up and down the country. We find it curious, therefore, that the report sought qualitative opinions from only twelve Islamic student societies, yet there are scores of Muslim student bodies in the UK – hardly a representative sample. Islamic societies have done much to engage Muslim students with the mainstream. The study could have cited, for example, those Islamic societies that worked in partnership with those Jewish student societies to bring about greater understanding.

A report like this can only create discord amongst us. It has already done so with incendiary headlines such as ‘Muslim students back killings‘. Muslim students do not back killings, they are not separatist, they are British and very much part of our vibrant society.

Signed by:

Wes Streeting – President, National Union of Students
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari – Secretary General, The Muslim Council of Britain
Pav Akhtar – National Race Equality Officer, UNISON
Khurshid Ahmad – Chairman, British Muslim Forum
Milena Buyum – Vice-Chair, National Assembly Against Racism
Ahmad al-Rawi – Muslim Association of Britain
Faisal Hanjra – President, FOSIS

See also Joint Statement Between Islamic Societies and FOSIS in Response to Islam on Campus Report.

‘A third of Muslim students back killings’

Almost a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll. The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law.

The YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) will raise concerns about the extent of campus radicalism. “Significant numbers appear to hold beliefs which contravene democratic values,” said Hannah Stuart, one of the report’s authors. “These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said there is no extremism in British universities.”

The report was criticised by the country’s largest Muslim student body, Fosis, but Anthony Glees, professor of security and intelligence studies at Buckingham University, said: “The finding that a large number of students think it is okay to kill in the name of religion is alarming. There is a wide cultural divide between Muslim and non-Muslim students. The solution is to stop talking about celebrating diversity and focus on integration and assimilation.”

Sunday Times, 27 July 2008


See the FOSIS press release which quotes Faisal Hanjra, President of FOSIS, as stating: “This is yet another damning attack on the Muslim community by elements within the academic arena whose only purpose seems to be the undermining of sincere efforts by mainstream Muslim organisations to tackle the threat of terror which wider society faces. The report is methodologically weak, it is unrepresentative and above all serves only to undermine the positive work carried out by Islamic Societies across the country.”

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, is also quoted as condemning the study: “This report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain. Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were then wilfully misinterpreted in order to fit this organisation’s own tawdry obsession with Islam.”

See also the Sunday Herald, which reports that Muslim students’ leaders in Scotland have dismissed the CSC’s research as flawed. Adel Daas, president of Strathclyde University Muslim Students’ Association, said: “What scares me is how this report is going to be used. It will be used to divide Muslims from non-Muslims. This is not working to bring communities together, it is trying to highlight the things that separate us from others, which is wrong. This study is going to cause more pressure, more separation, more issues and more problems.”

The Scottish Islamic Foundation also expressed reservations about the findings. Noman Tahir, a Glasgow University student who is also from the foundation, said of the Centre for Social Cohesion: “Despite the pleasant name, it has become increasingly apparent over the last few years that this organisation is less concerned about social cohesion and instead more apt at spreading vicious lies and hatred towards Muslims.”

Usman Anwar, a member of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies’ student affairs committee, said: “You can tell by the language the report uses throughout that it has a specific agenda to paint a bleak picture. We meet many students on a regular basis and our findings do not correlate with the findings of this survey. This report serves only to vilify Islamic societies and undermine the sincere efforts by mainstream Muslim organisations to tackle the threat of terror which wider society faces.”

See also the Sunday Times where Minette Marrin asks: “how can young Muslims fit into a liberal western democracy if they believe things that are intolerant, illegal and, in plain English, unBritish?”

Marrin offers a solution: “There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament. So-called religious community leaders, or umbrella groups of religious bodies, must of course be free to associate as they like in private, in a free country, but publicly they must be ignored.”

The CSC report is available (pdf) here.

Update:  The YouGov poll asked Muslim students: “Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?” Only 4% agreed that it was justifiable “in order to preserve and promote that religion”, while 28% agreed with the view that it was justifiable “only if that religion is under attack”. This is where the “third of Muslim students back killings” headline comes from. In fact 53% agreed that killing in the name of religion is “never justifiable”.

Imagine a polling organisation asking students whether they think killing is ever justifiable in the name of their country. 4% say yes, in order to preserve and promote that country, 28% say yes, but only if that country is under attack, and 53% say never under any circumstances. Would the right-wing press report this as “one third of students back killings”? No, they’d report it as “half of students would refuse to fight to defend their country” and denounce the iniquitous influence of pacifism on university campuses!

In fact, it looks to me as though the YouGov poll revealed that the British Muslim student population holds much more moderate views than the Islamophobes of the Centre for Social Cohesion had anticipated, which is why they have to spin the results so dishonestly.

Judge tosses Savage’s suit against Islamic group

Savage NationSAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage against an Islamic civil rights group over its use of a portion of his show in which he called the Quran a “book of hate.”

Savage sued the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, for copyright infringement and racketeering in a lawsuit late last year, claiming the group violated his rights by using a segment of his “Savage Nation” show in a letter-writing campaign to get advertisers to boycott the program. In the broadcast used by CAIR, Savage also called the Muslim holy book “a throwback document.”

In her ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said people who listen to a public broadcast are entitled to use excerpts for purposes of comment and criticism. She also said no evidence was presented to show that advertising on the show’s broadcast was affected by CAIR’s actions.

The racketeering element of the lawsuit alleged that CAIR was not a civil rights group, but a political organization with ties to terrorist groups. CAIR denies those claims, saying it opposes terrorism and religious extremism.

In an interview with The Associated Press after he filed the lawsuit in December, Savage said he was referring to Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his violent brand of Islamic extremism in the broadcast, not about the religion in general.

Savage’s attorney, Daniel Horowitz, told the San Francisco Chronicle he plans to file a new racketeering suit.

Associated Press, 26 July 2008

See also “Suit against ‘Savage Nation’ radio host tossed”, San Francisco Chronicle, 26 July 2008

What is Nick Cohen playing at?

Sunny Hundal poses the question, in response to Cohen’s Evening Standard article applauding Anthony Browne, recently appointed to a senior position in London mayor Boris Johnson’s administration, for having “stood up for free speech and against liberal alliances with radical Islam, and exposed the civil servants who were pretending that a rise in HIV was due to poor sex education rather than immigration from African countries”.

Pickled Politics, 25 July 2008

Treat Muslims better, Britain told by UN

Britain has been told by the United Nations to challenge negative public views towards the Muslim community.

The nine-member human rights committee composed of legal experts, said it was concerned “negative public attitudes towards Muslim members of society” continued to be allowed in Britain. It recommended the Government “should take energetic measures to eliminate this phenomenon and ensure that authors of such acts of discrimination on the basis of religion are adequately deterred and sanctioned.”

The committee also expressed concern over the Government’s plan to extend detention of terrorist suspects without trial from 28 to 42 days. Those suspected of terrorism should be promptly charged and taken to court within a reasonable period of time, while their lawyers should have access to the evidence against them.

The committee contains members from Britain, Ireland, Australia, Benin, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Mauritius and Sweden – all are expected to be independent from their governments. Their comments come in response to reports from the UK and Ireland on how to carry out their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Daily Telegraph, 25 July 2008

The Blears fallacy

Soumaya Ghannoushi2“The communities’ secretary seems to be pursuing an increasingly hawkish policy towards the Muslim minority. A few days ago, she gave a provocative and rather bizarre speech fittingly delivered from the rightwing thinktank Policy Exchange, which was last year discredited by the BBC’s Newsnight for its fabricated mosque report. Blears announced a long list of conditions which Muslim organisations must meet if they are to enjoy government recognition, or ‘legitimisation’.

“Hearing Blears demand the recognition of Israel, it was difficult to tell whether one was listening to a foreign, or communities’ secretary, and whether those she had been targeting were diplomats and foreign ministers, or communities and British citizens. And when she echoed former Policy Exchange chairman Charles Moore’s criticisms of the IslamExpo, recently held in Olympia, for giving floor space to the ‘genocidal’ government of Iran – one of 15 Muslim countries represented at the event – one couldn’t help wondering if her government had just cut off diplomatic ties with Tehran, and closed its embassy in London.

“Brown’s government, like its predecessor, seems unable to relinquish the old approach to communities based on the systems and methods of the colonial era. Minorities are to be managed through many sticks, a few carrots, and a handful of engineered political and religious representatives. These are the modern-day versions of the local intermediaries on whom colonial administrations relied in the control of indigenous populations. The rule is simple. To win recognition, you must lose any independence. You must turn into the government’s eyes, ears and arms in your community, nothing more.”

Soumaya Ghannoushi at Comment is Free, 25 July 2008

‘Why can’t people respect my choice?’ asks Faiza Silmi

In addition to excerpts from the NYT interview with Faiza Silmi, the Muslim woman whose application for French citizenship was rejected because she wore the niqab, Islam in Europe cites an article from the Danish paper Kristeligt Dagblad which quotes Faiza Silmi as saying:

“… it’s pure rubbish that I’m oppressed by my husband and all the men in his family. I go in and out of the apartment when it fits me. My youngest is two, but when the children are bigger I would like to work. I’m a trained seamstress and would like to continue in my profession…. I thought France was a free country, where people can live as they want. I respect others’ choice to go in jeans or miniskirts. Why can’t people respect my choice of something else.”

Two Muslim women file suit, say McDonald’s banned headscarves

McDonald's headscarf banDEARBORN, MICH. — Two Muslim women say the manager of a McDonald’s restaurant refused to hire them and insulted them during job interviews because they wear traditional Islamic dress.

Toi Whitfield, 20, of Detroit, and Quiana Pugh, 25, of Dearborn, filed a lawsuit Thursday in Wayne County Circuit Court against McDonald’s, the owner of the local franchise and its unnamed manager. Their representative said they are considering filing civil rights complaints with the federal and state governments.

“I applied for the McDonald’s position maybe two weeks ago and he simply (told me) I had to make a choice and remove my hijab, or I would not be able to establish employment there,” Pugh said.

The restaurant in question sits amid one of the largest concentrations of commercial businesses for Arab-Americans in the country. Like many of the national chain fast-food establishments in the area, it has long served some halal food, which conforms to Muslim dietary requirements. “This manager must have just stepped off of some spaceship to think he can do this in this back yard, in Dearborn,” said Nabih Ayad, a civil rights lawyer who represents the women.

Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations-Michigan, said that he has eaten at McDonald’s restaurants in Turkey that cater to Muslims and employ them, including numerous women who cover. “It is extremely disturbing that such discrimination could take place at a location which does not mind collecting Muslim dollars, yet places restriction on Muslim women who wear hijab.”

Whitfield said the manager told her she could not wear her headscarf because, “It gets too hot back there.” “I hope that they learn from their mistakes,” she said. “They should not discriminate against people. Everyone should have an equal chance to work at McDonald’s.”

Detroit News, 25 July 2008