Muslims reach settlement with Dell on workplace prayer

A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today announced that Muslim contract employees at a Dell Inc. plant in Nashville, Tenn., have reached a settlement on issues related to a recent dispute over prayer in the workplace.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said the 31 Muslim employees, who left work last month in a disagreement over Islamic prayers, will be reinstated, receive back pay and be granted continued religious accommodation. Managers will also receive additional training on existing religious accommodation policies and practices. Other terms of the settlement will not be made public.

Announcement of the settlement came following a meeting today between representatives of CAIR, Dell, the Muslim workers, the Nashville Metro Human Relations Commission, and Spherion Corp., the company that provided the workers to Dell. (In a meeting on Saturday, most of the Muslim workers retained CAIR as their legal counsel.)

Continue reading

Neocon mag promotes anti-Muslim hate literature

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on a prominent national neoconservative magazine to clarify its policy on anti-Muslim hate following revelations that the publication distributed an Internet advertisement for an virulently Islamophobic book. CAIR’s request came in response to a complaint from a member of the National Review’s e-mail list who received a message promoting an apparently self-published book that, according to the magazine, is a “guide into the dark mind of [the Prophet] Mohammed.”

The National Review’s review of the book states: “[The author] explains why Mohammed couldn’t possibly be a true prophet, and reveals the true sources of his ‘revelations.’” It quotes the author as claiming: “Mohammed posed as the apostle of God…while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God’s holy name to sanction his evil deeds.”

According to the National Review, the book shows how “Mohammed again and again justified his rapine and licentiousness with new ‘divine revelations.’” “This anti-Muslim screed is the literary equivalent of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ and should not be promoted by a publication that has any sense of decency,” said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. “The National Review must clarify its position on Islamophobic hate speech and offer a public apology for promoting a book that so viciously attacks the faith of one-fifth of the world’s population.”

Hooper said anti-Muslim rhetoric often leads to discrimination and even violence.

CAIR news report, 17 March 2005

Update:  “Mohammed posed as the apostle of God … while his life is marked by innumerable marriages, and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God’s holy name to sanction his evil deeds.” Sounds fair enough to me, says Robert Spencer.

Jihad Watch, 23 March 2005

BNP welcomes Rod Liddle programme

Rod Liddle“Once again, Channel 4 has shown a welcome willingness – albeit on still all too rare occasions – to air ‘politically incorrect’ views. Tonight’s anti-immigration polemic by Rod Liddle wasn’t perfect by any means, but by the woeful standards of the self-censoring liberal-left prigs at the BBC it was very much, a breath of fresh air….

“Let’s have another about the clear links between Koranic teachings about the lowly status of women and Kufrs (Unbelievers) and the spreading cancer of male Muslim gangs preying on young teenage white and Sikh girls. Let’s have a third about the shocking level of support for al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists among British-born Muslims.”

The BNP welcomes Rod Liddle’s Channel 4 programme ‘Immigration is a Time Bomb’.

BNP news article, 10 March 2005

Labour’s flawed policy on immigration is a time bomb for Britain (Rod Liddle claims)

“Back in the Fifties and Sixties, it was expected of immigrants to adopt British customs and values: the terrible concept of multiculturalism hadn’t taken root.

“However, today we welcome people who, for example, bring with them a hostile interpretation of Islam and have no real wish to integrate: in many cases, they despise our way of life. Furthermore, even some members of the indigenous Muslim community have been radicalised over the past 15 years.

“Islam is becoming more conservative and less amenable to assimilation. The West is becoming more liberal. We run the risk of becoming a country with a large (and growing) disaffected minority that shares little of our commitment to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, sexual equality and democracy.”

Rod Liddle in the Daily Express, 10 March 2005

Continue reading

Austrian minister calls for banning hijab

Liese ProkopIn what some fear could be a curtain raiser for a major policy shift in a country considered somehow tolerant, Austrian Interior Minister Liese Prokop has called for banning hijab-clad Muslim women from teaching at schools.

“I consider now the legality of banning hijab in schools,” Prokop told the state-run Falter Magazine Tuesday, March 8. “But, anyhow, I will throw my weight about the ban.”

She argued that wearing the hijab in schools runs counter to the values of Austrian society.

“Muslim women suffer from oppression and their rights are down-trodden,” the minister claimed, urging for stopping what she called “forcible marriage” and “honor killing” spreading among Muslims.

Islam Online, 9 March 2005

Express reader denounces ‘jilbab disgrace’

“Another smack in the face for the indigenous population of Britain – this time by the appeal court ruling that the Islamic jilbab can now be worn in schools by pupils, taking preference over the standard school uniform. This ruling has been given to placate the ethnic minority Muslims. This must surely mean that pupils can now wear any religious garb they care to mention. The French have learned from history by introducing laws stopping any more erosion of their way of life.”

Letter in the Sunday Express, 6 March 2005

So Shabina, what’s the point of Britain? (Rod Liddle wants to know)

“It is one thing for a rancid, stone-age clique like Hizb ut-Tahrir to insist upon the metaphoric subjugation of women by dressing young girls from top to toe in sackcloth and ashes. It is another thing entirely for a sort of Allah-lite version to have been institutionalised in state schools and for the rest of us to smile indulgently and pretend that it is evidence of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’….

“What we need now is to inculcate a ‘core of Britishness’…. But a state school which kowtows to the un-British (for want of a better phrase) demands of its black and ethnic minority constituency is far more damaging to this national cohesion business than an insignificant little ginger group such as Hizb ut-Tahrir. We cannot force parents to inculcate that core of Britishness in their homes; but we can ensure that it takes place in our schools. The French seem to have grasped this point; it is about time that we did.”

Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times, 6 March 2005

Jilbab ruling is a bitter defeat for British beliefs

Jilbab ruling is a bitter defeat for British beliefs

Letter in the Daily Express, 4 March 2004

The Appeal Court ruling may be a victory for Miss Begum, but it is a defeat for the rest of us.

Speaking after the Appeal Court’s decision was announced, Miss Begum said that it was a landmark victory (paid for by the taxpayer, of course) and would have profound consequences – it most certainly will.

She then went on to talk of the bigotry and intolerance she had suffered here.

If Miss Begum wants to know what real bigotry and intolerance are, she should go and live in one of the Muslim states where Sharia law prevails. Why are we bending over backwards to accommodate the Muslim community, yet making it more and more difficult for non-Muslims here to express their religious or national beliefs?

So-called ‘victories’ like that being celebrated by Miss Begum do nothing to foster tolerance – precisely the opposite in fact.

Can the day be far away when the son or daughter of naturist parents petitions the Court of Appeal for the right to go to school naked?

I have not heard anyone express anything but incredulity, and in most cases outrage, at the decision to allow this young lady to defy her school authorities.

Robert Readman, Bournemouth, Dorset