Pamela Geller: Muslim Woman Demands Workplace Accommodate Her Hijab
Fox2Detroit reported Thursday that “a Muslim woman said her boss fired her because she refused to remove her hijab at work. Najaf Khan said the highly controversial comments recently in the political arena are making it harder for people of the Islamic faith and she sees her story as an example of that. ”
That is utterly false. What is becoming increasingly difficult in this country is refusing to submit to the blasphemy laws under the sharia. Khan’s case is a pattern, a very deliberate pattern to impose Islam on the secular marketplace.
One detail of Khan’s case reveals the whole strategy. According to Fox2Detroit, “Khan was entering her third day on the job this past Monday as she walked in wearing her hijab at the Fair Oaks Dental Care in Fairfax, Va. She said her boss immediately took her into his office and told her she couldn’t wear it.”
Why did she only go to work wearing the hijab on her third day there? From the perspective of an outside observer, it seems as though she misled them into thinking that she would dress in accordance with the “neutral environment” they wanted to preserve, and then switched on them after she was already hired.
A Muslim woman sued Disney for the very same thing. She, too, applied to and worked for Disney sans hijab. Subsequently, she insisted on wearing the hijab despite Disney’s dress code. Disney’s strict dress, the Disney Look, has been company policy since 1957. Disney issued this statement about the case:
“Walt Disney Parks and Resorts has a history of accommodating religious requests from cast members of all faiths. We presented Ms. Boudlal with multiple options to accommodate her religious beliefs, as well as offered her several roles that would have allowed her to wear her own hijab. Unfortunately, she rejected all of our efforts and has since refused to come to work.”
Of course she did.
Disney tried to accommodate Boudlal’s demands, even designing special headcoverings for her that went along reasonably well with the “Disney Look.” But she was unmoved. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mark Rosenbaum revealed that the suit was all about making Disney bend to Muslim demands. He said: “You never see anyone working there wear a hijab. We want those practices changed, and want training for employees and managers. It’s about getting Disney to change its policies and practices.”
In all these cases, the company bends over backwards to accommodate these supremacist demands. But that’s always taken as a sign of weakness, and accommodation gives way to more demands.
In another case in New Jersey, a Muslim woman teamed up with the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Why? Because her boss asked her to remove her hijab for safety reasons.
This is reminiscent of Samantha Elauf, the devout Muslim who sued soft porn retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wanted to wear the hijab. She won that case and got herself a healthy cash settlement – and Abercrombie and Fitch had to change the way they do business in order to accommodate her demands. That, in my view, is no doubt part of the objective here as well.
According to Fox2Detroit, Najaf Khan “said she didn’t wear her hijab to the office until this week and that is when her boss told her they wanted to keep a ‘neutral environment.’ Her employer asked her to remove it because the Islamic head scarf would offend patients and they wanted to keep religion out of the office.”
But Khan has contacted Hamas-tied CAIR, which will be working hard to make sure that religion is going to be in the offices of Fair Oaks Dental Care whether they want it there or not: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is standing behind Khan and her story. They are calling on the dental office to reinstate her and offer her reasonable religious accommodations as mandated by law.”
Khan suggests that this is all about the false propaganda concept of “Islamophobia”: “Khan said there is a lot of misinformation about the Islamic faith and she hopes her story will at least inform people so it does not happen again.” What there is a lot of misinformation about is the Muslim effort to impose Islam on the secular marketplace. At a certain point, we have to say “Enough” and stop accommodating these arrogant and aggressive demands.
Fox2Detroit reported Thursday that “a Muslim woman said her boss fired her because she refused to remove her hijab at work. Najaf Khan said the highly controversial comments recently in the political arena are making it harder for people of the Islamic faith and she sees her story as an example of that. ”
That is utterly false. What is becoming increasingly difficult in this country is refusing to submit to the blasphemy laws under the sharia. Khan’s case is a pattern, a very deliberate pattern to impose Islam on the secular marketplace.
One detail of Khan’s case reveals the whole strategy. According to Fox2Detroit, “Khan was entering her third day on the job this past Monday as she walked in wearing her hijab at the Fair Oaks Dental Care in Fairfax, Va. She said her boss immediately took her into his office and told her she couldn’t wear it.”
Why did she only go to work wearing the hijab on her third day there? From the perspective of an outside observer, it seems as though she misled them into thinking that she would dress in accordance with the “neutral environment” they wanted to preserve, and then switched on them after she was already hired.
A Muslim woman sued Disney for the very same thing. She, too, applied to and worked for Disney sans hijab. Subsequently, she insisted on wearing the hijab despite Disney’s dress code. Disney’s strict dress, the Disney Look, has been company policy since 1957. Disney issued this statement about the case:
“Walt Disney Parks and Resorts has a history of accommodating religious requests from cast members of all faiths. We presented Ms. Boudlal with multiple options to accommodate her religious beliefs, as well as offered her several roles that would have allowed her to wear her own hijab. Unfortunately, she rejected all of our efforts and has since refused to come to work.”
Of course she did.
Disney tried to accommodate Boudlal’s demands, even designing special headcoverings for her that went along reasonably well with the “Disney Look.” But she was unmoved. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mark Rosenbaum revealed that the suit was all about making Disney bend to Muslim demands. He said: “You never see anyone working there wear a hijab. We want those practices changed, and want training for employees and managers. It’s about getting Disney to change its policies and practices.”
In all these cases, the company bends over backwards to accommodate these supremacist demands. But that’s always taken as a sign of weakness, and accommodation gives way to more demands.
In another case in New Jersey, a Muslim woman teamed up with the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Why? Because her boss asked her to remove her hijab for safety reasons.
This is reminiscent of Samantha Elauf, the devout Muslim who sued soft porn retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wanted to wear the hijab. She won that case and got herself a healthy cash settlement – and Abercrombie and Fitch had to change the way they do business in order to accommodate her demands. That, in my view, is no doubt part of the objective here as well.
According to Fox2Detroit, Najaf Khan “said she didn’t wear her hijab to the office until this week and that is when her boss told her they wanted to keep a ‘neutral environment.’ Her employer asked her to remove it because the Islamic head scarf would offend patients and they wanted to keep religion out of the office.”
But Khan has contacted Hamas-tied CAIR, which will be working hard to make sure that religion is going to be in the offices of Fair Oaks Dental Care whether they want it there or not: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is standing behind Khan and her story. They are calling on the dental office to reinstate her and offer her reasonable religious accommodations as mandated by law.”
Khan suggests that this is all about the false propaganda concept of “Islamophobia”: “Khan said there is a lot of misinformation about the Islamic faith and she hopes her story will at least inform people so it does not happen again.” What there is a lot of misinformation about is the Muslim effort to impose Islam on the secular marketplace. At a certain point, we have to say “Enough” and stop accommodating these arrogant and aggressive demands.
