Top Menu

Robert Spencer: Muslim Woman Getting Fired for Hijab Was Part of the Plan

Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer has really outdone himself.  Hate does things to you, and it really shows. Take this reaction to the lawsuit of an Ametican Muslim woman against Abercrombie and Fitch:

The real question is, Why would a Muslima want to work at Abercrombie & Fitch in the first place? Wouldn’t she find the clothing line, the advertising, and the whole atmosphere objectionable on moral grounds? Shouldn’t she prefer to shun such an environment rather than want to work there at all, especially if she is pious and observant enough to want to wear the hijab? Unless, of course, the real point of her getting hired in the first place was to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms, and thereby to assert once again that Islam must dominate and not be dominated.

LOL. Spencer wonders why a “Muslima,” or Muslim woman, would want to work at A&F? Umm…maybe to make some money? Novel concept, eh? (pardon the Canadian) But, no! Mssr. Spencer knows the REAL reason: to get hired, and then get fired in order to…what were his words?:

“to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms, and thereby to assert once again that Islam must dominate and not be dominated.”

Really? Her whole ordeal…getting fired, losing income, and filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – which, by the way, evaluated her claim and saw merit to her lawsuit going forward – was so she can “assert Islamic dominance”?

Dude…really?

If A&F had simply adhered to their own stated policy, she would not have been fired in the first place.  It is the law of the land, Mssr. Spencer, to make reasonable accommodations for religious practice. The Muslim woman in this case didn’t object to the dress code. She just refused to violate her religious beliefs and take off her headscarf. And for this she was fired.

Moreover, this wasn’t the first time Muslim women at A&F were fired for refusing to take off their headscarves, according to the article. So it seems that A&F has a problem vis a vis Muslim women employees. Hence, the lawsuits.

But Mssr. Spencer knows better! He saw through the whole scheme! It was all an elaborate plot, full of taqiyya and dhimmis (in the EEOC). He said it himself:

Yes. It seems tolerant to force Abercrombie & Fitch to change its dress code. It seems open-minded. In fact, it is accommodating an ideology that is radically intolerant, and when in power has never granted similar accommodation to those outside it.

Oh yes! The “radical ideology” of allowing a Muslim woman to wear her headscarf while working? Really? Would Spencer be saying this if A&F fired an Orthodox Jewish man for refusing to take off his yarmulke? Hardly. But when it comes to Muslims, it is “Stealth Jihad.” How pathetic.

Like I said…hate does thing to you.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Blöj-jihad och sopp-jihad | Motargument()

  • Pingback: Blöj-jihad och Sopp-jihad - gästinlägg från Politifon | Motargument.se()

  • sahra

    @Zakariya
    As for the rest of your comments on the subject very well said….

  • sahra

    @Zacharia
    I wasnt generalizing all whites or all christians,i khow white are group of people:(christian,muslim.athiest jews..)as christianity is a religion of all races ,you misunderstood me.But what i was trying to say is that the christians zelots(righ wingers)islamophobes and anti-semites and anti-backs of yesterday remind me alot of the ones today(spencer.co emergson…) .But how come they claim shamelessly with such a boldness that muslims(or any other group for that matter)are violent when they are the ones promoting wars(IRAK,AFGANISTAN) and the DRUMS of wars are beating for(IRAN,PAKISTAN),the NEOCONS have made the USA of America because of their fanaticism ,a bloodthristy, wars cravings Hegemony Empire and we all know how througout history empires behaves.we khow that the muslim world have problems but those are social problems,NO muslim country is trying to invade others countries, specially the west. i mean what DICTATOR will invade the very life support they have(the west).Therefore that is why i said this zelots neocons are hateful (invade,occupie,divide,support dictators, promote islamophobia at home and “war on terror”abroad) so can i now question christianity (since they love bible)the way they do with islam after all those points. Sorry for the long response

  • NassirH

    I’ve heard others also say that the documentary is good, despite Spencer’s ugly mug making an appearance.

    So he claims that the Banu Qurayza incident had “major implications” for the future relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims? Sounds like another lie. I guess we’re not allowed use the “descriptive not prescriptive” argument Spencer routinely (and sometimes dishonestly) employs in regard to the Bible. Reza Aslan asserts that scholars “almost unanimously agree, the execution of the Banu Qurayza did not in any way set a precedent for future treatment of Jews in Islamic territories.” Bernard Lewis is (in a way) even more generous, writing that since Muhammad (pbuh) “won his battle” with the Buna Qurayza etc., Muslims were allowed to adopt a “relaxed attitude” towards Jewish minorities in contrast to Christians who often invoked the crucifixion of Christ when persecuting Jews (pp.54-5, From Babel to Dragomans). The choice is between scholars who have evidence to buttress their views or an Islamophobic blogger.

  • NassirH

    I’ve heard others also say that the documentary is good, despite Spencer’s ugly mug making an appearance.

    So he claims that the Banu Qurayza incident had “major implications” for the future relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims? Sounds like another lie. I guess we’re not allowed use the “descriptive not prescriptive” argument Spencer routinely (and sometimes dishonestly) employs in regard to the Bible. Reza Aslan asserts that scholars “almost unanimously agree, the execution of the Banu Qurayza did not in any way set a precedent for future treatment of Jews in Islamic territories.” Bernard Lewis is (in a way) even more generous, writing that since Muhammad (pbuh) “won his battle” with the Buna Qurayza etc., Muslims were allowed to adopt a “relaxed attitude” towards Jewish minorities in contrast to Christians who often invoked the crucifixion of Christ when persecuting Jews (pp.54-5, From Babel to Dragomans). The choice is between scholars who have evidence to buttress their views or an Islamophobic blogger.

  • Mosizzle

    ^The documentary is worth watching. Next episode deals with the issue of Banu Qurayza and, as usual, Spencer will have much to say about the issue. We are told that this event has had “major implications” for the Muslim World and it defines Muslim’s relations with the West today. Errrm…sure. Except that no Muslim sees it as anything special, it was just a plain issue of people who violated their treaties and betrayed their allies getting punished.

    It was disappointing that the BBC felt it was more important to spend ages dealing with the Satanic Verses issue (complete with videos of Mooslims rioting and burning Rushdie’s book) rather than go into a bit more detail about certain key issues.

    About the Verses, the presenter claimed that virtually no Muslims believe the event actually happened and Spencer responded by saying that a “pious Muslim” has to accept that the “earliest sources” such as “Zamakshari” described it. Yeah, and arguing about this while writing a book questioning the existence of the Prophet truly is a bit loon-ish.

  • NassirH

    So Spencer claims that the “Satanic Verses did happen,” yet conversely he believes Muhammad (pbuh) never existed? The loon’s arguments make absolutely no sense. Not that it matters to his cultish followers.

  • Ahmed

    The BBC are running a series on the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). When they were talking about The Satanic Verses, they had Robert Spencer as an analyst! Of course, Spencer’s view was that The Satanic Verses did happen and all his usual stuff!

  • Dane Bargeld

    @NassirH. Good find. It gives an interesting insight into Spencer’s “research” methods:

    1) Some guy in Switzerland calling himself Arnaud mails Spencer some story about how islam is derivative of hinduism.

    2) Spencer doesn’t check the story for facts but just posts it on Jihadwatch, apparently thinking: Anything with a negative angle on islam is worthy of a post, no matter how ridiculous and unlikely it appears.

    3) Then he realises that the story is full of errors and attempts some kind of damage control. He deletes the name Arnaud, rewrites the article, correcting the worst errors and claims that this is part of his “research”.

    Btw; The originator of the “theory” seems to be an indian called P.N. Oak:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purushottam_Nagesh_Oak

  • JN

    So it looks like he basically lifted the entire thing from this faux scholar named “Arnaud,” without proofing it for basic factual errors like the claim that Arabic is an Indo-European language.

    Spencer and his ilk really are a bunch of clowns.

Powered by Loon Watchers