Home      |      Weblog      |      Articles      |      Satire      |      Links      |      About      |      Contact

Militant Islam Monitor > Articles > Civilization Jihad: Why An "Observant Muslimah" Sued To Work For A&F Notorious For Their Sexually Explicit Ad Campaigns

Civilization Jihad: Why An "Observant Muslimah" Sued To Work For A&F Notorious For Their Sexually Explicit Ad Campaigns

June 4, 2015

MIM: The only reason the "observant" hijab wearing Muslimah Samantha Elauf would want to work at an Abercrombie and Fitch store is to break their "All American" image as an act of civilization jihad. The fact that she contacted CAIR to begin the litigation confirms this. This whole issue had noting to do with equal opportunity employment and is an example of stealth jihad. A&F are notorious for their sexually explicit ad campaigns and nudity.

"Under shariah, civilization jihad – a "pre-violent" form of jihad – is considered an integral, even dominant element of jihad that is at least as obligatory for shariah's adherents as the violent kind.

Civilization jihad is a form of political and psychological warfare that includes multi-layered cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations, propaganda and other means of insinuating shariah gradually into Western societies." http://shariahthethreat.org/a-short-course-1-what-is-shariah/a-short-course-3-civilization-jihad/

MIM: A&F has been the subject of continous controversy due to their overtly sexual and nude ad campaigns.There is no way that the "religious Muslimah" who sued them for the right to wear a hijab in their store could not know this.

The Quarterly's inclusion of nudity and sexuality has been a continual controversial topic. Positive criticism during its initial American run (1997–2003) called it an ingenious marketing tool, the envy of the publishing world,[2] which "redefined the All-American look for teenagers."[3] Negative criticism summarized its American run (1997–2003) as "soft porn" and racy. There were numerouslawsuits and boycotts focusing on moral and religious grounds which included the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, the American Decency Association, and the Focus on the Family organization....

...Abercrombie & Fitch introduced A&F Quarterly as a marketing tool to express the A&F lifestyle.[2][6] The Quarterly was meant to further establish the image of Abercrombie & Fitch as synonymous with sex and youth: The "neo-preppy and all-American perfection."[7] The publication was coined a "magalog"[8] for its purpose of serving as both a magazine and a catalog for the A&F brand. Its contents focused on entertaining, and giving advice to, the collegiate youth with an emphasis of having youthful fun and exploring sexuality.


MIM: CAIR - The Council On American Islamic Relations is a Saudi funded front group for Hamas at at the forefront of civilization jihad in North America and employs 'lawfare' to enforce shari'a.

"...The ruling was welcomed by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which campaigns for the civil liberties of Muslim communities in the US.

"We welcome this historic ruling in defence of religious freedom at a time when the American Muslim community is facing increased levels of Islamophobia," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

"We applaud Samantha's courage in standing up for her rights by contacting CAIR, which led to the EEOC lawsuit and to our amicus brief filed with the court."..."


MIM: The Islamist supremacy group CAIR celebrated the Supreme Court Decision. This is more proof that the lawsuit was motivated by the Islamist push to promote shari'a law in the United States and had nothing to do with equal employment rights.

CAIR and the American Muslim Community Celebrates Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Abercrombie & Fitch Hijab Case

This week, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman, who was not hired for a job because she wears the hijab. This is a landmark decision protecting religious practices and beliefs in the workplace. CAIR Philadelphia, the American Muslim community, and indeed all those who believe in religious freedom, are indebted to Ms. Elauf for her courage in reporting Abercrombie & Fitch's behavior to CAIR's Oklahoma chapter. CAIR referred the case to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and CAIR National filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief with the Supreme Court urging the court to rule in her favor. (Read about CAIR's amicus brief to the Supreme Court)

Despite being qualified for a job with Abercrombie and Fitch, Ms. Elauf was not hired because the store decided that her hijab violated its "Look Policy." At issue in the case was whether actual notice to an employer of a religious accommodation is required to prevail on a discrimination claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

CAIR applauds the Supreme Court in upholding a Muslim woman's right to wear a hijab in the workplace; this at a time when anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise. Employment discrimination accounts for the majority of complaints CAIR-Philadelphia receives. This case will facilitate vindicating the rights of victims of religious discrimination in the workplace, and CAIR-Philadelphia will continue its mission to fight for equal protection and religious freedom for the Muslim community.

CAIR offers a booklet, called "An Employer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices," to help corporate managers gain a better understanding of Islam and Muslims.



The Supreme Court As Shari'a Enforcer

June 3, 2015 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – We find the U.S. Supreme Court's 8-1 recent decision [ U.S. EEOC vs. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc.], to be very troubling.

1. It seeks to speak authoritatively based upon facts not in evidence, specifically regarding what constitute a "religious" obligation for Muslims.

2. It negligently expands employment discrimination law to the point where retailers have now apparently lost the ability to present the type of cohesive, positive corporate image the public has come to expect from high end merchandisers. It incorrectly applies the relevant legislative language regarding the matter and leaves retailers at increased risk for Islamist blackmail in the form of lawfare.

As stated in the decision's syllabus, the plaintiff sued alleging religious discrimination, "…because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with Abercrombie's employee dress policy."

However, there is no Qur'anic basis upon which to base a claim that wearing hijab is a religious requirement for Muslim women. The most relevant passage simply stresses a need for women to dress modestly.

"Tell thy wives and thy daughters, as well as all [other] believing women, that they should draw over themselves some of their outer garments [when in public] this will be more conducive to their being recognized [as decent women]…" [source, Qur'an, Al Ahzab,/Sura 33:59]

Thus wearing of hijab is at best a cultural affectation and can hardly be considered a requirement consistent with being a devout Muslim. Therefore Abercrombie appears to simply have been enforcing its "neutral look" policy which is religiously neutral in its reading and practice.

The sole dissent was written by Justice Thomas, who quickly cut to the heart of the matter…the court was, once again, writing rather than interpreting law.

"Resisting this straightforward application of §1981a, the majority expands the meaning of "intentional discrimination" to include a refusal to give a religious applicant "favored treatment." But contrary to the majority's assumption, this novel theory of discrimination is not commanded by the relevant statutory text…"

Instead, Thomas states the decision, "creates in its stead an entirely new form of liability: the disparate-treatment-based-on-equal-treatment . Because I do not think that Congress' 1972 re definition of "religion" also redefined "intentional discrimination, " I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit [ruling against plaintiff] I respectfully dissent .."

Aside from the establishing, out of whole cloth, another incomprehensible standard regarding employment law, the majority seems to have, in its haste to cater to current ideological trends, given no thought whatsoever to the idea that by deciding this matter in favor of the EEOC, it has transformed the Supreme Court of the United States into an agent of Shari'a enforcement which we consider violative of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The incongruity of a finding of "disparate treatment," based upon provably "equal treatment" is demonstrative of the degree to which even so-called conservative justices have expanded the power of an authority, to which there is no appeal. Furthermore the decision will have the effect of intimidating employers against taking any actions which might in any way offend what is certainly the most litigious group within America, its Muslim population.

This is a huge win for the stealth jihadists and a very sad day for those who seek to preserve the intellectual and legal heritage of the West. This is a classic case of lawfare and should give every American – regardless of religious affiliation, or lack thereof – pause for great concern.

©2015 PipeLineNews.org LLC. A ll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.


Also see: Fellow Passenger Claims Diet Coke Muslim Tahera Ahmad Is A Rude Liar

"...The lady said very rudely and condescending to the FA that she ordered a coke zero and basically pushed the soda back to the flight attendant. The FA said she was sorry and attempted to find a coke zero for her (which she did not have many of) and told her that she could only give her a portion of the can not the full can.

This is when the lady in question started to freak out and told the FA "What do you think I will use this as a weapon?! Why can't I have the whole can? I think you are discriminating against me. I need your name…." The lady just kept yelling to her "I need your name… I am being discriminated against."

This is when a few passengers told her to calm down and one guy told her to "shut her mouth and she is being ridiculous over a can of coke".

No one ever said anything anti-Muslim to her at all.,,"


Printer-friendly version   Email this item to a friend