Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Islam

Whole Foods In Hot Water For Standing Up Against Muslims Demands

This is nothing short of lawfare forced on employers to make them submit to Islam.

Published

on

It’s one thing to accommodate someone’s religion modestly in the work place… it’s quite another to grovel before them over it. Whole Foods is having none of that concerning Islam. It’s ridiculous to stop work five times a day for prayer, to install foot baths and prayer rooms all over the place. Robert Greene, a devout practicing Muslim, has now sued Whole Foods claiming he was terminated because he is Muslim. His job required he work rather than pray and he was let go over it. That’s not religious persecution, it’s business survival.

Muslims are using their religion as a weapon to force employers to submit to them. While that may work in Europe, it’s not likely to work here in the United States. Halal food is now a $20 billion industry here in the States. But that’s business, not submission. This guy wants back pay plus damages. I hope a judge tells him to get stuffed.

From US Herald:

Muslims are required to pray five times a day on a strictly set schedule that doesn’t easily lend itself to the workday in most jobs, so when Robert Greene, a practicing Muslim was faced with a choice between praying or working – he didn’t look for a different job or excuse himself for a brief prayer.

He sued his employer in federal court.

Greene claims Whole Foods discriminated against him because of his religion, alleging that his manager once told him, “This is not a mosque,” before terminating him from his job.

He is trying to collect back pay, as well as damages against the national natural foods grocery store to punish it for violating his civil rights.

Isn’t it odd that this hasn’t been an issue for Jewish, Lutheran, Catholic, Buddhist, Mormon, Baptist or other employees who manage to hold down a job and be true to their faith?

Of course, the leftist media is spinning it as religious persecution. Instead of assimilating into American culture, Greene is doing his best to impose his religion and culture on Americans. No thanks. He says he complained to upper management at Whole Foods, but that nothing was done. He adds that the bad treatment increased after he complained and he was soon terminated.

This lawsuit started two years ago and is still in the courts. Greene is far from alone. There are now many cases in American courts where Muslims are suing on religious grounds. It’s called legal Jihad or lawfare and it is meant to force a country into complying with the wishes of Islam and the Ummah. This is why I say that Islam is a political construct wrapped in a religion. This is war and one can only hope it is one we will win.

islam

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Jeff was the national rally organizer to free Marine Sgt. Tahmooressi from the Mexican prison, chairman emeritus of Ross Perot's Reform Party of California, and a former candidate for governor. Jeff is editor-in-chief at Freedom Daily. He wrote for former Hollywood talent agent & Breitbart contributor, Pat Dollard, and headed up his 30 person research team. Mr. Rainforth also wrote for the Wayne Dupree Show. Jeff is single & says he is not gay.

Culture

Playboy Model Marries Wealthy Muslim – Gets Sick Anniversary Gift After Just 1 Year Of Marriage

Published

on

When it comes to fashion, one incredibly gorgeous millennial model has a lifestyle envied by many who want to look and live like her, based on what she portrays on social media. Wanting to be on the forefront of what’s popular, this professional beauty decided that marrying a Muslim man would not just how multi-cultural “classy” she is — which is an accessory to be sported among certain crowds — but it would also make her very wealthy. She took the enticing bait and by her first wedding anniversary, was probably wishing she hadn’t after what she received as a “gift” for this marriage milestone.

Moldovan beauty Xenia Deli has been fortunate enough to be featured in a number of publications as a model. The stunning 27-year-old has enjoyed a career that’s landed her on the pages of GQ, Harper’s Bazaar, Sport’s Illustrated, and Playboy, just to name a few. Her beauty and exposure in these glossy magazines caught the attention of Ossama Fathi Rabah Al-Sharif, a wealthy Egyptian Muslim businessman who is 36 years her senior, who quickly made a marriage proposal that she couldn’t refuse.

It’s easy to see that Deli doesn’t exactly fit the traditional Muslim woman mold, going against the strict Islamic dress code as well as not following Sharia Law. These religious requirements were probably easy for her to overlook when she accepted Al-Sharif’s hand in marriage, which granted her access to a very luxurious life. However, nothing in life is free which this young model learned on her first wedding anniversary which she celebrated by realizing the cost of marrying a Muslim.

Deli has amassed a large Instagram following with over 700 thousand fans who follow her, each one excited for every stunning photo she posts to live vicariously through her luxe life. A recent set of pictures she posted to show how she celebrated her one year anniversary with her much-older husband, proved the consequences of that commitment made to him 12 months earlier. While from the outset it looked like just another envious day in the life of this flawless fashion model, viewers noticed a heartbreaking detail upon closer look that Deli probably didn’t know was showing.

It clear that the rich Muslim businessman got what he wanted in his much younger wife who he swooned with his riches, rather than genuine love and companionship. Knowing she’s probably not going to leave the lifestyle she’s grown accustomed to in the last year, he doesn’t seem to feel that he has to physically be there to show her how much she means to him on their first anniversary. Rather than showing up with flowers and a kiss for his bride, he sent other people in his place.

The Daily Mail reports:

“A stunning 27-year-old Playboy model has posted pictures of her surprise wedding anniversary party – but her millionaire Muslim husband, 63, couldn’t make it.
Moldovan beauty Xenia Deli, who married Egyptian businessman Ossama Fathi Rabah Al-Sharif in a lavish ceremony on Santorini in June last year, was serenaded by a guitarist while her home was filled up with flowers and balloons.”

“But Al-Sharif, who as president of the Admiral group is often away on business, had to make do with photos of his beautiful wife being spoiled on the special day.”

Like all of Deli’s other perfect Instagram pictures, these ones of her anniversary were no exception in that they showed a life many would think they would want to live simply by how it appears on the screen. The reality is that once this woman gets older, she’s going to realize that money doesn’t buy love and the facade of it all is no longer fashionable or desirable. For now, she’s oaky with the constant time spent away on special days, saying she’ll spend more time with her husband once they start their family. While a child is something she says is in her near future, a kid can’t and won’t change a marriage that’s rooted in all the wrong things.

Since Al-Sharif is Muslim, at any time he could demand that his beautiful wife start dressing according to Islamic rules. Her sparsely dressed body would have to be covered from head to toe and her career as a model would be over since it would require her dressing according to Sharia Law. Should she refuse, she would pay a painful price for it. No luxury on this planet could be worth that.

 

Continue Reading

Islam

1 Week After Muslim Tried To Take Over Southwest Flight With SICK Demand, Look Where She Ended Up

This is why we need the ban!

Published

on

Today, authorities have identified the Muslim woman who was forcibly removed from a Southwest Airlines plane in Baltimore on Tuesday as “Anila Daulatzai.” A professor at Harvard none the less! 

Once this “religion of peace” disciple got on the plane and saw there were two small dogs on board, she told the flight crew that she had a life-threatening allergy to dogs. Yeah, right “Allergies.” But she conveniently had no documentation to prove her medical condition. So she was then asked to leave the plane.

At that point, Daulatzai refused, so the flight’s captain called Maryland Transportation Authority Police, and its officers came on board to forcibly remove her.

Reports later said the dogs on the flight included one small pet and one service animal. If you have a life-threatening allergy to those dogs why would you refuse to vacate the place?

Sadly, Southwest Airlines apologized for police having to drag Daulatzai off the flight at Baltimore Washington International Airport that was headed to Los Angeles. She was still rightly charged with disorderly conduct and released on her own recognizance after appearing in court.

Via Heavy.com:

“The Los Angeles Times reported that Anila Daulatzai “was taken into custody and charged with disorderly conduct, failure to obey a reasonable and lawful order, disturbing the peace, obstructing and hindering a police officer and resisting arrest.” She is from Baltimore, the newspaper reported. According to the Los Angeles Times, the airline’s spokesman contends that Daulatzai “demanded an EpiPen and was uncooperative,” adding, “We do not have or administer shots.”

According to the Harvard website, “Currently Anila Daulatzai is teaching a graduate-level seminar course titled ‘Talibanization’ and its other. This course does not focus on the history of the Taliban movement (or movements described as ‘Taliban-like’), but more importantly on the performative nature of the term ‘Talibanization’. The course explores what deploying the term enables, particularly in the highly militarized contexts of the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

The site adds, “In particular, the course explores how formations of liberalism, feminism, and secularism give life to a term like ‘Talibanization’, and the violence that is enabled and justified by its deployment.””

The Gatestone Institute Reports:

Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe

A Dutch Muslim politician has called for a ban on dogs in The Hague, the third-largest city in the Netherlands.

Islamic legal tradition holds that dogs are “unclean” animals, and some say the call to ban them in Holland and elsewhere represents an attempted encroachment of Islamic Sharia law in Europe.

This latest canine controversy — which the Dutch public has greeted with a mix of amusement and outrage — follows dozens of other Muslim-vs-dog-related incidents in Europe. Critics say it reflects the growing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe as they attempt to impose Islamic legal and religious norms on European society.

The Dutch dustup erupted after Hasan Küçük, a Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council for the Islam Democrats, vehemently opposed a proposal by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly.

According to a January 28 report in the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Telegraaf, Küçük counter-argued that keeping dogs as pets is tantamount to animal abuse and he then called for the possession of dogs in The Hague to be criminalized.

According to its website, the Islam Democrats [ID] party is “founded on the Islamic principles of justice, equality and solidarity. ID is a bottom-up response to the large gap between the Muslim and immigrant communities and local politics…ID focuses on the political awareness within the Muslim and immigrant communities. Awareness about the need to organize, but also the need for mutual support.”

Paul ter Linden, who represents the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) on The Hague city council, responded to Küçük by saying: “In this country pet ownership is legal. Whoever disagrees with this should move to another country.”

Dutch political commentators believe Küçük’s declarations are a provocation designed to stir up the Muslim population in The Hague. Muslims — who now make up more than 12% of the city’s population of 500,000 — view dogs as ritually unclean animals and Küçük’s call for a ban on them is a sure vote-getter, they say.

The incident in Holland follows dog-related controversies in other European countries.

In Spain, two Islamic groups based in Lérida — a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia where 29,000 Muslims now make up around 20% of the city’s total population — asked local officials to regulate the presence of dogs in public spaces so they do not “offend Muslims.”

Muslims demanded that dogs be banned from all forms of public transportation including all city buses as well as from all areas frequented by Muslim immigrants. Muslims said the presence of dogs in Lérida violates their religious freedom and their right to live according to Islamic principles.

After the municipality refused to acquiesce to Muslim demands, the city experienced a wave of dog poisonings. More than a dozen dogs were poisoned in September 2011 (local media reports here, here, here, here and here) in Lérida’s working class neighborhoods of Cappont and La Bordeta, districts that are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants and where many dogs have been killed over the past several years.

Local residents taking their dogs for walks say they have been harassed by Muslim immigrants who are opposed to seeing the animals in public. Muslims have also launched a number of anti-dog campaigns on Islamic websites and blogs based in Spain.

In Britain, which has become “ground zero” for Europe’s canine controversies, blind passengers are being ordered off buses or refused taxi rides because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their “unclean” guide dogs.

In Reading, for example, one pensioner, a cancer sufferer, was repeatedly confronted by drivers and asked to get off the bus because of his guide dog. He also faced hostility at a hospital and in a supermarket over the animal.

In Nottingham, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry a blind man because he was accompanied by his guide dog. The taxi driver was later fined £300 ($470).

In Stafford, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry an elderly blind couple from a grocery store because they were accompanied by their seeing-eye dog.

In Tunbridge Wells, Kent, a blind man was turned away from an Indian restaurant because the owner said it was against his Muslim beliefs to allow dogs into his establishment.

In London, a bus driver prevented a woman from boarding a bus with her dog because there was a Muslim lady on the bus who “might be upset by the dog.” As the woman attempted to complain, the doors closed and the bus drove away. When a second bus arrived, she again tried to embark, but was stopped again, this time because the driver said he was Muslim.

Also in Britain, police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at train stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers, following complaints that it was offensive to their religion.

A report for the Transport Department advised that the animals should only touch passengers’ luggage because it is considered “more acceptable.” British Transport Police still use sniffer dogs — which are trained to detect explosives — with any passengers regardless of faith, but handlers are now more aware of “cultural sensitivities.”

Sniffer dogs used by police to search mosques and Muslim homes are now being fitted with leather bootees to cover their paws so that they do not cause offense.

Critics say the complaints are just another example of Muslims trying to force their rules and morals on British society. Tory MP Philip Davies said: “As far as I am concerned, everyone should be treated equally in the face of the law and we cannot have people of different religious groups laying the law down. I hope the police will go about their business as they would do normally.”

Meanwhile, Muslim prisoners in Britain are being given fresh clothes and bedding after sniffer dogs search their cells.

The inmates say their bedclothes and prison uniforms must be changed according to Islamic law if they have come anywhere near dog saliva. Government rules mean prison wardens must hand out replacement sets after random drug searches to avoid religious discrimination claims.

The dogs have also been banned from touching copies of the Islamic holy book the Koran and other religious items. Prisoners are handed special bags to protect the articles.

In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number. The postcards are potentially offensive to the city’s 3,000-strong Muslim community.

In Norway, Gry Berg, a blind woman, was denied entry into four taxis in the center of Oslo because she was accompanied by her guide dog.

In France, Marie Laforêt, one of the country’s most well-known singers and actresses, appeared in a Paris courtroom in December to defend herself against charges that a job advertisement she placed discriminated against Muslims.

The 72-year-old Laforêt had placed an ad on an Internet website looking for someone to do some work on her terrace in 2009. She specified in the ad that “people with allergies or orthodox Muslims” should not apply “due to a small Chihuahua.”

Laforêt claimed that she made the stipulation because she believed the Muslim faith saw dogs as unclean.

The case was taken up by an anti-discrimination group called the Movement against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP), which lodged a complaint against Laforêt.

Laforêt’s lawyer said his client “knew that the presence of a dog could conflict with the religious convictions of orthodox Muslims. It was a sign of respect.” But Muslims rejected her defense.

Allergies my hind end! And who are these professors who are indoctrinating our young?

This woman is once again doing what Muslims do best. They come to our freedom loving nation, take advantage of the naiveness we show towards them, and impose their satanic values on the rest of us. The people on that plane needed to be removed from the flight because little miss Islam follows a religion that states that dogs are dirty but goats are ok.

It’s not illegal to bring a small dog with you on a plane, especially if it’s a service dog. After all, dogs have never hijacked or flown any of our planes into our buildings.

Please share if you agree Southwest was correct to have this woman removed from the plane!

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Featured

Theme Park Tells Muslim Her Burka Isn’t Safe For Ride – Here’s What Happened When She Didn’t Listen

Published

on

A Muslim amusement park goer in California decided she wanted to ride the rides like the other patrons but didn’t want to follow the rules to do so. Wearing her full Islamic garb, she approached one of the thrill rides and tried to get on when she was told that her burka was a danger, as loose clothing poses an obvious risk of getting entangled. It’s not just a danger to the one wearing it, but everyone else on the ride as well, who were for forced to take a backseat to what she perceived were her rights. Now, the entire amusement park paid a dear price.

The attire rules aren’t new to venues like this which frequently advertise that no loose clothing or open shoes can be worn when on the ride. The reason is obvious to most sensible people, but for Muslims, they see it as an opportunity to claim discrimination and religious persecution at the cost of others.

Park employees stopped the Muslim teen and her similarly dressed friends before they could get on go-karts. Pointing out the posted signage surrounding it, the worker explained the safety rules which specifically applied to attire. This policy wasn’t put into place to isolate anyone who follows Islam, it was to protect everyone in the park and ensure they had a good time, and that the business didn’t get a liability suit. Unfortunately, the Muslim girl didn’t listen to that common sense reasoning.

“If a scarf were to come partially off and get caught in the motor or wheels it could do deadly harm to the rider. This policy did not allow passengers to use the go-karts while wearing anything loose like a head scarf,” Conservative Daily Post reported of the park’s apparently problematic rules for the Muslim 13-year-old. The business’ policy put it bluntly, which apparently added to the perceived offense.

“If fashion, religious expression, or your hairstyle is more important to you than safety, that’s fine. You can do what you want with your life. You just can’t do it at our park,” the policy read. “When I read the policy, I was shocked — in disbelief — about the material I was reading,” the girl’s father, Nasir Abdo, said in his complaint, according to SF Gate.

Abdo took the policy personally while completely ignoring the fact that it wasn’t a target of his family’s religion, but a concern for the teen’s safety. This didn’t stop him from seeking vengeance and financial gain, having, of course, realized an opportunity at hand to exploit the overly politically correct climate in the liberal state of California.

SF Gate reports:

“A complaint against Palace Entertainment, an amusement park company and owner of the Boomers park in Livermore, was filed in August 2014 with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.”

“The grievance was submitted on behalf of seven Muslim girls and women, and a Sikh man after they were denied access to the go-karts because they refused to remove their religious hijab or turbans.”

It’s been nearly four years of since this complaint was filed, forcing the park to defend themselves and their safety rules. However, they just found out that none of that is as important as catering to Islam in the state of California. The company has now been forced to cave to the discrimination complaint, have changed their “no headwear” policy, and paid out a $32,000 settlement to the “victims.”

According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) complaint:

“The law guarantees Californians of all faiths access to places of business and entertainment, and safety concerns must be founded on more than speculation or stereotype. We are pleased that Palace Entertainment worked with DFEH to achieve resolution of these cases without the need for litigation.”

CAIR insists that these seven females and the man in the turban were denied access based on religious bigotry, but failed to point out that each one of them were offered other headgear that would cover their heads as per their religion and make it safe to ride. They declined these options and have now made the entire place unsafe after forcing their religion on others, rather than the park being able to force safety rules on everyone equally — regardless of religion.

Coming to this settlement agreement, the amusement park has to allow ant an all Muslims to wear their headscarves despite risk or injury to themselves or others. There is no solution on how they will move forward with this new policy to protect a religion alongside the safety of other people.

This will inevitably open the park up to more lawsuits. If and when a Muslim’s hijab causes an injury, you can pretty much guarantee the park will be held accountable for that too. Discrimination won’t be the problem at that point, disability will and the turban/headscarf wearer will win again, while everyone else loses out to this religion who would never make the same exceptions for any other faith.

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Trending