Grievance-mongering is a traditional Islamic pastime that often evolves into litigation jihad. Such was the case of Michigan Muslimah Raghdaa Ali, who tried to make a transaction at a cash advance business but was asked to leave for not complying with a policy prohibiting head coverings.
“This is our beliefs and our religious [attire] – we cannot take it off,” Ali said when interviewed. “She [the employee] said if you cannot take it off, we cannot serve you.” That’s a very reasonable policy for a business that makes numerous large financial transactions every day. It’s not discriminatory against any group; all people wishing to make use of the business’s services must abide by its policies. However, Ali felt the policy was a form of discrimination against Muslimahs, whom she claims cannot remove their head coverings. She has filed a lawsuit against the business for having a policy she chose not to follow.
“This is my country, and I have the rights same as they do have,” Ali continued. Uh, yeah, and that means the same rules apply to you as well. It’s not discriminatory if the rule is unilaterally applied, which it was. Either briefly take off the ninja costume-esque head covering or find a business that is willing to serve you. Ali blamed a “lack of [knowledge of] religious culture” for part of the reason behind this fiasco. However, a rule against anyone wearing hats, sunglasses, or other head/face-obstructing attire has nothing directly to do with religion. The policy was put in place for security reasons, not to exclude potential customers. A policy forbidding Muslims from using your business’s services seems like a bad PR move in Muslim-heavy Michigan, at the very least.
Ali’s lawsuit is going forward, though the business has issued a statement saying that the policy was implemented as a safety measure. Let’s hope the business wins and Ali’s litigation jihad loses.