[Sally] Friday, 69, said: “The young lady was absolutely fine with the other stuff I was buying but when it came to the Bible she refused to touch it and asked me to put it in the shopping bag myself. She turned to another worker and said something about being unclean and at first I thought she was referring to a skirt I was buying and that there was a mark on it. Then she asked me to put the Bible in my shopping bag myself.
"It took me a while to realise what was happening and I felt humiliated that someone could censor what I was buying. If she was refusing to touch it on religious grounds then that is not on. We are a tolerant, Christian country and I could not see a Christian shop assistant refusing to touch something from another religion. If you are paid to do a job like that then you should get on and do it."
Source: Telegraph
It would be very unusual for a Muslim to regard a Bible as unclean, though I could imagine this possibility when it comes to a book of Bible stories that have been rewritten. Changing holy scripture for any reason is illegitimate in Muslim eyes, and while this is an extreme reaction it might be at least theoretically consistent with Islamic doctrine.
On the other hand, it's possible that the woman didn't want to handle the book because her own hands were not ritually clean and it would be wrong to touch even rewritten scripture. That's a bit more consistent with Islamic doctrine, but still odd because the rules for handing the Bible simply aren't as strict as those for handling the Qur'an.
Assuming that the latter description of the situation is more accurate than the impression that the clerk regarded the book itself as unclean, that helps the clerk's case a little but not much. Clerks have to touch many different things over the course of a day and they can't keep taking breaks to ritually cleanse themselves. Their religious beliefs about ritual purity cannot be used as a limitation on when and how they will do basic, necessary aspects of their job — like price and bag customer purchases.
Fortunately, neither politicians nor even Muslim leaders are expressing support for this kind of behavior:
Last night politicians and religious leaders supported her in condemning the high street giant and reigniting the debate over religious beliefs in the workplace.
Conservative MP Philip Davies said the refusal to serve Mrs Friday, 69, was “unacceptable” and “damaging” to community relations.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, described the assistant’s comments as “offensive” and called for Marks & Spencer to carry out a thorough investigation.
Source: Daily Express
This sort of behavior will not endear Muslims to their neighbors. It would be wrong, of course to prevent Muslims from following their religion and their consciences, but in a multi-cultural society characterized by religious pluralism, it is wrong to make life and legal behavior more difficult for others on the basis of one's own religious doctrines. Sincerity is no defense because the strength and sincerity of a belief has no relevance to whether others should be forced to live according to it.
Hmmm…
In the words of Archie Bunker?
[ala "All in the Family"]:
“AwwwWW…JEEZZZ!”
Well, in all fairness it’s not like the Muslim was asking very much. It’s not the request for her to bag her own book that was outlandish, it was the reasoning for it.
But yeah. . . not good PR.
At least she didn’t refuse to ring it up at all. I still think that militant anti-choicers refusing to dispense pharmaceuticals to women on religious grounds is far more bogus.
Which is not to say this isn’t bogus in its own way.
I think that a lot of Muslims do things like this as a tribal identity gesture rather than because there’s any basis in Islamic law for this behavior.
Maybe she was worried about ending up liked the jailed teacher who let her students name a classroom teddy bear “Muhammed.”
_____
religious or not, it affects us all
Religiarchy.com
While I don’t think a person should be able to fire someone or treat them differently on the job due to religious affiliation; I do think that if religious affiliation impedes my/your/or anyone’s ability to do the job, it should not be handled any differently than if a medical impairment stopped someone. In other words, if the job calls for an employee to lift 30 lbs, and I can’t, I shouldn’t be hired. If I say I _can_, and then it turns out I can’t–why shouldn’t I be fired? I knew what the job required when I interviewed and accepted. If I couldn’t fulfill the requirements, isn’t that misrepresentation on some level? Wouldn’t I be obligated to make that known to my potential employer at the outset? Cleary they expect I can and will do the work that is required. To accept the job is an implied contract that I agree to the terms of employment.
I don’t get why this should be protected. I don’t know that it is; but I sincerely hope it’s not. To me, it wouldn’t be religious discrimination to fire this guy. If he won’t do what’s required, or even if he _can’t_, then he’s not meeting the requirements of the position–that he agreed to when he accepted the job.
Now, if the religious books were not sold prior to his employ, and then became a new stock item, he might have more of a case…?
Ooh no! Islamic cooties!
This issue is looked at to literal. It is more likely a reaction to the perceived attitude Islam is under right now by the Christian media at large. It is a personal way this person could express their negative feelings about the situation.
Religion it is a beautiful thing, bringing light, love and peace where ever it goes.
Jesus is one of the prophets of Islam. He is mentioned many times in the Koran, so this woman who believes the Koran is the word of God is behaving un-Islamically.
She should therefore be beheaded for her sin.
The Muslim religion has been twisted beyond all recognition. Any image of G-d was obviously a form of idol worship. So, now Muslims are more spooked out by images and totems than anyone else – even the Jews. How did a taboo based on common sense become such a burdensome and stupid taboo?
*We are a tolerant, Christian country and I could not see a Christian shop assistant refusing to touch something from another religion.*
How different is this from the Christian Pharmacists refusing to sell birth control ’cause it goes against their beliefs?
Nutcases all.
To be honest,I’d not heard this story before and ,given its source ,would take it with a pinch of salt without independent verification.The British tabloids ,of which the Express is one,certainly aren’t above a bit of Islamophobia, when they’re not talking about Britney Spears or house prices.
And anyway,if it did happen,the woman’s actions ,although unacceptable, are less damaging than those of the pharmacists referred to above.
There is nothing in the genre of the advertising that would suggest it is referential. ,