CAIR's approach to Abercrombie & Fitch

[MuslimAgorist]

CAIR has filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of Hani Khan, who was fired for not removing her headscarf.

Although CAIR is legally in the right, as far as I can tell, I intend to show that they are ethically in the wrong, and while they may win a victory for Hani, the inevitable result is that this action will harm our community. If Muslims in America wish to be a light of truth and virtue in this society we need to hold ourselves to a higher moral creed, not utilize an unethical system to coerce our neighbors.

Read More

[Sampharo]

The lawsuit is using unislamic judicial system and whatever money is awarded is not lawful, so yes the lawsuit is Islamically wrong.

Aside from that, your article and thoughts are going against fundamental Islamic principals.

First of all the conclusions that a judge's decision ends with forceful application and that is not an Islamic way, is wrong. Justice (following Islamic laws) is first and foremost a matter of settling transgression, and if the judgement pronounced against a party is not complied with, it gets enforced -yes indeed- by force. It is necessary for society's existence to maintain law, and only fools will think otherwise. You're suggesting that any justice system that enforces its judgements is "violence". That is fundamentally flawed.

Secondly, muslims practice Jihad against themselves and against those who transgress upon them. If a man receives a worthless insult, the wise one walks away and counts it with God, however the fundamentals are "Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth". There is nothing wrong with standing up to those who took away someone's livelihood for what they wear and, yes, making an example of them in whatever way that is permissible. The company did something highly illegal and unethical. There is everything wrong with being so pacifist and unplugging basics of our religion (notwithstanding again that the lawsuit under the American judicial system is unislamic) and it has failed over and over as a concept. Your opinion seems to nullify the whole direction established in Sunnah to stand up for muslim dignity and Islam.

Third, if your own suggested approach; nice media exposure (even if we imagine that there will NOT be an immediate counter with a few hundred thousand dollar budget worth of PR campaigning and propaganda that makes Hani Khan look like the evil one) to put some moral pressure on them, if that approach had any merit, it would have worked to curtail Starbucks from their horrendous trade practices and publicized zionism. History shows us that such reactions are worthless and allows overwhelming sense of "getting away with it" and only encourages more outrageous decisions.

Salam

[جوري]

Abercrombie & fitch is a store all about sex. In fact a group of christian conservatives filed complains about their ads being too racy and almost bordering upon child pornography for the young age of the models.. There is really no room for a Muslim woman in there and their clothes are nothing short of sucky...
if your thing are homely clothes and like your hoodies and sweat pants just go to amazon.com and have your pick at organic cotton which is ten times thicker, washes and looks better for alot less.

:w:

[جوري]

The 2003 Christmas shopping season may be only a few weeks old, but it's already pretty clear who the big loser is: Abercrombie & Fitch. In November, in the face of a boycott led by the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, the company recalled its racy catalog, the A&F Quarterly, which bears more resemblance to Playboy than to the Wilson Quarterly. The "Christmas Field Guide" featured cover language promising "group sex and more" and photos of wholesome-looking youths in not very wholesome poses. On Sunday night, 60 Minutes charged that Abercrombie is the apparel industry's version of Hooters, hiring hotties to work on the sales floor and relegating less bodacious associates to the stock room. The company also faces a class-action lawsuit filed by former Clinton Justice Department civil rights hand Bill Lann Lee, which claims the all-American retailer discriminates against nonwhite job applicants.

http://www.slate.com/id/2092175/

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[islamirama]

I think a good boycott is in order here...

I say the lawsuit goes on and they should do this

say:

She was fired because of her principled refusal to be made a sex object. And imagine if she used the attention to call for a boycott until the exploitative "look policy" was abolished. Imagine if CAIR contacted all the Christian organizations, women's rights activists and Asian American groups that A&F has crossed in the past to actually, "build a coalition to promote justice and mutual understanding."

[The_Prince]

CAIR has filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of Hani Khan, who was fired for not removing her headscarf.

Although CAIR is legally in the right, as far as I can tell, I intend to show that they are ethically in the wrong, and while they may win a victory for Hani, the inevitable result is that this action will harm our community. If Muslims in America wish to be a light of truth and virtue in this society we need to hold ourselves to a higher moral creed, not utilize an unethical system to coerce our neighbors.

Read More

huh???????? so Muslims need to basically keep their mouths shut, and do nothing when their civil rights are abused? sheesh good thing you didnt give advice to the black civil rights movement!!!!!!!

what planet are you living on??????

[MuslimAgorist]

if the judgment pronounced against a party is not complied with, it gets enforced -yes indeed- by force. It is necessary for society's existence to maintain law, and only fools will think otherwise. You're suggesting that any justice system that enforces its judgments is "violence". That is fundamentally flawed.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my point, and what violence is. "enforced -yes indeed- by force" IS violence. When a police officer shoots a back robber the it doesn't magically stop being violence because it is legitimate crime fighting.

Refusing to see the violence inherent in justice is delusional. That does not mean that some violence isn't legitimate. The question I am asking is, is stopping discrimination a LEGITIMATE use of violence. And I don't think it is. Even by "Eye for an Eye" all this crime legitimizes is discrimination against the company, i.e. a boycott. To say that A&F "took away" her livelihood is a fundamental misapprehension of who owns what. You don't own your job. You're job is a transaction. You own your labor. She still owns her labor.

so Muslims need to basically keep their mouths shut, and do nothing when their civil rights are abused?

I wrote "put down the gun and pick up the megaphone." What part of that says "keep their mouths shut." I am actively calling for market activism, which has been shown in numerous examples in the article to work against A&F, and calling to stop legal activism, which has been shown in numerous examples in the article not to work.

It's an empirical strategy

[Muezzin]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my point, and what violence is. "enforced -yes indeed- by force" IS violence. When a police officer shoots a back robber the it doesn't magically stop being violence because it is legitimate crime fighting.

Refusing to see the violence inherent in justice is delusional. That does not mean that some violence isn't legitimate. The question I am asking is, is stopping discrimination a LEGITIMATE use of violence. And I don't think it is. Even by "Eye for an Eye" all this crime legitimizes is discrimination against the company, i.e. a boycott. To say that A&F "took away" her livelihood is a fundamental misapprehension of who owns what. You don't own your job. You're job is a transaction. You own your labor. She still owns her labor.



I wrote "put down the gun and pick up the megaphone." What part of that says "keep their mouths shut." I am actively calling for market activism, which has been shown in numerous examples in the article to work against A&F, and calling to stop legal activism, which has been shown in numerous examples in the article not to work.

It's an empirical strategy

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you (I'm sleepy), but if 'legal activism' as you call it could lead to 'discriminating' the company by boycotting it, and this pressure is 'violent', and thus a bad thing - how exactly is 'market activism' (i.e. boycotting without prior recourse to lawyers) any better or any less 'violent'?

It seems to me the only difference between 'legal activism' and 'market activism' is the latter does not involve lawyers. Unless market activism is about playing the long game as it were, applying ethical pressure to change wider company practice so as to automatically rectify such complaints in the long term, rather than wasting time addressing each complaint individually.

Close?

Personally, I feel that if Abercrombie & Fitch have broken the relevant employment law, they deserve all the trouble they get - companies do not deserve sympathy for illegal mistreatment of their staff, no matter the seedy nature of their marketing or the salacious protestations of their CEO.

[MuslimAgorist]

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you (I'm sleepy), but if 'legal activism' as you call it could lead to 'discriminating' the company by boycotting it, and this pressure is 'violent', and thus a bad thing - how exactly is 'market activism' (i.e. boycotting without prior recourse to lawyers) any better or any less 'violent'?

It seems to me the only difference between 'legal activism' and 'market activism' is the latter does not involve lawyers. Unless the market activism is about playing the long game as it were, changing wider company practice so as to automatically rectify such complaints in the long term, rather than wasting time addressing each complaint individually.

Hmm... yeah, maybe I've miscommunicated. Legal activism doesn't lead to boycotting, it leads to legal orders, usually paying a settlement. What motivates a person to comply with these orders is the subtle threat of retaliatory force. So, what I'm saying is that if that force is not a suitable punishment for the crime, it is unjust to threaten a person with it. It's an unethical law.

Market activism leads to boycotting. Boycotting is not violence, it is ostracism. Individuals in the market refuse to transact with them, which is perfectly rights respecting because the customer owns their money. What motivates a person to comply with a boycotting customer is the desire to do business.

The difference is the incentive.

It should be noted that I'm reversing my position in this particular case after a conversation with a friend who pointed out that A&F is not an individual with property rights who is aggressed against. It is a corporation, which is a legal fiction which enjoys special legal protections from the state in exchange for taxes and compliance. In short, they voluntarily consented to the employment laws, so I think it's moral to hold them to it.

That doesn't change any of my statements about force being the modus of law. If the case were against an individual I would side with the employer.

[Muezzin]

Hmm... yeah, maybe I've miscommunicated. Legal activism doesn't lead to boycotting, it leads to legal orders, usually paying a settlement. What motivates a person to comply with these orders is the subtle threat of retaliatory force. So, what I'm saying is that if that force is not a suitable punishment for the crime, it is unjust to threaten a person with it. It's an unethical law.

Okay. Who decides the suitability of the punishment for the crime? Or rather, in what circumstance is (the threat of) corrective retaliatory force not justified?

Market activism leads to boycotting. Boycotting is not violence, it is ostracism. Individuals in the market refuse to transact with them, which is perfectly rights respecting because the customer owns their money. What motivates a person to comply with a boycotting customer is the desire to do business.

The difference is the incentive.

Okay.

It should be noted that I'm reversing my position in this particular case after a conversation with a friend who pointed out that A&F is not an individual with property rights who is aggressed against. It is a corporation, which is a legal fiction which enjoys special legal protections from the state in exchange for taxes and compliance. In short, they voluntarily consented to the employment laws, so I think it's moral to hold them to it.

Agreed.

That doesn't change any of my statements about force being the modus of law. If the case were against an individual I would side with the employer.

If the employer were an individual, I would still disagree with you on legal recourse being necessarily unethical, but I better understand your argument now. Thank you for clarifying.

[Sampharo]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my point, and what violence is. "enforced -yes indeed- by force" IS violence.

What you write here is for public readership and therefore, your expressions need to abide by public use of language, not have language be warped to fit whatever it is that you are trying to express as a point.

Violence is physical force that can cause physical damage, and is thus shunned by society and is only legitimate in stopping similar violent physical actions. Enforcement through fines or legal action or administrative officers closing down the office is NOT violence. Please don't claim that others have misunderstood when you are failing to communicate properly.

To say that A&F "took away" her livelihood is a fundamental misapprehension of who owns what. You don't own your job. You're job is a transaction. You own your labor. She still owns her labor.

Jobs are regulated exchange of labour/application of knowledge for money and other benefits, it is based on conditions set in employment law and the contract written in between, and the CONTINUITY of this employment based on merit and delivery of the labour/application of knowledge is not only implied, but is explicit in the agreement and presents a basis for agreeing to work. If there was mention in the contract that she will NOT be able to work if she is abiding by religious beliefs and a dresscode, she would have opted for another job and another company. So yes, it IS a loss of livelihood and earnings for the time it takes to find another job, go through its training, and become normalized in it, which could take many months.

Even by "Eye for an Eye" all this crime legitimizes is discrimination against the company, i.e. a boycott.

Ok, first you said that. But later on you said: "Boycotting is not violence, it is ostracism." I am glad however Muezzin called it and you admitted to miscommunicating. However:

Legal activism doesn't lead to boycotting, it leads to legal orders, usually paying a settlement.

That is just nonsense. Every person knows that a legal action against a big company in the States is about drawing publicity to a company's practice, and that it will reduce its business. Which leads us to the last main call you were actively making:

I wrote "put down the gun and pick up the megaphone." What part of that says "keep their mouths shut." I am actively calling for market activism.

Even if it does work, it is still force, or what you like to call "violence". An institution willingly and knowingly fired that woman will only stop such a practice when the "market activism" delivers business losses, and will only fix the situation because their business analysts tell them they are losing enough money to consider the reversal in position

Nothing different from the fines that can be awarded by a judge, because the only way to enforce those civil lawsuits is just more fines that affect their profits and produce income statement losses, and just like before they will only fix the situation when their business analysts tell them they are losing enough money to consider the reversal in position.

So your whole claim that "market activism" is better than "legal activism" because legal is violent but market is non-violent, is actually non-existent. Add to that the fact that boycott and market activism is STILL discrimination against the company, your whole article is not making sense.

I really did't have much interest in all these thoughts you were talking about (law enforcement is violence and all that), maybe it is part of your "Agorist" philosophical views. I responded however because you made statements that suggested muslims should behave in a certain way, and I was informing you that such behaviour is actually unislamic or goes against Islamic concepts of struggle. So although you are free to believe what you wish to believe, since you write under this name "MuslimAgorist" then we will at least address the "Muslim" part. So should you by the way, that is think and address judgement as a Muslim first and foremost.

[MuslimAgorist]

Violence is physical force that can cause physical damage, and is thus shunned by society and is only legitimate in stopping similar violent physical actions.

Alhamdulillah! Moral Clarity! Ok let's hold on to that definition. If you take nothing else from this conversation hold tight to that statement!

Enforcement through fines or legal action or administrative officers closing down the office is NOT violence.

No overt violence, but the threat of violence. What happens if I refuse to pay a fine, or refuse to close my office? What motivates someone to comply?

Are you saying that boycott/discrimination/ostracism are violence?

To boycott is to refuse to transact with someone. A&F is boycotting hijabis. Consumers of conscience are boycotting A&F. Discrimination is to treat someone differently based on distinguishable characteristics. A&F is discriminating against hijabis. Consumers of conscience are discriminating against businesses with unethical business practices. Ostracism is to banish or exclude someone. A&F ostracized this hijabi from their employment. Consumers of conscience are ostracizing A&F from their purchases.

Can you explain to me how any of that is "physical force that can cause physical damage, only legitimate in stopping similar violent physical actions"?

The difference is still that the economic damage caused by a court order is taking money owned by A&F against their will (theft), and the economic damage caused by a boycott is consumers keeping money that THEY own.

I'm feeling like we have no common logical foundation to this conversation. But we've agreed on a definition of violence. So that's progress.

[MuslimAgorist]

whatever money is awarded is not lawful, so yes the lawsuit is Islamically wrong.

I want to give you fair credit for this one too. That is my point.

[Sampharo]

No need to progress further. Your position is now clear. You're living on this philosophical "agorism" beliefs that imagines a society will function best when all relations are voluntary, and your article is simply trying to apply it.

You regard law enforcement as "violence", and believe that your suggestions will win the day. You're attributing "Moral Clarity!" or should I say morality to definitions of violence, without parameters whatsoever, and insist on applying it on judicial systems. When you say "no common logical foundation", it implies the existence of logical foundation in what you presented; I don't see it, not even disagreeable logic.

Sorry if that was harsh, but Salam

[MuslimAgorist]

Based on a conversation with a friend about my previous article I am now moved by reason to almost completely reverse my position.

Here's why:

A&F is not an individual with natural property rights that can be aggressed against. A&F is a corporation. So, what is a corporation? It is a legal fiction. A file drawer someplace, regarded by the law as a legal entity distinct from its members. The reason corporations get away with all the nasty practices that earn them their bad reputation is that they enjoy a special relationship with the state in which they exchange legal protection for taxes and compliance. Their members literally enjoy "limited liability" which means they are not fully accountable for the damages caused by their decisions. That's the very definition of fascism, the material success of capitalism colluded with the legal immunity of statism. In short, they voluntarily consented to the law, so I see no ethical problem with holding them to it.

Read More