Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Follow Up On Tesco Booze Case

In a follow-up to Andy Armitage's story of the Muslim who didn't want to move alcohol, here's what happened: The Muslim lost. That's one concession to Islam that didn't happen. Excellent. One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

Speaking after the three-day tribunal in Birmingham, he had said: "It's in our religion that we are not allowed to handle alcohol. In the UK there's equal opportunities that should protect me and my beliefs."

Tesco said Mr Ahmed was made aware during his employment induction course that he would be handling alcohol, and that every effort was made to find him an alternative role in the warehouse.

Read the whole story>>>


Pastorius said...

Booze is cool.

Anonymous said...

How can you say that he lost? By forcing the kuffars to waste money and time going through the whole legal charade, he has already won. The process is the punishment. The outcome of the tribunal hearing is immaterial. He wins by extracting an economic cost either way.

Pastorius said...

Yeah, but we get the booze.


Citizen Warrior said...

AW, I understand what you mean, and I agree that in a very real way, he won. But I also think every incident involving a judgment does two things: It sets a precedent for the next decision, and it makes public the arguments. People can read the story, get the logic behind the decision, and maybe even some commentary on the story.

Understanding of the issue and clarification of the problem can come about through just such small incidents.

And besides that, every time a Muslims tries to gain a special concession and loses, it makes me very happy.

Pastorius said...

And, besides, we've got booze.