An interesting story in the Daily Mail today:
A Muslim store worker at Marks & Spencer refused to serve a customer buying a children’s book on biblical stories because she said it was “unclean”.
Understandable outrage from all quarters. Even, it would seem, from Inayat Bunglawala, the assistant secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. However, here are his reported words:
He said: “This appears to be a very regrettable incident and the ‘unclean’ remark was clearly very offensive and unacceptable.
“Many Biblical stories complement the teachings of the Koran. We hope that M&S will investigate this incident.”
I’m sorry, sir, but you’re rather missing the point. It is immaterial whether or not Bible stories complement the teachings of the Koran. What the store worker did was unacceptable, full stop. Is Mr Bunglawala suggesting that, if the ‘offending’ item was a book that did not complement the Koran’s teachings, then the store worker would have been within her rights to refuse to sell it?
It appears to me that Mr Bunglawala does not really condemn what this store worker did. His support for the Christian customer is implicitly qualified. It is conditional upon her buying something that does not (in his opinion) contradict the Koran’s teachings. I am not sure I am encouraged by his words.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
If I were a shop owner and a member of staff refused to touch or sell one of the products I stocked and was employing them to sell I would terminate their employment.
Does this member of staff have problems selling bacon or pork?
According to the story I read ‘shop sources’ pathetically tried to claim the ‘assistant’ “may have been referring to their hands” to avoid dirtying it.
How pathetic is that. If that were the case the ‘assistant’ should have been concerned about dirtying the skirt she was happy enough to touch.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Well said, Phil A.
Presumably she has no problem collecting a salary that is paid out of the profits the shop makes from selling booze, pork and Bible stories.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Bel, Phil you’re both right but why bother even mentioning it. There’s a tiny element in the MCB who just like to stir up trouble.
Best to ignore.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Unbelievable. I’m continually amazed by how little action the shops take against employees who refuse to serve customers - religion has nothing to do with it, as far as I’m concerned.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
January 18th, 2008 at 12:45 am
That’s right. She is employed to sell the stock of the shop. If she doesn’t like it, she can look for a job elsewhere.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I agree with you, Bel. It is also good to see you are back blogging. I’ve have missed your insight.
You may have noticed that I left Blogpower a couple of weeks ago. I have linked to you on my Conservative Bloggers list.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
more insanity from the MCB.
For crying out loud. If you object so bad to what a shop sells, don’t apply for the damn job.
Nobody “owes” anyone a job.
PS good to have you back, Bel.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Yes that is exactly what he is suggesting.
Remember your post on the hairdresser … it’s the same thing bel.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:39 am
I didn’t mean to kill your post Bel
seems I do that a lot
January 31st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
There is another explanation to the shop assistant’s action. It actually have been a mark of respect for the Bible rather than an act of contempt. A muslim will perform a ritual ablution before touching the Koran. The assistant may have felt it would have been disrespectful to touch the Bible without an ablution.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:56 am
You’re a Mail reader, Bel?
March 14th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Hope all is well Bel, you ok?
March 15th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Hi Verlin Martin,
I’m OK. Sorry for the silence.
I’ve been taking an extended blog break, with with having emigrated, etc. Be back soon.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
ok, was just worried
April 24th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
i don’t know if last time i tried to leave a reply it was somehow not deemed acceptable…or me being technophobic i somehow pushed the wrong buttons on keybourd…
Anyway… here goes again…
i think it would be really cosmic if a store worker, most cosmic of all if they were jewish were to say to a customer wishing to purchase a Daily Mail …”you need to realise that this publication only prints stories that altho they are factual, they are trivial and always at the expence of a vulnerable minority, and never about more important issues such as UK authorities snatching a breastfeeding baby away from its immigrant mother.. Half a truth is a whole of a Lie”..