CAIR wants McDonald’s employees fired for hiding bacon in Muslim family’s sandwiches

a reply to: _R4t_

1> Exactly I'm trying to understand why you can't eat bacon at McDonald in one circumstance but its fine in another?

If you wanted to know that, you would've simply asked that. Instead you lied, doubled down on your lie, changed the subject, and started copy-pasting contradictory things from unnamed Hadith. Then you keep quoting some vague crap about scholars without even telling which denomination those scholars are from (assuming they're even Muslims to begin with).

Are Catholics bound by Amish interpretations of Christian law? If not, why not? If you can't even name the supposed sect or denomination you're quoting, your words are useless.

2>
Scholars of Islam (Ulamah) state that touching impurities directly is unlawful except for a necessity. No doubt that pork is impure. Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): Say (O Muhammad SAW): "I find not in that which has been inspired to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maytatah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth (by slaughtering or the like), or the flesh of swine (pork, etc.) for that surely is impure, or impious (unlawful) meat (of an animal) which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allâh (or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., or on which Allâh's Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering). But whosoever is forced by necessity without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, (for him) certainly, your Lord is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Why do you and your own link keep ignoring that? Every time it mentions the small amount of foods that are actually forbidden to us, it puts a disclaimer that there are circumstances which make it permissible. Then again, I doubt you even read that far.

3> Are you sure you know the Quran?

“He has forbidden you only dead animals, and blood, and the swine, and that which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for other than God.” (Quran 2:173)

4> Forget the Haddith here, apparently you have the Quran that overrules everything...

“He has forbidden you only dead animals, and blood, and the swine, and that which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for other than God.” (Quran 2:173)

LOL Why do you keep posting only the first half of Surah 2:173? Like I asked before, do you even read the things you copy-paste? I already posted the entirety of Surah 2:173 in my very first response to you, and that includes the 2nd half which says it's not a sin under certain conditions. Or did you not even look? Here's my post (www.abovetopsecret.com...) and here's the entirety of that passage:

He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

You literally don't even read the things you copy-paste. And you selectively take passages out of context, literally only showing the first half of the passage because the 2nd half of it shuts down your narrative. It's like talking to a wall.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Typical phobic apologist.

Only cares about the generalisation, never about the detail. The details slay their positions every time.

I don't see the big deal...Everything they make is on the same grill and full or pork grease. McDonalds is not Halal by no means.... And besides that I know people who pay for bacon on top and would love for them to throw it in for free!!

CAIR is a terrorist organization whos agenda is to make everyone bow down to and convert to Islam.. They are a psyop plain and simple...These people are completely full of shat!!

I say BACON FOR EVERYONE!!!

a reply to: infolurker

The hatred of pigs is a superstition. McDonalds should laugh in their faces.

a reply to: infolurker

If they have dietary restrictions, they should probably not be eating at an establishment that cooks everything on the same grill. If the muslim population in the US at large present a sizable consumer base for McDonalds then I guess they will implement some kind of... change, to encourage income from that group, but otherwise there is no reason that a change should be made or anything other than a general apology should be issued. They have the choice of where to eat and, in their own self interest, should choose wisely. The world shouldn't be sanitized based on the lifestyle choice of anyone.

originally posted by: Nyiah
Mess with someone's food, get fired. Simple, straightforward process. Someone gets to learn this one the hard way.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: MortonBunkum

There is no law in Christianity about shellfish or fabric.

A little sad when the athiest brings the relevant verses.
www.openbible.info...

A quick once-over shows it says more than once in the bible "of fins and scales". I don't recall shellfish having those.

Also, regarding mixing clothing materials:
www.openbible.info...[/quote


No christians I know follow those laws, and yes I know what it says.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I realise that but growing up we were never made aware of it, it didn't become front page news

a reply to: TrueBrit

Here's what gets me. They openly admit that most Christian denominations ignore virtually everything in the first half of their own holy book. I say "virtually everything in the first half" because they still pick & choose some parts to accept such as Sodom and Gomorrah, Adam & Eve, the 10 Commandments, the Israelites and location of ancient Israel, etc. they also admit that there are other scriptures that weren't included in their book but may be in other versions of the Bible, like the Books of Enoch, gospel of Mary, etc.

They also openly admit that there are major differences in Christian denominations, while also admitting that each denomination isn't bound by the interpretations of other denominations. Amish don't follow the "prosperity gospel", Catholics don't follow Protestant teachings, and most other sects don't follow the "Snake Eaters" interpretations, etc.

But when it comes to Muslims, they act like all Muslims are somehow bound by every denomination's different interpretations. They don't even follow everything in the New Testament, yet they think we follow everything labeled "scripture" that's accepted by some unnamed denomination or sect.

For example, Salafis follow traditions which other Muslim's don't follow and they're not even a specific denomination. The Nation of Islam has additional scriptures which other denomination's don't accept (most other denominations don't even accept them as Muslims). Wahhabis follow the additional teachings & interpretations of a dude who is generally shunned by other Islamic denominations. Alawites and Druze follow completely different teachings, to the point that many Muslim denominations don't consider them Muslims either. And the entire Sunni & Shiite umbrella groups have some vastly different interpretations as well, even down to simple differences like how to pray.

The reason I usually point to the Pickthall translation of the Qur'an is because it's probably the easiest to understand for native English speakers. There's another translation that I won't name or quote that's easier to read, but it's a modern day Salafi-backed translation that adds things into the text. Editors generally add things in parenthesis or at the bottom of the page in order to clarify something or to elaborate on how that specific passage supports some tradition they hold. But this other translation simply adds things without noting that it was an addition. Things like that are why I ask specifically which translation the person is going by, so we can compare it to others or to the Lexicon to see what was really said.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Ah, so your "beef" is actually with the 24 hour media cycle for making it such a big wedge issue? (haha, see what i did there? high fives self)

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Deflecting again.

Do you agree that someone ought to be fed something that might harm them, despite their express instructions, or do you believe that someone has every right to be VERY angry that they have had their food deliberately contaminated, by someone whose intent was clearly malicious?

Its a simple question, having nothing to do with anyone at all, other than the people affected by the choices of the staff, and the staff in the eatery in question. Do try and answer the question this time, rather than spouting some phobic drivel.

You are deflecting, the real issue here is CAIR filing frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to raise money for terror.

Give the person a lifetime coupon for chicken sandwiches, why does CAIR need to get any cash for terror?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

And I think you are correct about that, I don't think we follow laws the way we should, take the Sabbath for instance,

But there are also laws I wouldn't think of following, so yes it's a pickle

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Ah, so your "beef" is actually with the 24 hour media cycle for making it such a big wedge issue? (haha, see what i did there? high fives self)

I don't have a beef, I was just wondering.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Do you have any evidence that CAIR is a terrorist organization?

I hate it when the beef totally misses the bun and the pickles are hanging halfway out the wrapper, and mustard is on the bottom of the bag, there should be a law.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Do u think the person should lose their job?

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: infolurker

A racist employee went out of their way to offend the family. It doesn't matter why.

Do you have proof?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Do you have any evidence that CAIR is a terrorist organization?

Ya, CAIR was on UAE's Terrorist Organization List, then John Kerry lobbied for it's removal. Google is your friend, go find the links but you really don't want to do you?

Here's a good one for ya,

Since its founding in 1993, the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has presented itself publicly as a benign Muslim American “civil rights organization.” From that time to this, however, the United States government has known that CAIR actually is an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise: Hamas, a group officially designated since 1994 as a terrorist organization.

Center for Security Policy

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I know they were listed by UAE. That isn't an evidence.
I've already googled and I have yet to see any evidence. If there was any they would have been charged and punished. So far that hasn't happened.
So far it is only your opinion.
Thanks for trying anyway.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I know they were listed by UAE. That isn't an evidence.
I've already googled and I have yet to see any evidence. If there was any they would have been charged and punished. So far that hasn't happened.
So far it is only your opinion.
Thanks for trying anyway.

Why would they have been punished when they were harbored by the likes of John Kerry and those who pulled his puppet strings?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

They punished Holy Land Foundation. Why haven't they done the same to CAIR?