February 24, 2015, - 4:33 pm

Samantha Elauf: Muslima Behind HAMAS CAIR Lawsuit Against Abercrombie Ain’t So Modest; What It’s Really About

By Debbie Schlussel

Does a not-so-modest Muslim girl get to pretend she’s modest in order to score a payday and more dhimmi-deference from a major clothing retail chain?



What if a job applicant comes to your business in a keffiyeh or a hat with a HAMAS emblem? A Hezbollah emblem? An ISIS emblem? Are you required to hire them–you know, to avoid a costly “religious discrimination” lawsuit filed against you by unindicted HAMAS co-conspirator CAIR with the full cooperation and support of the Obama EEOC? You might be. And, sadly, the Christian Becket Fund and seven Orthodox Jewish groups have filed briefs with the courts in support of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim chick who isn’t really as concerned with the modesty she claims she must have in observance of Islam. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case.

Obama’s EEOC is suing Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of Elauf, even though the store chain allows Muslim chicks in hijabs to work there and has hired many of them. I have no love for A&F. The store chain, which is now out of fashion favor and behind the fast-fashion times and trends, for years pimped sex, porn, and sleaze in order to sell its wares. I wrote about and protested this for years. But, while it long ago, slinked away from its lowlife marketing, the store continues to have a “Look Policy” on the kinds of people the store will hire. This is a legitimate business purpose, as many stores, just like health clubs, hire people who look like what they want their customers to aspire to. Nobody wants to buy a gym membership from a morbidly obese woman, for example. The “Look Policy” was also used as a reason not to hire Ms. Elauf because the store does not allow employees to wear hats (though it has hired many women in hijabs as noted below, just not her).

So HAMAS CAIR and Elauf sued. The thing is that Abercrombie hired women in hijabs before it turned down Elauf, and it’s hired women in hijabs since. This isn’t what the case is about. It’s about the fact that the law requires that any employee who is turned down for religious reasons, must first ask the employer (or, in this case, potential employer) for a reasonable accommodation of his/her religion. Elauf didn’t do that. She never gave Abercrombie that chance. She just rushed to her fave HAMAS front group and went to legal war. Also, A&F never asked her if she was Muslim, and she never told them. She also never said her head-covering was a religious requirement (which, actually, in Islam, it’s not).

That’s what this Supreme Court case is about: whether a religious person has to ask for the reasonable accommodation of his/her religion, or whether the employer has to divine this from the air and automatically assume someone is from a specific religion and automatically accommodate without being asked. If the latter is the case, that’s a problem.

What if tomorrow, a Muslim supporter of ISIS or HAMAS comes to your workplace and you decide–without saying a thing–no, I can’t have a HAMASnik, a supporter of Islamic terrorism and jihad, in my workplace? Well, the day after tomorrow, you might face a huge Obama EEOC/HAMAS CAIR lawsuit. And you could lose. Because, despite Obama’s claims, many Muslims believe it’s a religious duty to support these various Islamic terrorist groups, and you could be required to accommodate that without question. And it could be assumed that if you see the ISIS keffiyeh, you automatically know that this is a Muslim applicant and you must accommodate and hire them. And you can’t send ’em to the stock room, either.

That’s literally what could happen with this case. The Supreme Court already unanimously decided in favor of Muslims in federal prison, allowing them to wear beards, in which they could hide razor blades. Let the prison guards comb their beards if they’re afraid, was the unanimous sentiment, as I told you. And, as I warned you, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, expanded under the Hobby Lobby ruling on ObamaCare, was used to expand rights to Muslims. I predict the same will happen here. And “conservatives” like Justices Roberts and Alito will again side with Muslim extremists seeking to impose their religion upon us.

Then, there is Ms. Elauf and the way she dresses. The whole idea of Muslim chicks wearing hijabs is supposed to be about modesty–the idea that they must cover their hair because even a strand of it showing might turn some guy on. And, in Islam, men are not required to act like civilized humans and do not have to control their rape impulses. Women must cover up to stop those impulses.

So, if Ms. Elauf is so concerned with this Islamic modesty, then why doesn’t she cover up all of her hair? She lets a good deal of it hang out in front on her forehead. Um, that might turn some guy on and force him to rape her. Oh, and she wears ripped jeans that expose skin on her thighs. (For the record, I wear ripped jeans like that, but I’m not suing about wearing a headscarf on the job in the name of modesty.) And she wears sheer lace miniskirts? Modest? If she were in the mosque, she’d get a ton of dirty looks and the imam wouldn’t be too happy. After all, she might cause some guy to rape her. It’s funny that a woman who would sue Abercrombie all the way to the Supreme Court in the name of some (faux) modesty, isn’t really too modest at all. She’s a fraud. A phony.


Islamic Modesty: HAMAS CAIR Posterchick Samantha Elauf Ain’t So Modest in Ripped Jeans and Lace Miniskirts

Not that she’s the first . . . or the last. Below is a photo of more “Islamic modesty,” which I’ve posted before. And I’ve seen women whom I met when I went undercover to Muslim events change from their extreme garb of Islamic oppression to the sluttiest of slutwear possible. I saw a woman and her mother wearing niqabs–the full ninja face-veils–at an Islamic fundraiser, and the next week, I saw the same woman in a cropped shirt and low-rise jeans, showing much skin. Some of the most covered women in Dearbornistan sleep around on their husbands and should be tested for STDs.

They are hypocrites. That’s the point here. They want to impose their standards of “modesty” upon the West, when many of them aren’t so modest at all. And that’s a big part of the suit against Abercrombie now at the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, those of us who care about freedom will probably be on the losing side. Again, sadly, not the first time and not the last either.

And don’t be surprised if the next time you got to Abercrombie & Fitch or Macy’s or Nordstrom if the man or woman waiting on you is wearing a keffiyeh or an ISIS t-shirt.

We’ve lost America for good, it’s just a matter of how long it takes. And it’s speeding up.

All hail the jihad from within. We haven’t done a damned thing to stop it.

Got Islamic Modesty? . . .


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

21 Responses

Lionel Trilling said the mark of intelligence is the ability to make distinctions. Something that the makers of these supporting legal briefs do not seem to be able to do.

Little Al on February 24, 2015 at 6:16 pm

I’m waiting for the alternative lifestyle people’s first lawsuit against the Islamic Bakery, Photographer or Florist for refusing to vendor their “wedding”.

P. Aaron on February 24, 2015 at 6:24 pm

    @P Aaron

    You must be kidding.

    There isn’t a leftist coward alive who’s willing to take on the moslem bullies.

    JayPee on February 24, 2015 at 9:13 pm


There is NOTHING to respect about the Death Cult/Faux Religious Political Molotov Cocktail known as Islam. I blanch when I see dumb Mooooooslimas wearing their ninja coverings & head coverings. It CAN’T be respected when the Moooooslim men can honour-kill, rape, beat & treat the women they know like chattel. It CAN’T be respected when paedophilia is their favourite paraphilia! It CAN’T be respected when they can marry multiple times & can indulge in mu’tah. It CAN’T be respected when ‘holy roller’ Mooooooooslims like the most filthy & disgusting porn & watch it @ a disproportionate percentage (all the while pretending they DON’T!). It CAN’T be respected when their ‘religion’ innately hates Jews & all other infidels. It CAN’T be respected when the only people they treat more brutally than infidels are fellow Moooooooslims. Only sociopaths can respect the filth & fraud that is Islam.

I’m glad DS provided that pic again. I thought of it as soon as I read the post.

Islam, like the LEFT is taking USA down with it’s own rules & concepts. It disgusts me daily & I agree with DS…the ship is going down & it will not be salvaged.

Islam. WINNING hand-over-fist since September 11. 2001.

Skunky on February 24, 2015 at 6:50 pm

I do not know if A&F is a publicly traded company or privately owned, but if publicly traded, the stockholders should demand the Board of Directors stand up to this b.s., or they should all be replaced, voted out. Grow a pair America.

WilliamMunny on February 24, 2015 at 6:50 pm

    William Munny, yes, Abercrombie & Fitch (NYSE symbol AF) is publicly traded, and yes, the Company is doing everything it can to fight this suit.

    A little more background will make that clear. Obama’s EEOC sued Abercrombie for discrimination on Elauf’s behalf in 2009. In district court, the jury in that case sided with Elauf and awarded her $20,000 in damages. Dumb jury. Nonetheless, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned that dumb verdict after determining that Abercrombie wasn’t liable because Elauf never explicitly told the company that she wore her hijab for religious purposes and that she would therefore need an exemption from the Company’s dress policy. Further, employers are not even supposed to ask about religious views or practices, and Elauf basically argues that AF should guess. The 10th Circuit got it right. But Elauf (or rather her Hamasnik backers) pushed this case to the SCOTUS.

    We are definitely entering a new age of stratospheric PC, as the SCOTUS may soon be deciding on several broader questions, and not just the limited question of whether or not an job candidate or employee has to tell an employer that he/she follows certain rituals of dress/behavior for “religious” reasons and would need to request an exemption from the employer. Among those questions they might answer are:

    Who is responsible for identifying warning signs of potential religious discrimination? Do employees and job candidates have to explicitly identify potential conflicts between their “religious” practices and a company’s policy? Are there instances in which employers must point to such a clash and discuss how to work around it even if an individual does not explicitly ask?

    We’re going to see more and more Islamopandering rules and regulations, unfortunately. There are very powerful forces at work that want it. And the American public has become more passive than ever before. Things are so bad that I’m not so sure that another Islamic 9/11 type catastrophe will be the wake up call.

    Ralph Adamo on February 24, 2015 at 9:01 pm

      You know, that standard of “You’re not allowed to ASK about someone’s religious beliefs, but you’re required to GUESS” reminds me of when I was a mortgage loan originator. On every mortgage loan application there is a section regarding the ethnic and demographic information about the applicant. The lender is required to collect this information and report it to the government every 90 days. The applicant, however, may refuse to provide this information, thinking that if they tell us they’re black (or whatever) we will then deny the loan request because we’re all a bunch of bigots.

      The market area I worked in had a lot of blacks, most of whom declined to respond to the HMDA demographic info. My employer said we HAVE to have that info in order to file our quarterly HMDA reports for the government. So we were instructed to guess. Now I’m not saying it was all that difficult to guess whether someone was black or white in most cases, but I found it extremely ironic that we had to collect this information in order to report to the government that we were NOT discriminating against blacks, but blacks would not cooperate with providing this information because they thought we’d use it to discriminate against them, so basically we were instructed to guess, just as the EEOC is expecting that a prospective employer, who is forbidden to discriminate against a candidate because of their religious beliefs, is forbidden to ASK about the religious beliefs and instead instructed to GUESS at what they are based on what the candidate looks like or how s/he dresses.

      MIGirl on February 28, 2015 at 9:14 am

Sharia. Delenda. Est.

Occam's Tool on February 24, 2015 at 6:55 pm

The fact that this lawsuit was allowed to proceed past the demurrer stage is simply more evidence of this once-great country circling the drain. We are being taken over by muslims and illegals and we are too stupid and too concerned about being politically correct to stop it.

Jeff on February 24, 2015 at 7:17 pm


    Or as O’bama say

    Le constitution,………….. C’est MOI !!

    JayPee on February 24, 2015 at 10:46 pm

Can I sue Walmart if one of their Muslim employees refuses to ring up my ham?

John the infidel on February 24, 2015 at 7:18 pm

“Things are so bad that I’m not so sure that another Islamic 9/11 type catastrophe will be the wake up call.” – Ralph Adamo

That’s correct, sir, it won’t. Thomas Sowell told Rush that he was afraid that if Iran got nukes and used one on say, Chicago, that instead of fighting back, The Muslim-In-Chief would declare surrender. It’s not that farfetched in today’s America.

However it happens, the United States is going down for the count, and VERY soon.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on February 24, 2015 at 10:59 pm

Y’know, if she wins this thing, they COULD change the name of the store to . . .

Abudhabi & Bitch. I mean, just to enact full compliance with the obvious inroads Sharia Law is making.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on February 24, 2015 at 11:31 pm

…Abudhabi & Bitch


DS_ROCKS! on February 25, 2015 at 2:56 am

No, this is not about modesty or religious beliefs. It is about a nice financial payday for Sammy and CAIR crowd that made her absurd lawsuit possible.

Worry on February 25, 2015 at 7:44 am

So when I show up for job interviews, I am wearing a Kippah, and let it be known up front I will usually have to leave early on Fridays for Sabbath, and have religious holidays I will have to take off– has this resulted in me losing out on job opportunities? Possibly- no way to prove it. I’ve been told I don’t have to wear the kippah if it will affect my ability to get work, but I’m not gonna play that game, since I still have my requirements for Friday, etc.

Needless to say, once I’m hired, I’ve never had any issues whatsoever, and have never been fired.

Goes without saying, of course, that the people most likely to be “disturbed” by me being Torah observant are the people who identify as “jewish” but really couldn’t care less about anything religious, except maybe getting a day off from work once a year to head to “temple” for a few hours on Yom Kippur…

unPC on February 25, 2015 at 12:18 pm

Her face is annoying, Debbie, it’s filled with condescension. It’s like that picture of The Golfer-In-Chief you keep showing, with his head tilted back, mouth wide open, and laughing heartily.

One picture is worth a thousand words. – No specific author or origin, references many.

Every picture tells a story. – Rod Stewart

Just some of the pictures in Debbie’s stories are an all too chilling reminder of what her articles are foretelling.

We’re DOOMED!!!

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on February 25, 2015 at 2:30 pm

Super article on this important legal challenge.

We are removing the ten commandment plaques from courthouses, but you can wear some alleged costume to work and claim religious freedom?


Panhandle on February 26, 2015 at 9:12 am

I remember years ago when a buddy of mine showed me his A&F catalog because it had some racy photos in it. Needless to say he wasn’t kidding. Now back then I knew about A&F because kids at my high school wore their clothes but the catalog threw me for a loop. It’s funny now that this “modest moderate” Muslim is suing(along with HAMAS front group I don’t CAIR)a company that used sleaze to peddle its wares. Even though it does hire Muslim women who wear their full battle gear in public that’s’ not good enough Elauf and I don’t CAIR. It will come down to A&F further giving in to groups like CAIR and fools like her. Probably with a big payday to just shut them both up so that they go away. As far as her pictures go. Try going to that big mall in Dubai during the summer(thanks USN.) The Muslim women there wore far worse than ripped jeans(BTW ladies they look good on you but it looks gay on us men-I’m just saying.)and lacey miniskirts. Talk about not being modest.

Ken B on February 27, 2015 at 11:50 am


You are so on target about many Muslim women and the way they dress. I was once flying out of Riyadh KSA and saw women wearing the full niqab, with just the eyes showing, pull these off in mid-flight to reveal they were wearing the latest western fashions including skinny jeans, etc. I was forewarned of this, but still shocked because they guy who warned me told me they would go to the lavatory and do this. Instead, I saw them do it right at their seat. Too funny!

Russ on March 2, 2015 at 9:36 pm

Greetings, There’s no doubt that your sjte could be having web browser compatibility
issues. When I look at your blog in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in I.E., it’s got some overlapping issues.

I simply wanted tto provide you with a quick heads up!
Aside from that, fantastic site!

Movies on October 22, 2015 at 8:34 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field