Mohammed Ahmed, 32, is suing the English company Tesco because some of the crates that he was forced to lift with his machine contained alcohol, which he insists violates his religious beliefs. The company insists that it tried to accommodate him but that virtually all such jobs involved some interaction with alcohol products.
Ahmed argues that he was unaware that the retail store sold alcohol when he applied for the job. Yet, he still believes that the store should be liable for requiring him to work with alcohol.
Mr Ahmed was raised in Saudi Arabia where enforcement of Sharia law regarding alcohol is among the harshest in the world.
In the United States, cab companies faced an analogous claim when Muslim drivers refused to take people at the airport who were carrying bottles of wine and other alcohol gifts, here.
While the taxi commission proposes a color light to indicate a taxi that followed strict Sharia rule on alcohol, the public objected. Now, such drivers will have to go back to the end of the line if they refuse a customer carrying alcohol.
For the full story, click here.
It’s lost a bit of nuance from the retelling, but he’s not actually sueing for being made to carry alcohol. He’s suing for being treated agressively and harassed after requesting other duties.
Whether it’s a valid claim- he could be being oversensitive or exagerating- remains to be seen. It will cause trouble if he was treated agressively as he would deserve to win for that, because the subtlety will be lost and TESCO will look like they’ve been awarded damages for making a Muslim move alcohol.
For centuries, it was just hazards like this that kept devout Muslims (or Moslems or Mahometans, as they used to be called) from emigrating to western lands. Cultural conflicts were avoided. Things were relatively peaceful. Then things changed.
Now who was it that did the changing?