Although she has an extensive record of supporting radical Islamist groups, Ahmad was recognized by the Obama White House as a leading “Muslim female in the United States,” according to a release from her University. She is a frequent Ramadan dinner attendee at the White House.
What is behind her bogus claim of “Islamophobic” victimhood begins to come clear in this context. “‘Diet Coke’ Muslim Discrimination Passenger Has Ties to Radical Imams,” by Jordan Schachtel, Breitbart, June 1, 2015:
A Muslim woman who claimed over the weekend–in a social media post that has since gone viral–that United Airlines discriminated against her because of her faith, has a history rife with deep connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Imams.
31-year-old Tahera Ahmad, who serves as the Muslim chaplain at Northwestern University, claimed over the weekend that she was discriminated against because a United Airlines flight attendant allegedly refused to give her a full can of unopened Diet Coke. When asked for an explanation as to why she had been refused her unopened Diet Coke, the flight attendant allegedly told her that the Coke can could be used as a “weapon on the plane,” Ahmad stated in a Facebook post. After she complained, a passenger told her, “You Moslem you need to shut the f—k up,” according to Ahmad’s recounting of what happened on board. Ahmad’s Facebook page was taken down this afternoon.
Islamic supremacist groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) have condemned United, telling Al Jazeera that they have taken an interest in filing a lawsuit on behalf of Ahmad.
Ahmad’s claims of discrimination have not been corroborated by any passengers, and United Airlines rejects that any wrongdoing or acts of discrimination occurred.
Tahera Ahmad: ‘This isn’t about me and a soda can, it’s about systemic injustice’
Of course it is. The filthy kafirs are unjust. Once they live under sharia they will learn what real justice is, right?
She plans to continue using the momentum of her story to elevate the conversation. … More momentum and conversation-elevation at The Guardian thanks to Mullah, pbuh
That Unopened Can Of Coke, That Muslimah On The Plane Looking For Trouble, by Hugh Fitzgerald
The whole story of the supposed “mistreatment of a Muslim” over the refusal of an airline employee to provide an unopened can of coke was absurd — but not too absurd for that organ of Qatari propaganda, Al Jazeera, to make a big story out of it, and for Muslims all over to express whipped-up outrage and fury and the determination to boycott United unless it cravenly owns up to this or to that, starting with an apology, the more craven the better, so as to feed the narrative of mistreatment of Muslims. .
What happened is this: a Muslimah, hijabbed, aggressive and with a long record connecting her to the most obviously unsavory characters, including the Muslim Brotherhood, was given — like tens of millions of passengers every year — a can of coke which had been already had its little metal tab pulled off, before being given to a passenger, by a member of the airline’s crew. One of the sounds one can easily summon up is that of the stewardess coming slowly down the aisle — when, oh when will she reach me? — and you can hear the trays being passed out, and the sound of the tabs coming off, one by one, for those who ask not for water or wine but for the tertium quid, beyond either con- or trans- substantiation, of coca-cola or something similar. It’s obvious why that Opening of the Can is official policy, followed all the time, tens of thousands of times a day, by all airlines. A pulled-off tab can be used as a weapon, might even be used to cut someone’s throat. And a full unopened can of coke is heavier, doesn’t lose its fluid, could be used to hit someone with — it is indeed plausible to think of it, in the right hands, as a weapon. The hijabbed complainer whines that when she asked for an “unopened can” for “hygienic reasons” (what does that mean? that the stewardess was, as a non-Muslim, disgustingly unclean, najis? Let’s talk about the Muslim view of Infidels a bit more in the context of this case, shall we?). she was told it was against the rules because — she quotes — “you can use it as a weapon.” She claims that the “you” was directed at her, specifically, as a Muslim. But even if she has quoted correctly, and not made it up, the use of the word “you” does not mean “you” but, colloquially, and all the time, “one,” “anyone.” Examples of this are: “You could lose your shirt if you invest in penny stocks.” “You won’t go wrong if you try that restaurant.” “You have to watch out for deer crossing the road.” And so on. Ms. Ahmed, looking for trouble and making it, perhaps simply does not comprehend English. The phrase — even if it was used, which is not at all clear — “you could use it [the can of unopened coke] as a weapon” means “an unopened can of coke can be used as a weapon.”
The immediate organizing by Muslims of a campaign of whipped-up fury and cries of a boycott leave one only with one impression”: this is one more example of a sustained campaign, by Muslims in the United States and all over the advanced West, to make it seem that they are being vctimized, and to weaken the legitimacy of the perfectly reasonable surveillance of Muslims in this country. The observable behavior, and attitudes, of Muslims all over the West, and in Muslim lands, too, toward the remaining non-Muslims who may still have to endure life in such places, has generated justified suspicion and hostility. If, in addition to that observable behavior, one were to add a knowledge of the history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of many different non-Muslim peoples in the lands conquered, one’s suspicion, hostility, and alarm would be even greater. And if in addition to a knowledge of that observable behavior, and that historical record, one were to add a knowledge of what is containted in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, one’s alarm, suspicion, and permanent hostility toward the adherents of Islam would grow and grow.
I don’t think it should be left at that. I think the airline should sue Ms. Ahmad, for whipping up, quite baselessly, hostility toward the airline, and attempting to cause it economic damage for simply enforcing the rules (as for the supposed comment, made by a passenger, that she should, as a Muslim, “shut the fuck up” –the evidence for that having occurred is only Ms. Ahmad herself, and in any case, did it happen, has nothing to do with the airline’s policies nor is the airline responsible in any way) put in place for the safety of passengers. She should be made an example, so that this kind of thing is not attempted by other Muslims, trying to manufacture an incident. If the airline, on behalf of itself and all the other airlines being similarly besieged, won’t sue, then perhaps at the very least this dangerous lady can be put on a No-Fly List by the government. That will not end, but will decrease the frequency, of such incidents. And we can all breathe a sigh of grim relief.