Range Owner Sued for Refusing Muslims

Gavel in Court

Filed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also under Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination laws. Personally, I don’t think incidents like this reflects well on the shooting community. I think there are debates to be had over the definition off public accommodation, and whether current civil rights law successfully balances property rights and a right to free association with a functional, pluralistic society. There are fair points own both sides, but that’s not the issue I’m speaking about here.

I don’t defend radical jihadists. If you follow an interpretation of Islam that believes in spreading the faith through conquest, beheading unbelievers, razing villages and raping women, I don’t have any issue labeling you a barbarian and treating you as such. All the abrahamic religions are violent and barbaric if you want to dig through and find passages in the scriptures that support that kind of thing.

But if you follow a mellow interpretation of the faith, as the Kurds do, and as a lot of other muslims around the world do, I don’t have a problem with you. I’m not willing to paint every Muslim with the same broad brush any more than I would make Christians own Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, or gun owners own mass shooters. I care more about what you do, rather than what you profess to believe. If a couple of guys come onto a shooting range and start shouting “Death to America” as they shoot, I wouldn’t blame any range owner for booting them and tipping off the FBI.

I think people are right to be concerned about the spread in popularity if violent, fundamentalist interpretations of Islam. I don’t think that makes one bigoted. But to me, you take people as they come, as individuals first, and members of whatever group you may or may not like second.

49 thoughts on “Range Owner Sued for Refusing Muslims”

  1. It’s worth mentioning Raja’ee Fatihah is a board member of CAIR-OK. Also, The gun range owners claim he was “belligerent”, which is not possible to verify without video, nor are his comments that the range owners “put their hands on their guns” when he announced his faith.

    Without commenting on the wisdom of the “Muslim-free” signs, it seems Mr. Fatihah was looking to confront the owners over their sign.

    1. A board member of CAIR-OK? Golly why am I not surprised after reading that rather bizarre account by Fatihah. That whole story reeks of self-serving victimization and too coincidental circumstances.

      He regularly practices target shooting, yet in his small burg he just happens to stumble into this particular and controversial shooting range? And just happens to announce(!) his faith while signing up to shoot? Sure sure he did. Guess his lawsuit and PR flacking wouldn’t sound so great to the public if it turned out he went looking for trouble.

      Fatihah clearly has a legitimate legal case. But his subterfuge reeks of an illegitimate cause.

      1. He just “happened” to drive over an hour south of his native Tulsa to go shoot, yes. Agree that he *may* have a legal case, but this is one of those “thoughtcrime” civil suits, if you ask me.

        1. Agree that he *may* have a legal case, but this is one of those “thoughtcrime” civil suits, if you ask me.

          Kinda like a gay couple driving out of their way to attempt to patronize the one bakery known to be run by committed Christians?

          Anyone looking for a fight — or for a reason to be outraged — will almost certainly find one.

    2. This is always the tactic employed. In the 90s, Ambulance chasing lawyers used handicapped folks to go to businesses, find their accommodations to be in violation of the law, and then sue them. Same thing with that lesbian couple that went looking for a baker that would refuse them on the basis of their sexual orientation. Fatihah probably tried quite a few ranges first.

  2. Personally, I don’t think incidents like this reflects well on the shooting community.

    Kind of an understatement, dontcha think?

  3. Ha! When I read this, I thought, “I bet the owner asked him if he was going to go ‘all jihadi or something'”

    Turns out that is exactly what he did. What a moron. Who wouldn’t be “belligerent”

    1. “Most civil rights cases are set ups.”

      The first gun related case I took to court (actually a “preemption” case involving hunting)in 1964 wasn’t; I walked into the situation and got arrested. The second case, in 1995, involving the issuance of carry permits, was a setup. I went to the sheriff’s office knowing I did not intend to obey his stated requirements, and what I intended to do after my rights were denied.

      I am proud of both cases, but much prouder of the 1995 setup.

      Incidentally, one source reports that Fatihah is a U.S. Army reservist and investigator for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. What should we think about that with regard to his membership in CAIR?

  4. “All the abrahamic religions are violent and barbaric if you want to dig through and find passages in the scriptures that support that kind of thing.”

    This is something that only atheists and people who haven’t read the Bible believe. While Christians will read the old testament for historical context (which has some pretty horrific anecdotes in it) we follow the faith described in the New Testament as that is our covenant. Nothing in there that orders us to be violent to others or dominate others (there’s a single rather odd line about not suffering witches/wizards to live, depending upon translation, but it doesn’t actually identify who this would be)

      1. Perhaps, but what does that have to do with the scriptures they believe in?

        1. Exactly. People have killed each other over their choice of financial system, the street gang they belong to, etc. There’s probably NOTHING we won’t kill each other over in the right situation with the right people. But the bottom line is that killing anyone other than in self defense is not SUPPORTED by the scriptures, and in fact is strictly condemned. Christians are required to be the peace makers, turn the other cheek, walk two miles instead of just one, etc., in order to avoid violence.

          Christianity truly is a religion of peace, and those who practice violence in its name are the heretics. Judaism (via the old testament) has a history of violence but nothing that commands them to do violence today (that I know of). Islam openly supports violence in it’s holy books and as a core value, and you can read the Koran for proof. It’s really that simple.

    1. “This is something that only atheists and people who haven’t read the Bible believe. While Christians will read the old testament for historical context…”

      Aren’t you being a tad presumptuous stating what “Christians” do or don’t do? Aren’t there Fundamentalists of significant number who believe we have to cleave to every word of both testaments? For example, what would Christian Reconstructionists say about your cavalier attitude toward the old testament? Are they not counted as Christians?

      1. I’m not talking about what Christians do or don’t do or have done in the past, I’m talking about what is actually in the Bible. It’s a book anyone can read, is well translated, and very clearly commands Christians to be non-violent peace makers. There is no commandment within to persecute or attack anyone.

        The Old Testament is important and everything and there’s nothing wrong with it, but likewise it doesn’t order us to do anything moving forward. It has histories of sacked cities and crushing this community or whatever, but it is a story about what happened and not a book on what we need to do. There are laws and rules there, of course, but all are specifically overruled by the New Testament.

        The New Testament is specific commandments to Christians, and it commands us to love one another, not wage war, be peacemakers, etc. Those are the words of an actual text, not an opinion.

        The Koran, while having some flowery and appealing verses also has some very violent ones. That is also fact, not opinion.

        1. There’s really not much point in arguing it with them. They’ve had 15 years of hard experience to wisen them up, and at the end of the day they are terrified of the answer.

          When someone is terrified of the truth, they will tell themselves any lie to avoid it. It’s even easier when the monster provides the lie for you.

          1. You are in favor of “self-defense”, yes? Because that is precisely what the whole verse you didn’t quote is about.

          2. What SDN said. Also no one has brought up the bit about turning the other cheek.

          3. I am familiar with the story of Ananias and Sapphira. According to Scripture, both were struck dead by God himself.

            Now, God is free to strike people dead, for whatever reason he wants. Just as I am free to say to whomever I want, “May God strike you dead.” And God is free to listen to (or, more likely, to ignore) my statement.

            But that incident doesn’t give me any authority, whether legal or religious, to go around striking people dead.

            Indeed, I have read the New Testament myself, several times, and while I cannot rule out the possibility that I overlooked a passage, I do not recall any passage in the New Testament where people are specifically commanded to go and kill in the name of Jesus.

            Having said that, I can think of at least one where Jesus warns his disciples that people are going to kill them and say they are doing God a service…

  5. If you follow an interpretation of Islam that believes in spreading the faith through conquest, beheading unbelievers, razing villages and raping women,

    That’s the only interpretation. There are Muslims who are trying to kill you for no good reason, and Muslims who aren’t trying to kill you for no good reason yet.

    1. If that’s the only interpretation, why have the Kurds, for the most part, been defensive in posture. Jordan, a muslim country, has largely made peace with the unbelievers. I get what the texts say, but the old testament says a lot too that most everyone today ignores.

      1. That’s the “Yet.” Episcopalians have “made peace” with homosexuality, but that doesn’t make the Bible any less against it.

          1. Making general statements about Episcopalians is a safe practice, given that there are established provinces and diocese. It’s not like I’m talking about what “evangelicals” believe. Episcopalians have an established doctrine and organizational regularity.

            Stop beclowning yourself. If you aren’t down with all teh gheys and are vocal about it, you get excommunicated by the Episcopalians. That makes it safe to say.

      2. The issue is that Islam, as an ideology, is designed and intended to support the worst instincts/desires of men: To rape, to pillage, to steal, to oppress, and to conquer. It came about less as a system as a formula for establishing a peaceful and just society, and more as a means of justifying and supporting the violent totalitarian urges of one man: Mohammed.

        Another thing to keep in mind about the three Abrahamic religions is that two of them have had major periods of reform: Judaism beginning after the destruction of the second temple, Christianity beginning when Martin Luther nailed up his list of grievances.

        By contrast, Islam has yet to have a successful worldwide reform: Moderating forces have tried numerous times, but the reaction is generally the violent suppression of the movement from other, more traditional Islamic sects.

        Until Islam has a major theology-wide cultural reform, it will never cease to be a force fighting against modern society as a whole.

        1. I agree, and what I’m saying is there are people out there, a lot of people, who don’t take it all that seriously. My grandfather, for instance, was not a big church going man, but he identified strongly as Christian. There are a lot of muslims out there who are the same.

              1. The Nazis were never charming. They were always street thugs, just like their Communist counterparts (who the Nazis despised, not because of philosophical differences, so much as because they were fierce competitors selling the same snake-oil).

                  1. I stand corrected on the charming part.

                    I was just going to say that while Nazis, et al may *seem* charming, their core philosophy is one of naked power-grabbing at all costs…while individual Christians may be power-grabbing thugs, they do so in violation of their core philosophy.

                    Then I realized that I misunderstood the thread. Yes, the philosophy behind the Muslim religion has a certain domination to it, to make the “charm” be a very frightening thing indeed.

                    Having said that, something else occurred to me. As ISIS has demonstrated, they will go after charming Muslims who don’t want to take the Caliphate seriously just as hard as they would any Christian, Jew or other type of infidel…

      3. “Largely” is the key word here.

        Oh, and let me know which country has a government 100% based on the Old or New Testaments the way multiple governments are based on Sharia.

    2. “That’s the only interpretation.”

      That’s what you said about Christianity, too. I don’t want to offend anyone here by citing specifically what some people who identify themselves as Christians say, that contradicts your assertion, but those people I’m confident identify themselves as being better Christians than you.

      You are clearly saying there is only one interpretation of Christianity, and it happens to be yours. I seem to recall Oliver Cromwell (aka “God’s Executioner”) saying the same thing. If you can’t see the perfect analogy to, say, Sunnis and Shiites, I really don’t think much more can be said.

      1. How about you cite some specific examples of believers being encouraged to commit violence from the New Testament? We can discuss them each and compare to the multitude of open-ended commands to kill and oppress in the Koran.

  6. Well, I’m not sympathetic to the range owner in this case, and I’m not a fan of CAIR which has some very suspicious links to terrorism sympathizers.

    So this may be a pox on both their houses situation.

  7. Statement from the range’s lawyers

    Let’s set the record straight on what happened at this Oklahoma gun range. The Islamist (he was admittedly a sharia-adherent Muslim) who wanted to shoot at the range entered the shop with an AK-47 over his shoulder, magazine inserted. The range is an outdoor range and it was pouring rain that day—no one in their right mind (at least no one without a nefarious agenda) would even consider shooting on a day like this. Indeed, the Islamist was the only one at the range that day (and there was an indoor range available to him in Tulsa if he was truly interested in only shooting). These undisputed facts alone raise enough suspicion to kick this guy out of the shop. But there was more. While no one at the range ever asked this Islamist what his religion was, he became confrontational with the owners of the shop over his religion and his adherence to sharia, further raising the owners’ concerns about this man’s motives and intent. In fact, the owners seriously feared for their personal safety. Consequently, they asked him to fill out a form and then told him that they would get back with him regarding whether he could fire at the range. The owners then promptly (and rightfully so) did a background check on this guy and found out that he was a board member of CAIR—an organization with strong ties to terrorism—confirming the owners’ suspicions. We should reward such vigilance. Indeed, it is the only way we will keep our society safe from jihadists. Had others been as vigilant with Army Major Nidal Hasan or the San Bernardino shooters, we may very well have averted those tragedies. The owners of this shop should be congratulated for resisting political correctness and doing what was right under the circumstances.

      1. They need to keep the lawyers they have. This is a SJW attack, and rule #1 is NEVER APOLOGIZE. You don’t adopt their language or assumptions — you double down on your original assertion.

        Get a copy of “SJWs Always Lie”, read it, and keep re-reading it until you grok it.

    1. If this guy had gone on to shoot up a Gun Free Zone, and it was learned that he’d done his practice shooting at that range, what would the SJWs have done then ? Hmmmm?

  8. According to liberals, anyone engaged in business is obligated to serve all customers, yet at the same time, gun dealers are chastised for selling guns to “just anyone”.

    1. And of course Twitter and Facebook can ban people whose thoughts they don’t like.

Comments are closed.