CAIR’s lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, alleges that Meta violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.

It states in part:

“Meta discriminated against Plaintiff based on his religious identity as a Muslim by forcing him to choose between expressing his sincerely held religious belief and maintaining his employment. Meta silenced Plaintiff’s expressions of religious solidarity with the Muslim community during the ongoing genocide in Gaza—a subject central to Plaintiff’s faith—while permitting similarly situated non-Muslim employees to speak freely about other humanitarian and political crises.”

The lawsuit seeks an injunction prohibiting further religious discrimination by Meta, removal of negative references from the plaintiff’s personnel record, annual religious sensitivity training for Meta management, and compensatory and punitive damages.

Read CAIR’s lawsuit HERE.

Backgrounder:

Mohammed Feras Majeed, who is of Indian origin, was hired at Meta in 2018. As a Muslim, he felt it was part of his religious duty to speak up about Palestine within the workplace and on his social media pages. Within workplace chat platforms, Majeed had seen discussions of political topics such as Ukraine and the Black Lives Matter movement, along with sympathy for the Israeli victims after October 7, 2023.

However, when Majeed attempted to discuss Palestine and his prayers for Muslims impacted by Israel’s genocide, he suffered adverse employment action in response, including formal reprimands, content removal, verbal warnings, and threats of further discipline, all stemming from his religiously motivated expression.

Source: CAIR

King Charles has met with Muslim and Jewish faith leaders at Buckingham Palace on February 11, following their signing of historic reconciliation accords at Spencer House, London.

The Muslim-Jewish Reconciliation Accords, also known as The Drumlanrig Accord, establish a framework for reconciliation, understanding, and solidarity between the two faiths.

The faith leaders presented the Accords to the King during the meeting.

The group discussed their collaborative efforts and explained the Accords’ ambition to transform relationships between Jewish and Muslim communities.

In January 2025, Muslim and Jewish religious and civic leaders gathered at Drumlanrig Castle in Scotland for crucial discussions on interfaith relations.

The event, convened by Chief Imam Dr. Sayed Razawi, brought together representatives from eleven denominations of Judaism and Islam.

The discussions focused on the future of Jewish-Muslim relations, particularly in light of global tensions and their impact on community relationships.

Lord Khan of Burnley, the UK Faith Minister, attended as an observer alongside representatives from the UK and Scottish Governments and the European Commission.

The First Minister of Scotland also addressed the gathering on its final evening.

The historic meeting at Drumlanrig Castle, hosted by The Duke of Buccleuch, laid the groundwork for the Accords’ development.

The Accords, aim to establish lasting frameworks for collaboration between Jewish and Muslim communities.

The agreement is structured around four foundational principles of reconciliation.

It includes five mutual commitments made between the communities and outlines five practical ways to translate these principles into action.

The Accords are designed to help both communities navigate challenges together.

A key focus of the agreement is fostering mutual respect and solidarity between Jewish and Muslim communities.

The framework aims to ensure both faiths can work together effectively while maintaining their distinct identities.

Source: GB News

Opinion by Zara Mohammed

The reverberations of the Israel-Gaza conflict have been felt acutely by British Muslims in the year since the attacks of 7 October. As I travel across our communities, I’ve witnessed first-hand how the conflict has challenged once again our sense of security and our place within British society.

The human cost is staggering. I’ve spoken with British Palestinians who have lost dozens of family members in Gaza. Parents call me, distraught after their children have been arrested for their pro-Palestinian advocacy. University students fear deportation for criticizing Israel.

The calls for peace and justice for Palestinians echo far beyond the Muslim community. People of all faiths and none have taken to the streets in diverse, impassioned marches. With each passing day, as the civilian death toll in Gaza and beyond mounts, the case against Israel for having committed war crimes grows stronger. This is not a Muslim issue; it’s a human rights issue that concerns us all.

Yet British Muslims find themselves caught up in this, thrown into “culture wars” not of their choosing. While we stand in solidarity with those facing mortal suffering, we are confronted by an alarming surge in Islamophobia. The conflict has been cynically manipulated to stoke hatred against Muslims, orchestrated not only by far-right elements, but also by those who deploy harmful tropes to silence peaceful advocacy for Palestine.

The racist riots we witnessed in England in the summer were, in part, a reflection of this – fueled by false narratives of “two-tier policing”. Just this summer, we saw leading politicians make calls to ban the sacred Muslim affirmation “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) and declare that “Not all cultures are equally valid” when talking of recent immigrants who apparently “hate” Israel. Muslim politicians face accusations of being controlled by Islamists or pursuing “sectarian” agendas.

In workplaces across the country, Muslims struggle to process the horrors they are witnessing while navigating difficult conversations with colleagues. Even longstanding inter-faith relationships have been strained. While many Jewish and Muslim colleagues have reached out to support one another, the polarization has taken its toll. There has been a concerted effort to frame this as a Muslim-Jewish issue, disregarding the millions of others who oppose the violence on humanitarian grounds.

Communities have turned to us for guidance on how to help, how to challenge harmful narratives, and how to maintain hope as the violence continues. Mosques, seeking to provide spiritual solace, have faced vandalism and attacks. Schools grapple with students wearing Palestinian badges, leaving many young people confused and conflicted.

The physical manifestations of hate are impossible to ignore. I myself experienced a hate crime on the London Underground, where someone shouted at me: “You lot are all taking over.”

Yet despite these challenges, there is hope. We can build common bonds that would bypass the urge to “choose sides”, while adhering to our deeply held view that the unfolding genocide in Palestine must stop.

Source: The Guardian

Alexander Van der Bellen, the left-wing former Green Party leader who narrowly beat a far-right candidate to take office in January, said freedom of expression was a fundamental right.

“It is every woman’s right to always dress how she wants, that is my opinion on the matter,” he told an audience of school pupils. “And it is not only Muslim women, all women can wear a headscarf, and if this real and rampant Islamophobia continues, there will come a day where we must ask all women to wear a headscarf – all – out of solidarity to those who do it for religious reasons.”

Mr Van der Bellen was responding to a question from a schoolgirl who argued a ban on Islamic headscarves or veils would reduce women to their appearance, rather than accomplishments, and shut some out of the labor market.

His comments were made in March but emerged after being broadcast on Austrian television, amid debate in the country and neighboring Germany about “burqa bans”. A spokesperson said that following Isis-linked terror attacks across Europe, Mr Van der Bellen would like to see Muslim representatives in Austria make “clearer statements” emphasizing that the atrocities could not be justified within Islam.

“He also warned against ‘racism from the other side’, giving the example of a Muslim taxi driver refusing to take Orthodox Jews,” a statement said, adding: “This is absolutely unacceptable.”

The President’s office said he believed prohibitions were only justified in select circumstances, such as for female judges, where religious dress could raise questions over their professional neutrality.

The populist Freedom Party of Austria has pushed for policies including a partial ban on full-face Islamic veils in courts, schools and other public places, which was announced in January. The partial prohibition, which has not yet come into effect, would apply to the niqab and burqa but not headscarves (hijabs), which cover the hair and neck only. But the government also agreed to prevent police officers, judges, magistrates and public prosecutors from wearing headscarves in the interest of appearing “ideologically and religiously neutral”.

Source: The Independent