Muslim Store Cites Hobby Lobby in Shoplifter Mutilation Case

800px-Portrait_of_Muslim_manOn Wednesday, the owner of a small chain of convenience stores was arrested in Peoria, Illinois after he chopped off the hand of a 16 year-old shoplifter who had attempted to steal a bag of potato chips and a 16 oz. soda. But due to the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision, that man was released from custody on Thursday, even after pleading guilty to the attack.

On July 2nd, Seif Majeed, 41, of Peoria caught a young, unidentified shoplifter, chained him to a pipe in a back room, and then severed his right hand with a meat cleaver. The boy was then set free, and passed out due to blood loss less than one block away. Passersby took the boy to a local hospital, who notified police of the assault.  Majeed was arrested at approximately 4:35 pm CST. Authorities say the shoplifter is in stable condition.

But on Thursday, a judge in Peoria ordered that Majeed be set free, and that all charges against him be dropped. Why?  Because Majeed, a Muslim immigrant from Saudi Arabia,  is the majority shareholder of the tiny Express Shop corporation, which has six stores in Illinois and one in Iowa.  And according to Majeed, his corporation is Muslim, as per the recent Supreme Court decision involving Hobby Lobby, which grants corporations 1st amendment religious freedoms.

“Sharia Law instructs Muslim businesses to take the right hand of a shoplifter,” explains Judge Anthony J. McCormick.  “Under normal circumstances, we would consider this a criminal act, but in the case of `Express Shop,’ a Muslim corporation, it would be a violation of their personhood rights to charge Mr. Majeed with a crime.”

“I don’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision, and I don’t condone Mr. Majeed’s actions, but the law is the law,” McCormick added. “Let this be a warning to shoplifters everywhere, that when you’re in an establishment with religious views, you’re beholden to their method of conducting business.”

The boy’s attorney, Allison Aldridge, feels her client lost more than a hand. “This really is a loss for the morality of America itself,” Aldridge told a local newspaper. “What’s to stop Express Shop stores from stoning female customers for wearing revealing clothing? Or to sew up the vaginas of female employees? And does this mean [Majeed] can throw Molotov cocktails through the windows of Jewish businesses, without legal repercussions?  I don’t think the Supreme Court thought this law through.”

What Next?

Related Articles

19 Responses to "Muslim Store Cites Hobby Lobby in Shoplifter Mutilation Case"

  1. Tavi says:

    What an idiot. Purchasing a sixteen ounce soda was indeed the evil part of this story. Had he kept it to the Bloomberg 8oz. one things could have turned out differently.

  2. Ben Dover says:

    I would have thought being a sixteen year old boy in Peoria is punishment enough.

  3. jim d says:

    So according to this new supreme court decision , if we apply bible law under the hebrew scriptures if tow men are fighting and by accident , and cause death to the baby being carried by a pregnant woman , the man should be put to death . We can the obviously apply this to abortion and I don’t believe the courts nor general population are ready to make that application.

    • Sean says:

      I don’t believe any recent Supreme Court decisions have ruled that we are to start applying “bible law”. Have they?

      • jim d says:

        No , but according to this ruling issued by this ill. court , the supreme court has ruled muslims have the right to personally enforce “Sharia law” based on the first ammendment. By equal application based on ones religious faith , christians and Jews could apply ancient hebrew law as written in the bible’s hebrew text.

        • Sean says:

          No. The Supreme Court has not ruled that muslims have the right to enforce Sharia Law. If you believe they have, please cite a case for us. You just sound ridiculous.

  4. Alana Forsyth says:

    There’s a world of difference between the circumstances in the Hobby Lobby case and the terrible act that man did. The Supreme Court did NOT give permission for Sharia law punishment to be meted out like that. The judge is delusional. This cannot be allowed to stand. It’s psychotic reasoning.

    • jim d says:

      clearly the judge is off base , that is why I offer the illustration of killing people associated with abortion based on the hobby lobby ruling. Nobody in their right mind would think seriously about it. The country is becoming quite slanted to the muslim faith and not in a good way.

    • Osama ben Hitler says:

      Well, religious freedom is a two sided blade(excuses my pun). When you allow religion to mix with the state and with aspects of daily life, you don’t only allow your religion, you allow all religions. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Shinto, Judaism, Satanism. All.

      So good job conservatives, you’re turning America in a bigger wasteland than the Nazis or the Taliban ever hoped to.

  5. EmmittBrownBTTF1 says:

    Just wait ’til Victoria Jackson gets a load of this.

  6. Robert says:

    THANK THE GODS for this decision, now I can sacrifice virgins all I want.

    • jim d says:

      after reading about supreme court justice Clarence Thomas’ involvement with Monsanto , their likely sponsorship for his appointment and the pro Monsanto decisions being handed down by the court , nothing suprises me.

  7. Louis Farrakhan says:


    This Muslim took Sharia Law into his OWN hands!
    He is NOT allowed to do that!
    Islam has methods as to WHO decides the outcome of Sharia Law!
    It just goes to show how IGNORANT KAFIRS & MUSLIMS in the West are!

  8. Louis Farrakhan says:

    While the cutting off a limb is not a prohibited punishment it requires specific conditions for it to be the ordered punishment. I believe only one or 2 nations use it as a punishment. Under some Madhabs, the theft of an item above a set value can be punished by having the Right Hand cut off.

    As there currently are no Nations under Sharia (2 claim to be) as Sharia is not being properly followed there is no Islamic Justification for doing so.

    If there was actual Sharia law theft is a Hadd crime and depending on the nature of the theft the punishment varies. Amputation of the right hand could be a punishment if certain conditions are met. It also depends on what Madhab of Sharia is being followed.

    But over all it comes down that the theft of certain items the punishment can be as severe as cutting off the Right Hand. the Hanafi Madhab gives a long list of things the theft off can not be punished in this manner. No one has ever committed a theft severe enough to call for the cutting off of the right Hand under the Hanafi Madhab.

    In today’s world with no Nation under Shariah there is no Islamic Justification for cutting off a hand for theft. That is a local punishment in 2 nations and might not be as prescribed in Islam.

    In order to meet the requirements for cutting off the hand the following conditions have to be met according to the scholars:

    The thing should have been taken by stealth; if it was not taken by stealth, then (the hand) should not be cut off, such as when property has been seized by force in front of other people, because in this case the owner of the property could have asked for help to stop the thief.

    1-The stolen property should be something of worth, because that which is of no worth has no sanctity, such as musical instruments, wine and pigs.

    2-The value of the stolen property should be above a certain limit, which is three Islamic dirhams or a quarter of an Islamic dinar, or their equivalent in other currencies.

    3-The stolen property should have been taken from a place where it had been put away, i.e., a place where people usually put their property, such as a cupboard, for example.

    4-The theft itself has to be proven, either by the testimony of two qualified witnesses or by the confession of the thief twice.

    5- The person from whom the property was stolen has to ask for it back; if he does not, then (the thief’s) hand does not have to be cut off.

    That appears to be the rulings for the Hanbali Madhab. The Hanafi Madhab is quite a bit more lenient in the conditions under which amputation would be forbidden for example the Value has to to be a minimum of one full Gold Dirham. the list of items not applicable to warranting amputation is quite long. As best as I can find no one has ever met the criteria for amputation under the Hanafi Madhab.

    A dirham was a rather large Gold Coin weighing about 1 ounce. It was a typical earning for a year.

    To be Sharia it has to be under the jurisprudence of one of the 4 Madhabs. No nation is doing that. Iran claims to follow the Jafa’ari Madhab of Shariah. but that is not a recognized Madhab by nearly 80% of the world’s Muslims. It is only followed by the Shi’ite and then only in Iran.

    Saudi claims to follow the Hanbali madhab, but they are a Monarchy and have established the laws of the kingdom.

    While Shariah is based upon the Qur’an it is not the Qur’an and Islamic Jurisprudence as Shariah did not develop for nearly 200 years after the Qur’an. Each of the 4 Madhabs is named after the founding Scholar. The Hanafi madhab is the oldest and with the most adherents.

    Using that as an example here is an outline of the Hanafi Madhab HERE The article is biased as the author is very pro-Hanafi and against the other 3 Madhabs. (Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi’i) but over all it gives an understanding of what Shariah actually is.

    The legal system is quite similar to US laws. Complete with witnesses, defense and prosecution lawyers etc. It actually is much more difficult to prove guilt in a shariah court than in a US court.

    Typically in the event of a guilty finding an actual Shariah court is to do their best to find reason to issue the lightest sentence permissible.

    Most Islamic Nations use Shariah for civil law and secular for criminal offenses.

    The Shariah that Muslims want in the UK and elsewhere relates to financial and family civil law regarding Islamic issues involving only Muslims. such as making it illegal for a Muslim owned bank to charge interest and recognition of the Shariah inheritance laws and recognition of the Islamic Marriage contract.

  9. Louis Farrakhan says:



    Thefts which, according to Abu Hanifah, ARE NOT punishable with the cutting off of the right hand

    (1)Theft of an article valued at less than an ashrafi [a gold coin]
    (2)A theft committed jointly by a number of persons.
    (3)Theft of a shroud.
    (4)A theft committed by a non-adult
    (5)Theft of a wife’s or of a husband’s goods.
    (6)Theft of the goods of a near relation, e.g., a nephew or a brother.
    (7)A theft committed by refusing to return a thing taken on loan
    (8)Thefts committed by followers of other religions living under Muslim protection.
    (9)Theft of a copy of the Qur’an.
    (10)Theft of wood or other perishable goods

    Divergent views held by the other Imams:
    (1)The other imams fix the minimum value at a quarter ashrafi [a gold coin]
    (2)Ahmad Hanbal thinks each of them is liable to have his hand cut off.
    (3)The other imams hold the opposite view.
    (4)Malik hold the opposite view.
    (5)Malik holds the opposite view.
    (6) The other imams hold the opposite view.
    (7) The other imams hold the opposite view.
    (8) The other imams hold the opposite view
    (9) Shafi’i and Malik hold the opposite view.
    (10) The imams hold the opposite view.

    • P Jo says:

      Agreed. Whoever thinks he can cut off anyone’s hand for stealing any and everything has apparently learned everything they did about “Islam” from Disney’s Aladdin and does not show true devotion to the study of these things. This person is obviously on a power trip and is using people’s ignorance to get away with sadistic behavior.

Leave a Reply

Submit Comment