‘Muslim only’ event at taxpayer-funded Texas waterpark gets major splash back: ‘Should we expect a Christians only day?’
A taxpayer-funded waterpark in Grand Prairie, Texas, is facing backlash over a "Muslims only" event scheduled for June, organized by a local Islamic group to celebrate Eid. After criticism over perceived discrimination, the event organizers clarified that it is a modest-dress-only gathering and updated promotional materials to state "all are welcome." The waterpark, Epic Waters, said it does not host the event but rents space to various groups, including faith-based organizations.
- ▪The DFW Epic Eid event was initially advertised as "Muslim only" but was later updated to emphasize "modest dress only" and inclusivity.
- ▪Epic Waters is a city-funded indoor waterpark in Grand Prairie, Texas, financed by a 0.25% sales tax approved by voters in 2014.
- ▪The event organizer, Aminah Knight, stated the goal is to provide a comfortable recreational space for those who value modesty, not to exclude non-Muslims.
- ▪The waterpark allows private rentals for various groups and does not control the guest policies of the events held there.
- ▪The event will include halal food, a private prayer room, and a dress code encouraging modest swimwear such as burkinis and swim trunks with shirts.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
US News ‘Muslim only’ event at taxpayer-funded Texas waterpark gets major splash back: ‘Should we expect a Christians only day?’ By Chris Nesi Published May 4, 2026, 2:45 p.m. ET A taxpayer-funded Texas waterpark is getting splash-back for a “Muslims only” event next month after a local Islamic group rented out the facility. A flier for the DFW Epic Eid event on June 1 noted three times that attendance was strictly for Muslims — and modest swimsuits are required. “Seems like a civil rights violation,” one outraged commenter said. “Should we expect a ‘Christians Only’ day?” another commenter asked.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at New York Post.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from New York Post
