Federal Judge Rules Against Woman who Refused to Remove Hijab in Court.....
May 13, 2008
Islamophobe of the day.....
Balch Springs, Texas — A U.S. Federal Judge heard and dismissed a case on Monday involving a Muslim Detroit woman who claims that being forced to remove her veil in court caused her to lose her case.
In October 2006, 44-year old Ginnnah Muhammad donned a niqab — a traditional veil and scarf that covers the entire head and most of the face — during her hearing in which she was disputing a $3,000 fee from Enterprise Rent-A-Car to repair a vehicle which Muhammad claims burglars had broken into. According to the Associated Press, Judge Paul Paruk “told her he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave her a choice: Take off the veil or have the case dismissed.”
As per MLive.com,Margaret Nelson, Assistant state attorney general, represented Paruk and argued that “he needed to ‘fully observe’ Muhammad in order to properly determine the facts. ‘It was a temporary, necessary, limited action (that had) only incidental impact on the practice of her religion,’ Nelson said.”
Muhammad owns a skin-care product business, and told MLive.com that she loves America for the ability to openly practice religion, however, he urges the need to understand the accommodations for all parties involved. In the rules of Islam, Muhammad would have, in fact, removed her veil at the request of a female judge. For Tuesday’s hearing, Muhammad removed her niqab at security check-in as she was searched in a closed room by a female security guard upon entering federal court.
Posted at 05:00 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Federal Judge Rules Against Woman who Refused to Remove Hijab in Court.....:
"For Tuesday’s hearing, Muhammad removed her niqab at security check-in as she was searched in a closed room by a female security guard upon entering federal court."
What if no female security guard was on duty?
Posted by: Elric66 | May 13, 2008 at 05:31 PM
Good to see a judge exercise correct jurisprudence in this matter.
Posted by: atheling | May 13, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Everyone saw the pictures of her without her veil, didn't they? She was in the presence of men without it - but can't go to Court without it. I so wanted those pictures to be used as evidence showing she was lying about her veil. Wonder if the photos were used. What's it called when you lie under oath? Perjury, I think...
Good for the Judge!
Oh yeah, she was trying to establish a precedent by having the judge rule in her favor on this issue. This is the same tactic as the flying imams - testing the waters.
Posted by: atheling | May 13, 2008 at 09:48 PM
Please report any
broken links to
Copyright © 1988-2012 irfi.org. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer