Federal Judge Dismisses Whiny Muslimah’s Claim Against Illinois Court Judge
Sanity regains a slight toehold in the courts:
Federal judge dismisses lawsuit by Muslim woman asked to remove veil in court
Mike Rosen-Molina - Tuesday, May 13, 2008
[JURIST] A federal judge Monday dismissed a federal lawsuit filed by a Muslim woman against a judge who asked her to remove her niqab in court. Ginnnah Muhammad had alleged that Illinois small claims Judge Paul Paruk [31st District Court website] said he had to see her face to gauge her veracity and threatened to dismiss her case if she refused to remove her veil. Muhammad argued that the request violated her First Amendment right to practice her religion as well as the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying her access to the courts because of her religion. AP has more.
The niqab has become a controversial topic in several Western countries recently, as lawmakers struggle to balance an individual’s right to practice their religion with public policy and security concerns. In September 2007, Canadian chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand resisted calls by Canadian lawmakers to invoke his discretionary powers to require women to remove traditional Muslim niqabs or burqas when voting in elections in the province of Quebec. In the UK, the High Court in February 2007 upheld , a school ban on students wearing niqabs in class, saying the veils could interfere with student-teacher interaction.
13 May, 2008 at 6:21 pm
It is always nice to see common sense triumph over litigation jihad.
14 May, 2008 at 7:49 am
I like to watch a person’s body language and facial expressions when they talk. It helps me decide whether or not I feel they are being truthful. Therefore it is logical that the jugde would want the same advantage. I read the following comment about the case and thought you might enjoy it:
I would have allowed the woman to wear her niqab. And then I would have told her to go get her nearest male relative to testify for her. Failing that she could testify for herself but if she’d rented the car from a man, her testimony would not stand up against his. Because the same (Wahhabist-Sharia) customs that call for the niqab as almost mandatory also specify:
The witness must be deemed sane, the age of an adult, and a Muslim. Non-Muslims may not testify in criminal court. Women may not testify unless it is a personal matter that did not occur in the sight of men. The testimony of a woman is not regarded as fact but as presumption. The reasons women are forbidden to testify in proceedings are (quote):[13][14]
Women are much more emotional than men and will, as a result of their emotions, distort their testimony.
Women do not participate in public life, so they will not be capable of understanding what they observe.
Women are dominated completely by men, who by the grace of God are deemed superior; therefore, women will give testimony according to what the last man told them.
Women are forgetful, and their testimony cannot be considered reliable.
———————————————-
So. Out of respect for the customs of Islam, I’m going to have to be disinclined to believe any group of female muslim artists and scholars who try to convince me of the freedom, respect, and power they are afforded in their religion. (while totally disregarding the role of the COUNTRY in which they practice it.)