April 30, 2008, - 10:43 am
The Judge vs. The Niqab: How Will Fed Judge Rule on Ginnah Muhammad? UPDATE: Muslim Woman Who Says She Must Wear Niqab Exposed Face to Public
By Debbie Schlussel
**** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE: Niqab Woman Exposed As a Fraud ****
Over the past couple of years, I’ve been following the Detroit-area case of Ginnah Muhammad, the Muslim woman who wears a niqab (the full Ninja female Muslim covering, with only eye-slots exposed). The full story is here and here.
Ms. Muhammad refuses to remove her gear in court, and therefore, Judge Paul Paruk–who presides over the largely Muslim Detroit suburb Hamtramck a/k/a “Hamtramckstan”–delivered a verdict against her in a small claims lawsuit. Paruk correctly ruled that he would have no way of judging the honesty of Muhammad’s testimony, since he could see no facial expressions whatsoever. She declined to testify without her complete covering.
Incidentally, the suit involves damage to a car Muhammad rented, which she claims was done to it by thieves, so her the level of honesty of her testimony is important.
Yesterday, Muhammad was represented in federal court by perennial terrorist lawyer Nabih Ayad, whose family is in Hezbollah and who openly supports the group. Through Ayad, Muhammad to U.S. District Judge John Feikens that she could have testified without her full-Ninja tablecloth disguise if she were allowed to do so before a female judge.
But this is America. We do not segregate our judges by gender. They are not assigned cases by gender. That may happen in Greater Barbaria, but not in the New World. Judge Paruk is the only judge presiding over Hamtramck’s district court legal affairs. It is unreasonable, and frankly, unconstitutional, to insist that certain matters–namely those involving full-Ninja-outfitted Muslim women–be heard only by female judges.
What’s next–Klansman insisting they wear their full hooded regalia and testify only in their white sartorial splendor or only be heard by fellow Klansman, if they must remove it? No, that’s not a stretch. If a Muslim woman suddenly has a right to choose either the gender of the judge she wants or to remain in non-Koran mandated extremist costume that she claims is religiously necessary, then why not the Klan?
Moreover, Muhammad claims she’s been allowed to be photographed for her Michigan driver’s license minus her niqab, by a female Michigan Secretary of State employee. But that negates the whoel reason to wear a niqab in the first place and refuse to remove it in court. Her picture, showing her face, is not only on her driver’s license for all–yes, all men, too–to see, but is accessible by plenty of male members of law enforcement when necessary to see it. And she has to show it to even enter the U.S. federal court building, where security is staffed by MALE members of the U.S. Marshal Service. If they can see a photo of her full face, then a judge can see it if she wants to testify in court.
Again, this is America. We must decide whether we will remain the United States of America, where immigrants are supposed to absorb into our culture. Or whether we are aiming at the new identity of the Islamic Caliphate of America, where we must change our centuries old traditions to bow down to Allah and his chosen ingrate newcomers.
So far, it’s been the latter. Judge Paul Paruk deserves special kudos for doing the right thing, upholding the integrity of his courtroom, and bucking the trend.
Here’s hoping the usually sensible Judge Feikens does the same. He can issue a written ruling either way, or issue no decision and let Judge Paruk’s decision stand.
Either way, the litigation jihad and the continued imposition of sharia on our legal system continues in full force. Thanks to our government and spineless politicians, we can only slow the progression, er . . . regression.
Some previous postings on this:
* Islam v. Judge Paruk: In Litigation Jihad, Frivolous Niqab Lawsuit Ignores Basic Law
* Judge Paruk vs. The Niqab
**** UPDATE: Reader Alex points out that Ginnah Muhammad, the niqab wearer who claims she’s worn the niqab since age ten and can’t expose her face is lying. While she’s suing in federal court, over a judge’s decision not to allow her to testify without her face showing, Alex found this photo of her with her face exposed in public (far more recently than when she was aged ten). Liar:
I thought you might want to put this on your article of Ginnah Muhammad, photographed in mixed, male and female, company clearly visible in the background. This waste of taxpayers’ money clogging up our court system is ridiculous.