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.

niqabginnahmuhammad.jpgnabihayadginnahmuhammad.jpg

Ginnah Muhammad in her Niqab, w/ Terrorist Lawyer Nabih Ayad

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:
ginnahmuhammadfaceexposed.jpg

Ginnah Muhammad Minus the Full Ninja

Alex writes:

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.

AMEN, brother!

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




10 Responses

I love a judge with commonsense-that is so rare nowdays.

mindy1 on April 30, 2008 at 11:36 am

Is that really a woman? Spooky…………

dannygirl on April 30, 2008 at 11:54 am

and here comes the ACLU screaming this poor defenseless follower of a terrorist cult had her rights violated.

savage supporter on April 30, 2008 at 11:57 am

IIRC, many states adopted laws outlawing veiling one’s face in public as an anti-Klan measure. Klan marchers were subject to arrest if their faces were covered. The elimination of the veil’s anonymity reduced the Klan’s intimidation factor. There may be case law on this applicable to the current situation.
chsw (not a lawyer)

chsw on April 30, 2008 at 12:15 pm

chsw makes an excellent point…and it would be suitable irony to use anti-Klan laws against the cult of murder.
On a different note, if I looked like she did, I’d want to keep my face covered, too!

Sharps Rifle on April 30, 2008 at 1:16 pm

My question is, how can they be sure this b***h in the ninja getup is really the person on trial? And who is the woman in the first picture, I’m assuming its just a reference picture because it certainly isn’t the same woman in the other two pictures.

wolf2012 on April 30, 2008 at 1:49 pm

She was obviously beaten to within an inch of her life with an Ugly Stick. For the sake of all that is beautiful in this life, keep your face covered, woman!

Yiddish Steel on April 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Hey, Ginnah! If you can’t stand the way things are in America, then get the Hell out. We need another idiot liberal (I know, actually a Muslim fundamentalist, but essentially the same as the liberals who want everyone to live their lives the way they prescribe for them) in this country like we need the proverbial hole in the head.
Gotta agree with Y.S., above — Whew! Another way to put it: Fell out of the Ugly Tree and hit every damn branch on the way down.

theendisnear on April 30, 2008 at 6:59 pm

show the judge the photo with out here nija out fit her actions are noting more than islams atempt to force sharia on the kufer

nomoreoiljizha on June 20, 2008 at 6:42 pm

“Paruk correctly ruled that he would have no way of judging the honesty of Muhammad’s testimony”

If she happened to have High Functioning Autism or Asperger’s Syndrome, he would have trouble judging her honesty through her facial expressions way anyway. Such a primitive and easily misinterpretable way of judging someone should have no place in an intelligent, modern US court.

Tim on July 30, 2009 at 1:20 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field