March 29, 2007, - 7:45 am

Islam v. Judge Paruk: In Litigation Jihad, Frivolous Niqab Lawsuit Ignores Basic Law

The litigation jihad on behalf of sharia (Islamic law) continues.
Last year, I wrote about . Judge Paruk presided over a case in which the Plaintiff, Ginnah Muhammad, wears a niqab–a full Islamic face veil, in which only the eyes are visible.
Muhammad, a convert to Islam and a Black Muslim, was asked by Judge Paruk to remove her niqab in order to testify. She refused, and her case, therefore, resulted in a judgment against her. Judge Paruk stated that he needed to see to her face to determine the truthfulness of her testimony. Since Muhammad refused to remove the veil, she was not allowed to testify and lost her case.
Yesterday, a litigious Muslim attorney and Hezbollah supporter, (who frequently represents Islamic terrorists and illegal aliens), .

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

That a judge and jury be able to fully assess a witness’ testimony and gauge his/her truthfulness is a standard precept taught not just in law school, but in high school law classes. Niqabs have been used to hide all sorts of things. Fawzi Mustapha Assi, who smuggled weaponry to Hezbollah, escaped the U.S. wearing a niqab to cross the Detroit border to Canada.
In , Dawud Walid, belligerent Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), demanded that Paruk reverse his decision regarding her niqab. Judge Paruk declined.
In the original suit, Muhammad sued an auto rental company, claiming she was not responsible for a repair bill after the car was damaged in her possession. She claims thieves broke into the vehicle.
The car rental company is suing Muhammad for the unpaid bills, a case which was to be decided this month before Judge. Muhammad and Ayad are demanding that Paruk be recused from the case and that Muhammad be allowed to wear her niqab while delivering testimony.
But Ayad and Muhammad should not only be laughed out of federal court, they should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The Federal Abstention Doctrine is long accepted law that a federal court can offer no relief–monetary or otherwise (such as removing Judge Paruk or requiring him to allow Muhammad to wear the niqab during her testimony)–where the parties have not followed and exhausted all available relief and proper procedures in state courts.
Muhammad and her attorneys had 21 days to appeal Judge Paruk’s ruling in Hamtramck (or 7 days, if it was heard as a small claims case, which I believe it was), back in October. They did not do so. They also had an opportunity to file a motion before Judge Paruk to ask him to recuse himself. They did not do so. At this point, since it is well past the point for either such move, Muhammad and her attorney, Ayad, could have filed a motion before Judge Paruk for leave to appeal, a half year after her case was decided. They’ve not done that, either.
Since they did not do those things, their claim–on civil rights or any other grounds–should be dismissed as frivolous. And they should be forced to pay Rule 11 Sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for knowingly filing a frivolous lawsuit and deliberately flouting the proper procedures in place for pursuing this matter. It’s clear the only reason they filed this invalid suit is to embarrass Judge Paruk and intimidate other judges in Michigan and elsewhere into accepting the niqab as proper garb during testimony.
Will federal Judge John Feikens do the right thing and throw this case out? He is almost 90 and was first nominated to the federal bench by President Eisenhower. He headed the Michigan Republican Party in the early 1950s. The world was far different then. I hope he understands, today, why this absurd case was filed and why it should be immediately dismissed.
CAIR’s Dawud Walid, in his inappropriate letter to Judge Paruk, stressed that “the case has drawn international media attention,” and was upset that Judge Paruk didn’t cave.
In his , Judge Paruk wrote that:

Ultimately, however, my concern has to be, not with what Islamic law requires, but with the laws of the United States and Michigan. I would not permit any other witness to testify with a covered face. I cannot have one law for the community and another for Ms. Muhammad.

Judge Paruk’s position is courageous, not only because he stood up for the American judicial process versus Islamic law, but because he is an elected judge in a city that is fast becoming an Islamic one.
Hamtramck, a small city surrounded on all sides by Detroit, was once dominated by Polish immigrants and their descendants. Today, it is dominated by Muslims from Yemen, Bangladesh, and Slavic and Balkan states. It is the first city in the nation to openly sanction the loud Muslim call to prayer, broadcast as early as 5:00 a.m. and as late as after 10:00 p.m. A well known Catholic church recently had its last mass, and is being converted into a mosque. Press accounts have documented the mysterious burning down of a Hindu temple, and violent Islamic attacks on non-Muslim, Black males at Hamtramck Public Schools.
Muslims could band together to defeat Judge Paruk (as they did to save the call to prayer broadcast, which was voted on), and he knows that. Federal election monitors from the Justice Department Civil Rights division–which you pay for–prevent challengers from challenging Muslim immigrants (many of whom are registered to vote illegally) and checking whether they should be legitimately voting in elections.
With this frivolous lawsuit against Judge Paruk and the mounting pressure from Muslim extremists in the heart of Islamic America, Judge Paruk is truly courageous.
If only we had a few thousand like him to withstand the growing political pressure to cave in to sharia throughout our government.
Unfortunately, we do not. And that’s the most frightening thing about it.
Our future is bleak against the enemy within.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

63 Responses

ìThere is no turning the other cheak in Islam.î
Total, total, total, bollocks.
Actually, that is complete truth.
ìThe Nazis did not kill Jews and say, see here in Mark Chapter X Verses Y-Z, it says to kill Jews.î
Actually, yes they did.
Actaully, no they did not. The Nazis were not Christians. They burned Bibles. Christians don’t normally do that.
ìThe KKK did not lynch blacks and say, see here in Luke Chapter X Verses Y-Z, it says to kill Blacks.î
Actually, yes they did.
No, that was more like, “Hey Billybob, lets go hang us a negroe!” In any case, find a Christian today that does not condemn that. Context.
That depends upon what your definition of a bad act is.
Most of us know what a bad act is. What’s YOUR definition?
There are numerous Imams who AFFIRMATIVELY preach for them to do so.í
I agree, but what has this to do with Islam?
The imams are the guys teaching islam. Anything they preach has everything to do with islam. Try to keep up, will ya?
Oh grow up. It was Christians who invaded Iraq causing the deaths of 650,000 people and counting. Do Muslim armies have their troops on the streets of New York, London or Beijing?
Do you honestly not believe that if the muslim armies could have their troops on the streets of New York or London, they would? Of course you don’t. You’re European. And it’s that inability to see reality that will have you paying the jizya in a few short years.
Never having heard of this supposed ìBlame America First Crowdî so I couldnít possibly comment.
Google it. It’s there. And you’re it.
ìHitler became more aggressive due to Chamberlain. Communism and Jihadsim became more aggressive due to Carter.î
What??? Are you insane? Hitler had committed many of his atrocities years before 1937, and donít forget it was America who wanted to sue for peace with Germany in 1940. At that time Britain stood alone in opposing Hitler.
Blaming Carter for Jihadism (!) ñ I think Iíve heard some crackpot theories in my time, but this one takes the biscuit. It was the failure of the Islamists to make headway at the election box during the 1980ís that triggered radical Islam in the 1990ís. Long, long, after Jimmy was off the scene.
Go back and read that. Where did he say Hitler didn’t do anything bad before Chamberlain or Carter invented Jihad? He didn’t. You did the typical tactic of twisting the statement to mean something you can dispute. What he said was “became more aggressive”.
I already live in Europe you dumb shit.
How is anyone supposed to know that? You don’t know the color of my hair, does that make you a dumb shit? No. Calling someone a dumb shit for not knowing something like your residence makes you a dumb shit.
ìThe threat is obviously imminentÖî
What threat? What are you talking about?
Pay attention. He’s talking about Europe and liberal America’s perceived threat of Christianity. It was sarcasm. I thought you people were supposed to be good at that.

Stealthkix on March 30, 2007 at 2:54 pm

“Are you insane? Hitler had committed many of his atrocities years before 1937, and donít forget it was America who wanted to sue for peace with Germany in 1940. At that time Britain stood alone in opposing Hitler.”
Basic question:
More attrocities before 1937 or more attrocities after 1937?
How many millions were killed in the 8 years before Chamberlin and how after after were killed in the following 8 years?

JSobieski on March 30, 2007 at 9:08 pm

So does someone want to explain to me why my reply to this thread has been deleted?

The Purple Cow on March 31, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Apparently not. 😛

Stealthkix on April 2, 2007 at 9:23 am

Purple Cow:
If you think you can find something about “turning the other cheek” in the Koran, why don’t you cite it for us?
In the New Testament it can be found in Matthew 5:39. In the Koran it can’t be found because it isn’t there.

JSobieski on April 3, 2007 at 2:14 am

Well, as an atheist itís not really my job to defend any religion, but here goes anywayÖ
Your bible is arguably hypocritical about this turning the other cheek stuff.
Whilst Jesus, does indeed sayÖ
ìBut I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5-39).î the New Testament, we have passages which purport to teach quite the opposite. For instance;
ìThink not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34).î
And another passage says:
ìThen said he unto them. But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one (Luke 22:36).î
So on one hand Jesus allegedly says ëturn the other cheekí, and on the other he says, ëIíve come to planet Earth to wage warí and ëif you havenít got a sword, sell your clothes to buy oneí.
Old J.C. was a touch inconsistent, doncha think? Unless of course, ëturn the other cheekí means something else entirely.
Now in the Quran (22:40-42 ) we find thisÖ
ìPermission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged-and Allah indeed has power to help them-Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, “Our Lord is Allah”-And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty.Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.î
So in Islam permission to wage war is only given to those who are the victims of aggression, and wish to defend themselves.
Similarly by asking that people ìturn the other cheekî Jesus was not saying that people should allow themselves to be beaten or robbed, he was warning against the taking of revenge.
So once again we can see that there is little difference between Islam and Christianity.
Donít hesitate to ask for my help again young master Sobieski, any time you need help with your homework little boy, Iím your man.

The Purple Cow on April 3, 2007 at 3:46 am

Hey Purp,
Why are my quotes “out of context”, but yours aren’t?
Also, you conveniently forgot about 9:29.
And, what were Muslim armies doing “defending themselves” in France in 734 (no to mention all the other places they invaded).
The Qur’an makes it clear that anyone who doesn’t follow Islam is a enemy of Islam, which makes waging jihad against them not just allowable, but required.
We can argue about this later as we both while away our time getting burned and fed molten brass for eternity. Why do you defend a religion that hates your guts????

stevecanuck on April 3, 2007 at 9:51 am

“Why are my quotes “out of context”, but yours aren’t?”
Erm, that’s exactly the point I’m making.
“Also, you conveniently forgot about 9:29.”
9 29 what?
It’s 17:15 here.
“And, what were Muslim armies doing “defending themselves” in France in 734 (no to mention all the other places they invaded).”
Listen carefully Steve, I need you to concentrate. Christians built the gas chambers and used them to murder 6,000,000 Jews. This doesn’t make all Christians evil, or Christianity an evil religion. Ditto anything evil men do. Doing something evil in the name of religion doesn’t make the religion evil, it just means evil men sometimes do evil stuff.
“The Qur’an makes it clear that anyone who doesn’t follow Islam is a enemy of Islam, which makes waging jihad against them not just allowable, but required.”
This is exactly what I mean about out of context. You insist on quoting the forty ‘sword verses’, yet you studiously ignore other parts of the Quran that deliberatly contradict the sword verses. You are typical of your type, a non-thinking religious bigot. You and the Islamists are one and the same.
I read a scientific paper written by two Swedish psychiatrists that stated that Conservatism is actually a psychological condition, typified by a complete inability to carry out or understand nuanced thinking. The postings of you and your buddies on this website tend to back that theory up. You have an idiotic paradigm in your head, and you refuse to question it. So you carry on believing what everyone else knows to be a lie, the truth is of no interest to you.
“We can argue about this later as we both while away our time getting burned and fed molten brass for eternity. Why do you defend a religion that hates your guts????”
The only people who hate my guts are Christians. The only neighbours we have worthy of the name are Muslims, and the many Muslims in my Cricket club also resolutely refuse to hate me.
Islamists probably would hate me I agree, but they are no more representative of Islam than the KKK or the Nazis were of Christianity.
So while I do not defend Islam for the simple reason there is no such thing as god, I refuse to hate Muslims just because vile scum like you tell me I should.

The Purple Cow on April 3, 2007 at 11:40 am

Stevecanuck , I guess if people started to post quranic verses within context, it will kind of upset you, Its humorous, that when muslims tell you that they are not violent because of their religion you claim they are wrong and that they SHOULD BE violent because of it. As for verse 9.29
ìAnd fight against those who ñ despite having the Book (aforetime) ñ do not (truly) believe either in God or in the Last Day, nor consider forbidden that which God and the Conveyor of His Message have forbidden, nor follow the religion of truth (which God has enjoined upon them) until they agree to the payment of the exemption tax (of defense-obligations, jizya) by those who afford it, and acknowledge their subjection (to the state).î
The nature of this verse with respect to fight is not antagonistic because of ethnicity, but rather over monetary issues within the state. A similar policy is applicable to the Muslims themselves when they refuse to pay their dues to the state. In the same manner Christians and Jews are obligated to pay the state jizya, Muslims are obligated to pay to the state zakat. Zakah is a form of taxation similar to the tax that most people have to pay to their respective states. In similar manner to the case of jizya with respect to the People of the Book, if Muslims, too, refused to pay zakat, then the state is obligated to obtain it by force.
Sould you need the urge of learning the context of any other quranic verses please consult your friend Google unless there are some reasons you are not inclined to do so such as your unjustified hatred and bigotry.

anti-virus on April 3, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Purple and virus,
Since I’m the knuckle-dragging conservlodite, and you’re the enlightened liberals, perhaps you could take the time to read this. It’s very informative and answers in a scholarly fashion most of the points we’ve been exchanging in our friendly little chats.
Me go club mastadon now. Need eat.

stevecanuck on April 3, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Only someone as terminally dim as canucksteve would use the blathering of one extremist hate-site as a justification for the views of another extremist hate-site.
You don’t think the allegedly ‘scholarly’ answers are the teeniest-touch one-sided, stevie boy? Just because someone has a PhD, doesn’t mean that they are incapable of talking bollocks. Re-read the section on Jihad for instance, and notice how the writer has to desperately twist and turn in a vain effort to justify the standard extreme right-bullshit.
“Yeah well TECHNICALLY they are right when they say Jihad doesn’t mean holy war, but y’know in the general sense they are wrong because me and my buddy over here says so, and he’s got a PhD. So yah boo sucks.”

The Purple Cow on April 4, 2007 at 4:43 am

Stay strong my sista in islam i suppost u a100 %%%

its ur right against constitution and bill of right!!!!

islamispeace on October 22, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field