Posted on 10/23/2006 11:33:19 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Ginnah Muhammad, 42, is a devout Muslim, so as such, she feels she was forced to choose between her small claims court case and her religion, Friday.
Judge Paul Paruk, in Hamtramck District Court, told Muhammad she had to take off her niqab; a scarf and veil, which covers her face and head except for her eyes, or he would dismiss her case. The judge said he needed to see her face so he could judge her truthfulness when she testified.
Paruk told the Detroit Free press he offered to let Muhammad, who was born in the United States and converted to Islam at the age of 10, wear her niqab in court, except when she testified. "I felt I was trying to accommodate her as best I could," Judge Paruk said.
Paruk said that as a fact finder, he has to see the face of a person testifying.
Judges have leeway on how to run their courtroom, in Michigan, and there have been no rule specifications regarding religious attire.
"My job in the courtroom is to make a determination as to the veracity of somebody's claim," the judge said. "As part of that you need to identify the witness and you need to look at the witness and watch how they testify."
Muhammad had gone to small claims court to contest a rental car company charging her $2,750 to repair a vehicle she had leased after thieves broke into it.
"I just feel so sad," Muhammad said. "I feel that the court is there for justice for us. I don't feel that the court recognized me as a person that needed justice. I feel I can't trust the court."
Metro Detroit has one of this country's largest Muslim populations.
Why that's why we should just establish some Sharia courts to enforce her rights as a woman. /sarc
RACISM!
Next traffic ticket I get...I'm going to court with sparklers on my head...
Under our laws, you get to drive, and file a case against a business (which might just be owned by a man)...
Talk about owned...
Rather than open the door to talk to her, I chatted thru the door's mail slot so she would not feel uncomfortable.
What happens when she's asked to put her hand on the bible and swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, so help her god?
That might not be such a good idea of your on trial for commiting a crime such as robbery or murder.
Just curious.........do banks have a problem with this? /sarc
It's entirely reasonable - and the judge has full authority - to demand to see a witness's face while she's testifying. And as a matter of justice, Ms. Muhammad, don't the people you're contesting deserve to have the judge be as thorough as possible?
YOU feel sad?!!
How about me?
I have to sit through the spectacle of a free-born woman who voluntarily submitted herself to the slavery of Islam, then complains about not trusting the courts?
How about the courts not trusting YOU, Muhammad? After all, it is YOU hiding your face.
Which is NOT reqired by any Islamic law or rule - just custom and cultural practice in benighted lands. But not in the USA.
Take the frikkinn veil off, Ms. Muhammad, and join the human race.
We need to set up a fund for buying one way airplane tickets to a muslim country where unhappy, disaffected muslimas can live in peace.
Try to be original for once and quit stealing my ideas, wouldja?
Swearing on the Bible is no longer permitted, in court as I recall we just swore to tell the truth, no God was involved in it.
It was kinda like an empty feeling, why bother to swear at all?
My local credit union does, and the policy is posted right at the entrance.
People in the United States have broad leeway in practicing their religion, but there's nothing dictating that society is obliged to accommodate them. I could just as easily go into a courtroom as a witness and say it's against my religion to give testimony and the effect would be the same as what we're seeing here.
Ok...ok....ok....My Seeing Eye Monkey will wear them...
Dang it!
I don't feel that the court recognized me as a person
priceless...
eh, let me see, that would be correct, because the whole point of the hijab is that you should not be seen as a person or a woman..if she has that issue, take it up with the saudis...
The Quakers, I believe, thought swearing wrong under all circumstances. Other Christians, though by no means all, have felt similarly down the years. The law provides for that scruple by allowing people to "affirm" rather than swear.
Reminds me of that funny Three Stooges episode, "Disorder in the Court." The clerk asks Curly "Do you swear ..." and Curly replies, "No, but I know all the words!"
"I just feel so sad," Muhammad said. "I feel that the court is there for justice for us. I don't feel that the court recognized me as a person that needed justice. I feel I can't trust the court."
Hey there Muhammad nobody can recognize you with your veil on. You could be anyone under there for all anyone knows. If justice is so important to you take the veil off. I think this is BS. Shes worried about justice maybe she ought to go to a Muslim country and see just what justice women get over there. I hate whiners. The judge has every right to see her face as does the person she was contesting.
That teacher was dismissed because she was teaching language. The kids couldn't understand her without seeing her lips. Religion of Morons.
People who cover themselves in bags shouldn't be driving. They should be locked at home with their cl______ cut off.
I almost sprayed milk on my monitor reading that!
The witness has the choice of swearing on the bible or Affirming without the bible.
"Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing bujt the truth."
Which brings up an interesting thought. With all the cameras around on the streets their identity is kept secret, even from crime. Maybe we all should be wearing head cover only showing our eyes for privacy. It would sure render the cameras at stop-lights, etc useless. Prove it was me that ran that light when you can't see a face. LOL
She should have the option of wearing just the veil.
Only your eyes were uncovered by the mail slot. A wooden burqah. Very thoughtful.
Rioting soon?
I thought that females of that faith where not allowed to drive. What is she doing with a rental car?
This is strange. She does not want to remove her viel because of her religion. But what does Islam say about the rights of women and testifying in court? Also, this cannot be the first time ever an Islamic woman had to testify in court. Why is this happening now?
Man, where did you get that graphic? I am laughing like mad! 8-)
Feel free to share it with your muslim girlfriends (LOL).
females can't drive in saudi arabia.
besides, she is a convert. if she was born and raised in an islamic country then she would know that they expect you to remove a veil to get a photo id and when you appear in court.
what pisses me off is that she is just a squeaky wheel. she doesn't even understand what civil rights means. it doesn't mean special treatment. it means equality.
i'm from hamtramck and now she's giving people the bright idea that they can just show up in court with their face covered and expect to be taken seriously.
The key difference between sparklers and hijab, niqab, abaya etc. . . is that one is a religious obligation. Many American women believe that it is their religious obligation to cover their hair. I haven't met anyone who feels religiously obligated to wear sparklers on their head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.