Muslim woman told to remove scarf sues Mich. judge

Associated Press ^ | August 26, 2009 | BEN LEUBSDORF

[Free ThinkerNY]

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (AP) - A Muslim woman on Wednesday sued a Michigan judge for telling her to remove her headscarf in his courtroom, claiming he violated her First Amendment right to practice her religion.

Raneen Albaghdady, 32, says she felt humiliated when Wayne County Circuit Judge William Callahan ordered her to remove her hijab at a June 16 hearing in his Detroit courtroom.

"This is the country and the land of freedom, and we're not supposed to be treated like this for the scarf," the Dearborn Heights woman said at a news conference Wednesday afternoon at the Southfield headquarters of the Council on American-Islamic Relation's Michigan chapter, which joined in the federal lawsuit against Callahan and Wayne County.

[exist]

I’m going to have to side with the terrorist sympathizer on this one. It’s a scarf dude.

[nickcarraway]

I guess this would apply to Crosses, Bibles, etc.

[Candor7]

There is nothing in Islam that requires women to cover themselves. Its all post Koranic, and it is not a religious practise.

[ronnietherocket2]

Callahan says Albaghdady, a native of Iraq, removed the scarf without protest and never mentioned its religious significance. If she had, he said, she would have been allowed to continue wearing it.

And get charged with contempt of court?

[a fool in paradise]

Hogwash.

Even Obama said that muslim women wear this voluntarily. It is not a religious obligation.

[twigs]

It is for some of them. If it doesn’t cover their face, which is a security issue, then there is no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to wear their scarf.

[a fool in paradise]

Hogwash.

Even Obama said that muslim women wear this voluntarily. It is not a religious obligation.

[edcoil]

Separation of church and state - keep your religion out of the court.

[wbones8765]

When in court you are not allowed to wear any type of head gear. It has nothing to do with religion, but safety. Who knows what any person can hide anywhere?

[Freddd]

We are told not to wear jeans and t shirts with messages on them when we go to court.
America better understand something about Muslims. They use our laws against us. They mean to overtake the world and they have no tolerance. They do not come here to blend in as Americans and live the American lifestyle and habits. WHERE IS THE CHRISTIAN OUTRAGE? AMERICANS STAND UP FOR AMERICA.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If it’s only a respect thing, it shouldn’t be required any more than that the lady should strip nude before the judge. If it’s for security’s sake (to be sure she doesn’t have a gun or knife hidden in the hair) the security inspection should happen in private before she goes into the court.

[Centurion2000]

I’m going to have to side with the terrorist sympathizer on this one. It’s a scarf dude.

You don't wear your hat in court.

[a fool in paradise]

Hey judge, you need to get hip on your Sharia Law.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I’m going to have to side with the terrorist sympathizer on this one. It’s a scarf dude.

It depends on whether the judge wanted the scarf off as a sign of respect to him, or for identification purposes. And, as an aside, I'm in favor of encouraging terrorist sympathizers to go back where they came from if they won't acculturate.

[Freddd]

That is not what Seperation of Church and state is. It means the government cannot mandate what religion will be for this country.

[Guyin4Os]

I’m going to have to side with the terrorist sympathizer on this one. It’s a scarf dude.

Yeah I hate to say it but you are right. It isn't that judge's place to tell her she cannot wear a scarf if her religion requires her to.

[a fool in paradise]

There is no separation of Islam and State. It is a system of theocratic rule. Legal, political, and religious.

[a fool in paradise]

They aren’t here to intigrate into the society. They are here as missionaries to convert the masses to Islam and colonize our land.

It isn’t called Dearbornistan for nothing.

[the invisib1e hand]

she felt humiliated

tough sh3t.

beats having your head handed to you, like back in the old country.

[OldDeckHand]

"When in court you are not allowed to wear any type of head gear. It has nothing to do with religion, but safety. Who knows what any person can hide anywhere?"

Yep. It's that way in every courtroom I have ever been in.

You also wouldn't be able to answer the "call to prayer" in any courtroom I've ever been in either - at least not while the court was in session. And, that would hardly be a violation of anyone's 1st Amendment rights.

[muawiyah]

The wearing of the "hijab" is a fashion statement, a cultural artifact, nothing that the Prophet warned anybody about. It's NOT RELIGION.

What Moslem women have been told is to be MODEST, not BRASSY, and here's this ol'gal told to remove her scarf in a courtroom and she's being brassy.

They'd cut her head off for that in backcountry Afghanistan!

[the long march]

The first amendment is NOT an ABSOLUTE right plenty of court cases about limitations. However, this probably will go against the judge. kind of sounds like Penn to me

[edcoil]

Really, we have gone through years of being sued to remove cross’s, bibles, and 10 commandments from our courts and government bldgs.

[cvq3842]

I’m just curious: what are the rules about women suing in many Muslim countries?

Seems like many new immigrants have certainly “assimilated” the worst American habits - lining up for government transfer payments and suing at the drop of a hat, or scarf (no pun intended).

Maybe she has a point. But again it’s something to think about.

[70th Division]

Actually I thought we had been through this once before with another Dearborn lady that got a contempt citation for not uncovering her face. And the judge won that one.

[Hodar]

I can see where the Judge would say 'this is MY courtroom, and we dress with respect in this room'. I can also understand the security issue - what is hidden beneath the hijab? Finally, men are not allowed to wear hats in the courtroom as a sign of respect, shouldn't women do the same?

[rovenstinez]

probably had to go home to a husband who had 4 wives, and got a beating for this, and that is the real reason she is upset.

[OldDeckHand]

"It isn’t called Dearbornistan for nothing."

If a person has never been there, they would have no idea how right you are. It would be shocking to spend an afternoon there for many reading this, I'm sure.

[SolidWood]

Unless the court is going to throw out other religious symbols, crosses, necklaces, tattoos etc. she is right to wear the rag.

[greatplains]

And he oughta know.

[twigs]

The Koran doesn’t require it, but the practice has arisen in some Muslim areas and it is as expected of those women as though they actually written dodwn. In the middle ages, Christian women would have had the same expectation, but our culture and customs have changed.

[Candor7]

Point: Wearing a scarf is not a religious practise for Muslims. Praying is a religious practise.Meditating is a religious practise. The scarf is not a part of ANY religious ritual.

These are facts that will pevent any success in a law suit, no matter what ANYONE "thinks" or "feels" about the issue.

[a fool in paradise]

I haven't been there in over 25 years. But I've read the articles on the changes in law to accommodate the growing muslim settlement.

Don't they permit the amplified broadcast of a recorded Islamic call to prayer throughout the day from 6am through 10pm?

Wake up, it's time to pray.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Sorry, but one thing that has been true since the dawn of time — courtrooms are not a place where you can practice freedom of speech of ANY kind.

A judge can make you do anything, and punish you for anything, in any way pretty much he feels like. Call him a name, go to jail until you apologize — no law, no trial, no jury, just one man imposing incarceration because you made fun of him.

[the long march]

Since when can’t one wear jeans to court? I know of no such rules

[the long march]

You would if you were an orthodox Jew

[UCFRoadWarrior]

The judge was correct in asking the Islamic woman to remove the HEADscarf (note that it is covering the head).

If the Islamic woman does not like that, and feels her rights to practice Islam is affected, she is more than welcome to return to a country where Islamic laws supercede civil laws.

[SolidWood]

The Bible also doesn’t require to wear cross jewelry, tattoos, etc. similar things could be said about other religions. So while the Koran might not require it, but tradition or culture, she has the right to wear that rag just as others might wear other “not required” religious symbols. I hate the hijab and what it symbolizes, but the court can’t cherrypick on this.

[wbones8765]

Absolutely correct!!!

[SolidWood]

Does the same apply to Orthodox Jewish women (who also cover their head with scarves or wigs) and men who cover their head with caps and hats?

[MinuteGal]

Hmmm, obviously a Dee-troit area black convert married to a Muslim. Many times they're the most radical of new adherents to a cult.

And they're the ones who will some day suffer the worst fates from their dear freedom-loving husbands.

Leni

[mckenzie7]

Do the PETA people object when they slaughter goats in the streets?

[muawiyah]

It’s not a religious symbol.

[Berlin_Freeper]

“This is the country and the land of freedom, and we’re not supposed to be treated like this for the scarf,”

Treated like what?

Like... all the other women in the court room?

[KosmicKitty]

Why was she in court in the first place?

[absolootezer0]

i think its hamtramck that broadcasts.

[nufsed]

The judge is an idiot. Is that redundant?

[OldDeckHand]

"Don't they permit the amplified broadcast of a recorded Islamic call to prayer throughout the day from 6am through 10pm?"

Yes. It's eerie and disturbing.

[Candor7]

The court will indeed "cherry pick." For a freedom of religion case to be successful, it has to be shown that the conduct or behaviour censored is a part of religious ritual. Clearly wearing a scarf is not, especially in the context of security and identification issues which have an over riding public safety interest.

This case is all about publicity, and rolling back the law of our land towards Sharia. I do not buy it for a slim second.