Muslim files lawsuit against Dearborn Heights for making her remove headscarf

[hipeter924]

People in other countries won lawsuits that allowed them to wear pasta strainers on their heads for religious reasons. So the lawsuit might well suceed.

Other countries don't have our Constitution.

Yep, but many have religious protections or human rights acts.

 

[Yurt]

i cited the quran

run along now

Well, you think you did.

? eh, um, ok, what did i cite then?

 

[hipeter924]

People in other countries won lawsuits that allowed them to wear pasta strainers on their heads for religious reasons. So the lawsuit might well suceed.

Not in America it won't. The same type case was heard in Florida ( I believe it was Florida) and she lost. You'd think they would get the message - The USA is NOT an Islamic State - nor shall it ever be.

It's nothing to do with Sharia but with basic religious rights granted by the Constitution. All those rights have limitations of course - she must take it off for an ID photo, but that is not her argument. Her religion forbids her from removing it in the presence of strange men, all she is asking for is reasonable accommodation - a female officer takes the photo.

The funny thing is - people scream "Sharia" but it's a reasonable accommodation that goes beyond Muslims (but you all don't care if it isn't a Muslim). There are a number of religious sects that require women cover their heads and they face the same problem. They just don't get villified for it.

yep.

Hey, if I have to remove my hat, and the Muslim woman has to remove her headscarf, then the Hindu man must remove his turban, also.

And what about the woman who walks into a government office wearing a full burka, claiming her religion commands it? Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I think - at that point - you are foisting your religion onto me, making me take security risks for the sake of what I feel are your fairy tales. No thanks.

This case was won in Texas over a photo ID: Texas Pastafarian Wins Battle At DMV Becomes First In U.S. To Wear Colander In License Photo

 

[Yurt]

It's nothing to do with Sharia but with basic religious rights granted by the Constitution. All those rights have limitations of course - she must take it off for an ID photo, but that is not her argument. Her religion forbids her from removing it in the presence of strange men, all she is asking for is reasonable accommodation - a female officer takes the photo.

The funny thing is - people scream "Sharia" but it's a reasonable accommodation that goes beyond Muslims (but you all don't care if it isn't a Muslim). There are a number of religious sects that require women cover their heads and they face the same problem. They just don't get villified for it.

Her religion does not forbid it. It is a personal choice, depending on how conservative you or your family are. Covering is not required in Islam.

seriously? prove your claim.

Show me where in the Koran it is required for women to cover their heads or faces. I know and have known and have lived among countless Muslim women who do not cover their heads or faces.

why don't you research your claims before spouting off....took me 3 seconds

Hijab The Head Cover 8211 Unveiled

Now, I know shit about the Koran - I'll admit that upfront - but you linked to 2 verses:

.O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed…. (Qur.an 33:59).​

To me that can be alluding to clothed rather than nude.

.Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands…. (Quran 24:30-31)​

Again, but this time 'beauty' serves as a euphemism for her sexuality, nude breasts, seduction, etc.

the cite i used is an islamic site, apparently you know more about the quran than islamic scholars.....have it at...because i think many of their scholars aren't very smart and twist things to suit their own agenda.

maybe you're right...

 

[Yurt]

People in other countries won lawsuits that allowed them to wear pasta strainers on their heads for religious reasons. So the lawsuit might well suceed.

Not in America it won't. The same type case was heard in Florida ( I believe it was Florida) and she lost. You'd think they would get the message - The USA is NOT an Islamic State - nor shall it ever be.

It's nothing to do with Sharia but with basic religious rights granted by the Constitution. All those rights have limitations of course - she must take it off for an ID photo, but that is not her argument. Her religion forbids her from removing it in the presence of strange men, all she is asking for is reasonable accommodation - a female officer takes the photo.

The funny thing is - people scream "Sharia" but it's a reasonable accommodation that goes beyond Muslims (but you all don't care if it isn't a Muslim). There are a number of religious sects that require women cover their heads and they face the same problem. They just don't get villified for it.

yep.

Hey, if I have to remove my hat, and the Muslim woman has to remove her headscarf, then the Hindu man must remove his turban, also.

And what about the woman who walks into a government office wearing a full burka, claiming her religion commands it? Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I think - at that point - you are foisting your religion onto me, making me take security risks for the sake of what I feel are your fairy tales. No thanks.

wow...you are all over the place here. my point solely relates to a booking photo, ID photo, nothing else.

calm down popeye and cut back on the spinach.

 

[Synthaholic]

i cited the quran

run along now

Well, you think you did.

? eh, um, ok, what did i cite then?

How did you miss it? It was the post right before the one you quoted.






Oh, I remember how...

 

[Synthaholic]

Her religion does not forbid it. It is a personal choice, depending on how conservative you or your family are. Covering is not required in Islam.

seriously? prove your claim.

Show me where in the Koran it is required for women to cover their heads or faces. I know and have known and have lived among countless Muslim women who do not cover their heads or faces.

why don't you research your claims before spouting off....took me 3 seconds

Hijab The Head Cover 8211 Unveiled

Now, I know shit about the Koran - I'll admit that upfront - but you linked to 2 verses:

.O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed…. (Qur.an 33:59).​

To me that can be alluding to clothed rather than nude.

.Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands…. (Quran 24:30-31)​

Again, but this time 'beauty' serves as a euphemism for her sexuality, nude breasts, seduction, etc.

the cite i used is an islamic site, apparently you know more about the quran than islamic scholars.....have it at...because i think many of their scholars aren't very smart and twist things to suit their own agenda.

maybe you're right...

Hey, nowhere in the bible does it say that priests must be celibate, either.


Scholars and interpreters come up with these, and their personal opinions along with the times they live in determine the interpretation.

 

[Synthaholic]

People in other countries won lawsuits that allowed them to wear pasta strainers on their heads for religious reasons. So the lawsuit might well suceed.

Not in America it won't. The same type case was heard in Florida ( I believe it was Florida) and she lost. You'd think they would get the message - The USA is NOT an Islamic State - nor shall it ever be.

It's nothing to do with Sharia but with basic religious rights granted by the Constitution. All those rights have limitations of course - she must take it off for an ID photo, but that is not her argument. Her religion forbids her from removing it in the presence of strange men, all she is asking for is reasonable accommodation - a female officer takes the photo.

The funny thing is - people scream "Sharia" but it's a reasonable accommodation that goes beyond Muslims (but you all don't care if it isn't a Muslim). There are a number of religious sects that require women cover their heads and they face the same problem. They just don't get villified for it.

yep.

Hey, if I have to remove my hat, and the Muslim woman has to remove her headscarf, then the Hindu man must remove his turban, also.

And what about the woman who walks into a government office wearing a full burka, claiming her religion commands it? Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I think - at that point - you are foisting your religion onto me, making me take security risks for the sake of what I feel are your fairy tales. No thanks.

wow...you are all over the place here. my point solely relates to a booking photo, ID photo, nothing else.

calm down popeye and cut back on the spinach.

My argument is that the law should apply equally, with no religious exceptions.

 

[Pogo]

How do you know there wasn't a female officer present? The article did not say that at all.

i said apparently there was no female officer there...

...you want to assume there was a female officer there who refused her, based on what?

Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which the male officer refused to do, the lawsuit said.

The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.

there wasn't a female officer around, apparently...oh well.

I am not sure what your point is with the quote. There is nothing that says there was no female officer around, only that the male refused to get one.

I think if there was courtesy and respect, they could have agreed to her request, but there is not respect for Islam by probably the majority of people in the West due to terrorism. I am not against Muslims: many, many times I have posted supporting the general population of Muslims. I don't blame them for terrorism. But, the fact is that covering varies from country to country, culture to culture, family to family, woman to woman. It is based on a suggesting in the Koran and how that suggestion is interpreted.

I agree-- this is my experience as well. The idea that over a billion people spread across several cultures and time zones of the earth are all one collective monolith begs to be set free of its intellectual chains.

Some of y'all seem to be operating under the assumption that the issue here derives from "Islam", i.e. the whole entire body of a single religion that for the purpose of this argument contains no diversity whatsoever. Of course if that were true there would be no such thing as sectarian stuggles between Sunni and Shiite or Sufi and Wahabbi. The BS People (Blanket Statement) love to use this kind of Composition Fallacy to paint the diversity out of their target, e.g. the female genital mutilation thing that was also tried in this very thread (see post 11).

It seems this is in fact more a personal religio-cultural issue as it influences this particular woman. She says in her personal set of cultural values it's immodest to remove her head cover in the presence of extrafamilial men. Another Muslim woman in the same situation might not feel it's immodest, indeed might not be wearing a head covering in the first place -- but they're both Muslim. Just as one "western" woman might feel uneasy being frisked by a male officer while another one might not.

Bottom line, this incident seems to be more about cultural gender roles than about religion. Far as I know that question -- why a female officer wasn't suppplied -- has yet to be answered.

 

[Yurt]

Not in America it won't. The same type case was heard in Florida ( I believe it was Florida) and she lost. You'd think they would get the message - The USA is NOT an Islamic State - nor shall it ever be.

It's nothing to do with Sharia but with basic religious rights granted by the Constitution. All those rights have limitations of course - she must take it off for an ID photo, but that is not her argument. Her religion forbids her from removing it in the presence of strange men, all she is asking for is reasonable accommodation - a female officer takes the photo.

The funny thing is - people scream "Sharia" but it's a reasonable accommodation that goes beyond Muslims (but you all don't care if it isn't a Muslim). There are a number of religious sects that require women cover their heads and they face the same problem. They just don't get villified for it.

yep.

Hey, if I have to remove my hat, and the Muslim woman has to remove her headscarf, then the Hindu man must remove his turban, also.

And what about the woman who walks into a government office wearing a full burka, claiming her religion commands it? Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I think - at that point - you are foisting your religion onto me, making me take security risks for the sake of what I feel are your fairy tales. No thanks.

wow...you are all over the place here. my point solely relates to a booking photo, ID photo, nothing else.

calm down popeye and cut back on the spinach.

My argument is that the law should apply equally, with no religious exceptions.

you are entitled to your opinion, scotus says otherwise.

 

[Yurt]

i cited the quran

run along now

Well, you think you did.

? eh, um, ok, what did i cite then?

How did you miss it? It was the post right before the one you quoted.






Oh, I remember how...

do enlighten us jedi master

 

[Pogo]

Jeremiah----Esmeralda knows all about parlor tea islam. Trying to discuss reality with her is hopeless

While there is life there is hope, Rosie. Hope multiplied. It is a dangerous thing to trust in a lie. The consequences could be devastating. Esmeralda needs to wake up.

The ignorance is dense in these two.

 

[Pogo]

I gather this woman never walks into a bank. Most banks make you remove sunglasses and hats when you enter.

It's just a head scarf.

I've never ever walked into a bank and been told to take off my hat or sunglasses.

I'm not a woman but I've never seen or heard of that either. Nor have I ever seen a sign to that effect.
Not that the point has any relevance here...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Jeremiah----Esmeralda knows all about parlor tea islam. Trying to discuss reality with her is hopeless

While there is life there is hope, Rosie. Hope multiplied. It is a dangerous thing to trust in a lie. The consequences could be devastating. Esmeralda needs to wake up.

Actually it's you and other theists who trust in a lie and need to wake up.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Is this national clown week or something ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

And I know ten times more about Muslim women than any of youl.

I've had sex with Muslim women. Have you?

Aside from the fact that a good Muslim man only sleeps with his wife, or wives as the case may be (I doubt Fred has enough money to support more than one wife), the fact is that a woman's friends tend to know more about her than the man she sleeps with does. Men often don't care what's going on inside the head and heart of a woman; they are primarilly interested is her physical being--what she looks like, if she is sexy, if she's good to bed, etc.

Let us know, if she's good in bed.

 

[Coyote]

How do you know there wasn't a female officer present? The article did not say that at all.

i said apparently there was no female officer there...

...you want to assume there was a female officer there who refused her, based on what?

Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which the male officer refused to do, the lawsuit said.

The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.

there wasn't a female officer around, apparently...oh well.

I am not sure what your point is with the quote. There is nothing that says there was no female officer around, only that the male refused to get one.

i said apparently because based on the scenario described, that is apparently what happened.

the article says that her lawsuit alleges, that he ''refused''...

the article also says he asked his supervisor..so he did not refuse, he asked his supervisor...

how can you assume why the supervisor refused? based on what?

do you have knowledge that there was a woman officer available?

IF there was a female officer available yet the supervisor refused to use her, why isn't her lawsuit asking for female officers to be available? why is her lawsuit going beyond that and asking for her headgear to remain regardless of officer gender, if gender matters?

Do you have knowledge one wasn't available?

All this comes down to what we each choose to read in the artilce.

The lawsuit doesn't require her headgear remain for the photo or if a female officer took the picture.

What's the big deal?

 

[Coyote]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

 

[Valerie]

How do you know there wasn't a female officer present? The article did not say that at all.

i said apparently there was no female officer there...

...you want to assume there was a female officer there who refused her, based on what?

Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which the male officer refused to do, the lawsuit said.

The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.

there wasn't a female officer around, apparently...oh well.

I am not sure what your point is with the quote. There is nothing that says there was no female officer around, only that the male refused to get one.

i said apparently because based on the scenario described, that is apparently what happened.

the article says that her lawsuit alleges, that he ''refused''...

the article also says he asked his supervisor..so he did not refuse, he asked his supervisor...

how can you assume why the supervisor refused? based on what?

do you have knowledge that there was a woman officer available?

IF there was a female officer available yet the supervisor refused to use her, why isn't her lawsuit asking for female officers to be available? why is her lawsuit going beyond that and asking for her headgear to remain regardless of officer gender, if gender matters?

Do you have knowledge one wasn't available?

All this comes down to what we each choose to read in the artilce.

The lawsuit doesn't require her headgear remain for the photo or if a female officer took the picture.

What's the big deal?

All this comes down to what we each choose to read in the article.


not at all...why isn't her lawsuit asking for female officers to be available? why is her lawsuit going beyond that and asking for her headgear to remain regardless of officer gender, if gender matters?

 

[Valerie]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...