March 29, 2007
Islam v. Judge Paruk: In Litigation Jihad, Frivolous Niqab Lawsuit Ignores Basic Law
By Debbie Schlussel
The litigation jihad on behalf of sharia (Islamic law) continues.
Last year, I wrote about courageous Hamtramck, Michigan Judge Paul J. Paruk. 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, Nabih Ayad (who frequently represents Islamic terrorists and illegal aliens), sued Judge Paruk on Muhammad’s behalf in federal court.
Ginnah Muhammad in her Niqab [note the heavy eye make-up… looks like “I Dream of Genie.” — rl]
Ginnah with 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 a letter to Judge Paruk, 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 letter response to CAIR’s Dawud Walid, 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 and Bangladesh. 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.
Women like Debbie, Michele, and Pamela standing up for our civil society, remind me of the joke about Margaret Tatcher going to a restaurant with her cabinet. The waiter asked her what she wanted. “I’ll have the meat,” she replied. “And the vegetables?” asked the waiter. “They’ll have the same,” she replied.