BBC:
Police in Manchester have been told not to arrest Muslims wanted on warrants at prayer times during Ramadan.
Greater Manchester Police confirmed it had asked detectives not to make planned arrests during those periods for reasons of religious sensitivity.
The advice was emailed out to officers working in Moss Side, Hulme, Whalley Range, Rusholme, Fallowfield, Ardwick, Longsight, Gorton and Levenshulme.
Police said it was not a blanket ban, just a "request for sensitivity".
Here's how it's done in the USA, via LGF: A Muslim woman suing a rental car company refused to remove her face mask, so the judge dismissed her case. The operative word is dismissed. People who refuse to assimilate should be dismissed. Detroit Free Press.
2 comments:
I am a resident of the city of Hamtramck. This incident has caused quite a stir in our community.
I think you might find it interesting to know that Islamic scholars agree that women should remove their veils in court. I have taken the following quotes from
http://www.niqabiparalegal.com/archives/2006/10/face_veils_in_c.php
Al-Dasooqi said: " When testimony is given concerning a woman who wears niqaab (face-veil), she has to remove her niqaab. This applies in the case of marriage and other matters, such as selling, giving gifts, debts, power of attorney, and so on. This is the opinion favoured by our shaykh." (Haashiyat al-Dasooqi 'ala'l-Sharh al-Kabeer, 4/194).
It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face when she is giving testimony in court, whether she is a witness in a case or is there to witness a deal, and it is permissible for the qaadi (judge) to look at her in order to know who she is and to protect the rights of all concerned.
Shaykh al-Dardeer said: "It is not permitted to give testimony against a woman in niqaab until she uncovers her face so that it may be known who she is and what she looks like." (Al-Sharh al-Kabeer li'l- Shaykh al-Dardeer, 4/194)
Ibn Qudaamah said: "The witness may look at the face of the woman against whom he is testifying so that his testimony will speak about her in specific terms. Ahmad said: 'He cannot testify against a woman unless he knows who she is.'" (Al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer 'ala Matan al-Muqni', 7/348, bi haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).
It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of a qaadi (judge) who is to rule either in her favour or against her, and in this situation he may look at her face in order to know who she is and for the sake of protecting people's rights.
The same rules that apply to giving testimony or bearing witness also apply in court cases, because they serve the same purpose. (See Al-Durar al-Mukhtaar, 5/237; Al-Hadiyah al-'Alaa'iyah, p. 244; Al-Hadiyah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).
I think it is very unfortunate that many people have interpreted Judge Paruk's actions as descriminatory. Clearly, Islam is in agreement with him.
It is also unfortunate that so many people regard the actions of the woman as "radical," and this case is being used to validate hatred and misunderstanding.
As to validating "hatred and misunderstanding":
You entirely miss the point of the criticism, which is neither hateful nor the result of misunderstanding. Quite to the contrary, we free people living in the USA, and for the most part in Western Europe, reject the oppression of women.
The fact that many Islamic women are complicit in their own enslavement is perhaps the worst facet of this problem. This peculiar phenomenon is called the Stockholm Syndrome.
Further, it is well documented that the wearing of face masks is not an Islamic tradition, but a cultural tradition. It comes from the tradition of Arab men controlling their women.
Face masks, male escorts, beating, and forced circumcision is total barbarism. Myself and most people living in countries where all people are free (that includes women) condemn such pathetic traditions. People who force their women to such subjugation are not welcome here.
Post a Comment