/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Judge Paruk, CAIR, And Due Process



AntonK
02-19-2007, 07:36 PM
Judge Paul Paruk made headlines last October after dismissing a lawsuit brought by a Muslim woman when she refused to remove her niqab during her testimony. The case resumes on Wednesday through the reciprocal lawsuit brought by the car rental company for the damage to the vehicle, but an exchange from the earlier case has come to light. In October, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) attempted to inject itself into the case by sending this letter to Judge Paruk on October 31st, from CAIR's executive director in Michigan:

Dear Judge Paruk,

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) is deeply concerned with the incident that took place in your court with Ginnah Muhammed on October 11, 2006. The 31st District Court in Hamtramck violated Ms. Muhammed's civil rights by refusing to hear her case unless she removed her religious face veil. As you know the case has drawn international media attention, but in the midst of it all, the case has remained unresolved.


We would like to set up a meeting with you to discuss this issue. Hopefully with everyone's cooperation, we can resolve this. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to schedule a meeting. Thank you.
As you might imagine, Judge Paruk thought that he had resolved the issue entirely by dismissing the charges when Muhammed refused to take off the veil. Furthermore, since CAIR was not a party to the suit, it seems especially arrogant for CAIR-MI to request a meeting to force a resolution. Judge Paruk gave this polite but firm response on November 9th, in part:

Dear Mr. Walid,

In your letter to me of October 31, you stated that "The 31st District Court in Hamtramck violated Ms. [Ginnah] Muhammed's civil rights by refusing to hear her case unless she removed her religious face veil." You further stated that "the incident remains unresolved." I must respectfully disagree with both of those statements. To my mind, the "incident" is indeed resolved by my ruling, and I absolutely did not violate Ms. Muhammed's civil rights. If Ms. Muhammed disagrees with my decision, she can certainly pursue her legal remedies; that is her right. But I cannot allow a third person, one who is not involved in the case that was before me, to attempt to get me to change my position. ...

You stated that the Michigan chapter of CAIR is "deeply concerned" by my decision. I too am concerned about that case, but for a different reason: my responsibility to the justice system, which includes identifying individuals, assessing the credibility of witnesses and being fair to all parties....

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 law for Ms. Muhammed.
I'd say that just about covers it. Judge Paruk has it right; we cannot have separate laws for the Muslims and the rest of us. If Ms. Muhammed and the folks at CAIR want to live under shari'a law -- which according to Judge Paruk would still have required her to remove the niqab while testifying -- then they need to move to a nation that operates under shari'a.

Judge Paruk's response in full is here.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
ManchesterFolk
02-20-2007, 12:32 AM
Interesting post.
Reply

Akil
02-27-2007, 01:21 PM
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 law for Ms. Muhammed.
How about the US constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Reply

Keltoi
02-27-2007, 01:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Akil
How about the US constitution?
This has nothing to do with religion, but logic. Would you swear in a witness with a mask on? The same goes for driver's licences and other public documents. The identity of the witness must be fully established and obvious to both parties, otherwise you are looking at grounds for an appeal. I'm sure something could be done to verify the identity of the witness before testimony, but that would also require lawyers and attorneys to see her without the veil at some point.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Akil
02-27-2007, 02:35 PM
I am sure a female constable could verify her identity for the court in private.
Reply

north_malaysian
03-01-2007, 08:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Akil
I am sure a female constable could verify her identity for the court in private.
that's what being done in most Muslim nations...
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-26-2011, 07:18 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-31-2010, 11:48 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-26-2009, 10:20 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-23-2006, 11:31 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!