Muslim Woman Sues Judge Over Veil

"The way I believe in Islam is that a woman is very virtuous," she said. "We should be covered when we come out. This protects me as well as other people. I believe that God wants me that way."

Seems God also made Muslim men unable to control their sexual urges so that muslim women have to wear a bag.

....it goes to show, Muslims in America do not intend to assimilate into the American society, rather, they intend to dominate it whether it be by hook, crook, intimidation, extortion, frivioulous law suits, or bombs...whatever it takes....

...if they refuse to obey the laws and customs of the host country, then deport or exile them to the Muslim country of their choice....

...In Muslim countries, foreigners must follow the host countries laws and customs...In Muslim countries women visitors must wear the Islamic garments or they risk violence by the populace or arrest by the police...or worse....

....The Muslims want it only one way....their way...or else...

And this kind of thing, too, along with the hundred billion a year in domestic security costs, adds to the total: it costs money, uses up time, uses up space in newspapers. One more thing that increases the level of tension and unpleasantness. Oh, a little thing, you say? Multiply it a hundred thousand or a million or three million times. Every day, in every way.

When is it going to end?

Posted by: exsgtbrown

Its only going to get worse in the US as time goes on. There is no middle ground with Islam. The Qur'an assures that.

When is it going to end?

Posted by: Thereligionofdeath at March 29, 2007 08:27 AM

Three possible options

1. We sumbit and allow it to happen

2. Islam reforms and allows itself to co-exits in the West.

3. Islam is banned and the West sticks to its Judeo Christian values.

Ms. Muhammed's right to a fair trial is no greater than that of the defendent's. She waived her right to that fair trial by refusing to comply with Judge Paruk's reasonable request to remove her veil while giving testimony.

What I find so laughable about these women who want to run around with their faces masked in non-Islamic countries, is that if they lived in countries where Sharia prevails, they would have, at best, very limited rights to vote and their testimony is deemed grossly inferior to that of a male.

That looks like a guy with make-up to me!

It's a great scam. Saying that you're all virtuous, simply because you're a walking letterbox. Implying that because you wear this 7th century outfit, it makes you virtuous. Better. Law-abiding. Not possibly capable of doing anything wrong. Just throw the living room drapes over your head, and presto! You're virtuous. Innocent. You can rent a car, have your friends strip it, and because you're wearing this ridiculous outfit, you're innocent. Because it makes you virtuous.

Me, if I did the same thing. Rented a car, and had it stripped, I'd be found guilty. Because I'm not a walking letterbox. Therefore ... no virtue. No innocence. Guilty.

"Walking letterbox"

LMAO

You should be able to be who you are as long as you're not a criminal or hurting other people," said Muhammad...

People generally need to get wise to this crap - if they are so 'pious' about their religion, they shouldn't be out in public without their mahram, so, you know, if you're in a position where you have to deal with these apparations...

The judge should give here this deal: tertify with your veil on, but the testimony is worth half that of a man's testimony. (2:282)

Ginnnah Muhammad, 42, of Detroit, says in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit that Judge Paul Paruk's request to remove her veil -- and his decision to dismiss her case when she didn't -- was unconstitutional based on her First Amendment right to practice her religion.

__________________________________________

Um, no. Either you CHOOSE to respect the law of our courts, i.e. remove your veil, or you CHOOSE to remove yourself from our country.

"Walking letterboxes" is good, but I prefer Don Rickles' line about how impressed he was that Arab Muslims had taught their garbage bags to walk themselves to the dump.

Unbelievably offensive, yes, but . . .

"I want to make sure everyone across the board is able to practice their religion freely in a democratic society."
I doubt that. My guess would be her true intentions are more along the lines:
"I want to make sure everyone across the board is coerced toward practicing islam in a sharia ruled society."

Like I said about the case in Germany when the judge sided on the side of the sharia law and let the woman follow that.

The muslims want it both ways - they want their sharia law, and then when they want to follow our laws - then they want that. I say - if they want to use our laws - then they should follow them. If they don't want to use our laws and then we should be saying - go to your own for justice.

Do I want two laws in a land - NO! What I want is for this all to be settled - and by the muslims bringing this to a head - they might not like the response.

There is nothing wrong with telling that woman to remove her veil. Too often men hide behind them in order to escape, or do some other foul thing when convenient. Why should anyone think that we should allow justice to be done if they are not willing to prove they are indeed who they say they are?! The judge doesn't want her in a sexual way - oh, that is the whole problem - muslims think that everyone is fixated on sex. They are, in fact, more fixated on it more so than my over-heated guinea pig. Or why else would there be so many restrictions on women, what they wear, what they do with or without a man around, or how sharia law treats them?

Yes, we need for all of this to come to a head and resolve the issue.

There is a way around this problem. Why didn't the Judge ask one of his female attendants to verify in a private room that it was the true likeness of Ms Ginnah Muhammad ??? Problem easily solved. Unfortunately this society is full of sick minded perverts and child rapers (you know whom Im talking about white guys! lol)

Dont give me that 'muslims go back to mecca' crap. For your information, apart from the fact that the eart belongs to God and not you, people like me were born and raised up in here. Half my entire genes are white so I have every much as right to Britannia lol as you fools do! So why don't you guys pack up ur bag and GO TO ISRAEL...? The country you founded by force

Is that Abdullah's wife? Or one of his wives? :-)

"There is a way around this problem. Why didn't the Judge ask one of his female attendants to verify in a private room that it was the true likeness of Ms Ginnah Muhammad ??? Problem easily solved."

Hey, Abby baby, it wasn't a question (this time) of very fying it was the right women testifying in court at all. It was the judge's decision that seeing her face is important to determining the truthfulness of her testimony. Just how would having her determined to be who she said she was in the judge's chambers by a female court employee change the "seeing her face during testimony" issue? She shows her face to testify or she, quite rightly, doesn't get to use our courts. Problem easily solved.

*
*
* Creeping Islamization Alert.
*
*

There is nothing in Islam that requires the veil, so her claims are bogus. (Mohammad told his women followers to cover their bare breasts, which was common in 7th century Arabia, apparently, before he showed up... the killjoy, spoilsport Schmuck.)

Back to a Muslim country whose tribal customs support his form of "lady bagging".

There is nothing in Islam that requires the veil, so her claims are bogus. (Mohammad told his women followers to cover their bare breasts, which was common in 7th century Arabia, apparently, before he showed up... the killjoy, spoilsport Schmuck.)

Back to a Muslim country whose tribal customs support his form of "lady bagging".

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 29, 2007 11:03 AM

The veil wearing is in the Hadith. Mo told his women they should cover everywhere but the eyes and hands and he pointed to both.

Am appeal based upon violation of her First Amendment rights? Now there's chutzpah!

Her insistence upon the veil is nothing less than an attempted insinuation of shariah into the US legal system, an attempt to set a precedent that would essentially result in a two-tiered legal construct in which Moslems would be treated one way and accommodated in various respects not afforded to non-Moslems. What's next? Allowing Moslems to lie under oath, if telling the truth compomises in anyway the interests Islam? The legalization of polygamy? The list of potential demands drags drearily on...

The judge was quite right to demand to see the litigant's face, to determine if she would be telling the truth or not. Accommodating her demand would jeopardize every other non-Moslem citizen's First Amendment rights, as shariah begins to make its stranglehold on the US Constitution.

That Ms. Mohammed's modesty would be compromised by exposing her face is offensively ludicrous. Fortunately, I think it is her true motives that could be exposed if she goes through with her lawsuit.

I think all Moslem women should wear a veil. And Moslem men should also wear distinctive outfits. I think it is important that they be clearly identified.

BLOOD ALWAYS FLOWS WHERE THE MUHAMMADAN GOES:

"Thus, future harm is imminent."

AND MERETRICIOUS PIETY IS NEVER FAR BEHIND:

"The way I believe in Islam is that a woman is very virtuous," she said. "We should be covered when we come out. This protects me as well as other people."

==============
No moonbat:

According to Islam you are obscene.
Your hair is obscene!
Your fingernails are obscene!
Your elbows are obscene!
Your nose is obscene!
Your ears are obscene!
Everything about you is obscene!

"We should be covered when we come out. This protects me as well as other people. I believe that God wants me that way."

BMOs: Black Moving Objects.

They should be returned to Dar Al Islam. This protects them as well as other people. I believe that that’s the way it will be.

If she wants to live under the veil, why not just move to an Islamic country? Then she wouldn't have to worry about having her "religious and civil rights" and her "First Amendment right" violated, because she wouldn't have them in the first place.

And now, to quote the racist troll:

"Unfortunately this society is full of sick minded perverts and child rapers (you know whom Im talking about white guys! lol)"

I didn't know Muhammad was a "white guy". Interesting.

Elric66-

You're referring to a Sunnah Hadith (32;4092).

I only recognize Bukhari (7;65;375).

Hah! So there!

Dueling banjos, Hadith style.

(Personally, I prefer bikinis and mirror sunglasses, but that's a whole 'nother faith.)

A person's demeanor is relevant all through trial, especially the parties. If a party is laughing or scowling while someone testifies, the finder of fact can see that.

If a plaintiff can't keep it together for the whole trial, the finder of fact can figure that out. Its denial of due process of law to defendants if people can't observe the face of the plaintiff all through trial as others testify and as they interact with the judge and opposing counsel.

A modern trial is still a test. Ancient trial by ordeal was some event like dunking unrelated to truth. But the ordeal of a trial is linked and intertwined with the arguments, the witnesses, the testimony and how the parties interact.

That part of trial by ordeal does reveal truth and is revealing of intentions and beliefs of the parties, witnesses, etc. The finder of fact has to see that.

That is why we don't have testimony in written form that the jury just reads. They see the whole process. That includes quality time and non-quality time. The non-quality time is when truth may come out. Trials have down time moments, and during those truth may be revealed by the plaintiff's face.

We have public trials so the public can see the process of justice over many trials. There are good and bad trials. There are times when things about judges, lawyers, etc. are revealed. Openness is not just part of our culture, its fundamental to modern democracy and rights under the government.

Veils are part of an entire culture of anti-democracy and rule by tyrants. The Western way is the way of an open society that is fair to all. The veil thing is not the openness thing. The veil thing has got to go.

You don't just turn truth on and off at trial. You don't just turn an open society on and off during the minutes someone testifies.

Being part of society is a way of life. Those who oppose that way of life can't be trusted. They demonstrate their opposition.

Veils in court are as much a threat to liberty as the sheriff in your house without a warrant. One can't be separated from the other. Magna Carta is a culture not a piece of sheepskin to be accessorized based on the day's whim.

Hanoi Jane Fonda AA gun v. Jill Carroll Captive Photo

How much does demeanor matter? Compare Jane Fonda laughing and goofing off on a North Vietnamese AA gun to Jill Carroll's almost tearful face when having to wear Islamic headgarb. How much information does that tell us about Islam compared to North Vietnamese communism? Which culture is worse? Which more dangerous? Which more ruthless? Which more uncivilized? Which an existential threat?

@abdullah

Even if muhammadan society is, as you say, "full of sick minded perverts and child rapers" (like the prophet) that has no bearing in this case.

I'd love to see someone try that in Judge Judy's court!

'"You should be able to be who you are as long as you're not a criminal or hurting other people," said Muhammad...'

Well sweetheart, you are hurting me. As an American NON-Muslim woman it hurts me when a Muslim woman tries to change the laws of my land to suit her religion. I like the irony that she feels that the judge throwing her case out "was unconstitutional based on her First Amendment right to practice her religion." But she is practicing her religion in this country, and practicing her religion requires her to force me to accept her religion. So really, she's a big fat liar and the judge did her a favor by throwing her case out rather than letting her set herself up for a perjury charge.

The real crux of this issue before us is the lawsuit against the judge. If it is allowed to stand then the Muslims have gotten more than just a foot in the door, and they will have cowed this judge and others into doing their bidding because of the intimidation factor, which ALWAYS goes along with being Muslim.

And Abdullah,

The concept of having a female attendant (whatever that is?) see the plaintiff's face is a component of Sharia law, not constitutional law. Perhaps you are confused as to which country you live in. Perhaps you are confused because you think America is already under Sharia law. It may be a requirement for your community to establish Sharia here but the rest of us Americans reject it outright and are ready to fight you to prove the point.

Old Atlantic,

Yes, indeed. Check this out regarding the demeanor of one of the captured British sailors who being female, is forced to wear the hijab during her captivity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=445318&in_page_id=1811

She don't look too 'appy.

Were I Judge Paul Puruk's defense attorney, I'd take this tact.

Show up for trial with Paruk in full Nijab. After all, the plaintiff is in Nijab too. Then when Ms Muhammed is on the stand, ask her to identify the person who dismissed her case.

Attorney: "Is that Judge Paruk?"

Ms Muhammed: "I don't know, I can't see his face"

Attorney: "So, without seeing his face, how do you know you're suing the right person?"
...

Then put my Judge Paruk on the stand: "Is this the person whose case you dismissed?"

Paruk: "I don't know. How can I tell without seeing her face?"

By this time any sensible jury should see how rediculous Ms. Muhammed's position is.

Isabellathecrusader, good link and a reminder that we see these same photos. What does the emotion on a woman's face tell us? It seems that the MSM and the profs etc seem the same emotions over and over, and blame it on ...?

So which is it:

1. Muslim women are so irresistible that they must keep themselves under wraps to avoid the risk of men gazing upon their bewitching beauty and turning into sex maniacs? (Although logically a Muslim woman should not need to wear the veil in front of a gay man - maybe we need gay judges for Muslim women defendants).

2. Muslim men are unable to control themselves (do they have more testosterone than non-Muslim men? I'm sure I would have heard about it by now if it were true. And if you convert to Islam does your testosterone level suddenly increase?).

3. Islamic teaching has brainwashed Muslim women into accepting their status as second class citizens.

No prizes for guessing the correct answer.

""The way I believe in Islam is that a woman is very virtuous," "

the way we believe of islam is that women are pretty stupid.

someone tell this cow in a bag that women aren't supposed to drive so her lawsuit is illegal.

Posted by watling: "Muslim men are unable to control themselves (do they have more testosterone than non-Muslim men?"

watling,

Sorry for being so tasteless but maybe it's something more tragic. Since many Muslims mutilate their women by cutting out the clitoris (FGM) and wrongly call that "circumcision" the perhaps the men are suffering similar abuse. Perhaps, unlike Jewish or medical circumcision, Muslim boys have the whole head of their penises clipped off. This could explain their ingrained hatred and need to control women. They're all suffering from small d*ck syndrome!

"Dont give me that 'muslims go back to mecca' crap. For your information, apart from the fact that the eart belongs to God and not you, people like me were born and raised up in here. Half my entire genes are white"

white as the child rapers and perverts you referred to earlier?

we guessed you are son of unidentified people already, you don't need to remind us of that.

If Ginnah Muhammed gets away with this travesty of justice..it will be only the beginning, the camel's nose in the tent, so to speak. When in court, Muslim women will demand women judges, all-women juries, male spectators banned from the court room, and the list will go on and on.

"This woman who is a member of the British Royal navy is showing a lack of British grit and responsibility. She should absolutley refuse to cover her head as she is a british subject.
"

Reader comment from

How Britons were conned by Iranian gunboat trick

Isabellathecrusader posted a link to photos of Faye Turney above.

Faye Turney is a heroine of this crisis. She is doing the right thing by wearing Islamic head covering. Her wearing it gives the lie to all those who say that culture doesn't matter, that immigration doesn't matter because people, ideas and culture are interchangeable. Some say loyalty, ethnicity, and identity are determined by bits of paper issued by government authorities. She shows that is false and those who say that it is true are liars.

More on Faye Turney

A mother on parade in Iran’s propaganda war

Marine talks of ‘friendly captors’ but smile tells of her stress

Each time the establishment turns away from these women's faces and stories is another time they show they will do anything to admit their guilt for the immigration that is ending our civilization. That is why Begala called Virgil Goode a bigot and idiot.

Sometimes we attorneys feel great sympathy for a judge. They have to make difficult decisions all the time, some of which will get them in hot water even if they are legally correct.

I hope this judge prevails in the suit. We will all suffer GREATLY if he loses.

Why does she live under ground so no one can see her she looks like a grim reaper anyway so she is half way there. She is the personification of Islam cover up the truth, history, human feelings, religious right, historical right, bloodline rights, the true God, historical evidence and apply all this where they move, is it me or has Satan got a net round these people and Islamic nations?

and if any muslim wants us to appease their sharia laws by taking the woman out and letting other women make sure it is indeed that person - then that is just a way for us to allow them to continue having their way with sharia law, when it is convenient. If it isn't convenient then they will want it another way. This is why the middle east is a donkey's butt hole.

In a court of law it is my understanding that the person filing the complaint has to under oath identify the defendant.

If the court allows her to wear the veil, she obviously cannot be identified, we assume she will refuse to remove it in front of a male, so she will not be able to be identified by the claimant. Therefore no basis to continue the trial, if the claimant wins, she can appeal on grounds that she could not be identified by the claimant. Either way she wins, sue for a civil rights violation or sue to appeal the verdict, and hope enterprise drops the suit due to the cost of legal fees. They sure have done their research.

Gaelen:

I'm much less pessimistic about this than you, for several reasons

1) Ms. Mohammed was making a claim against Enterprise and the judge dismissed it on the basis of her wearing a veil

2) Ms. Mohammed's attorney, Nabih Ayad, is also a woman. No mention of her wearing a veil. If she is also Moslem, then there is a definite disconnect between one woman's religious obligations under Islam as opposed to another's. They got some s'plaining to do when they take their show on the road

3) Enterprise filed claims following the dismissal of Ms. Mohammed's suit against Ms. Mohammed for $2000. It's not specified what the claims were for, but I view it likely that Enterprise has already tapped into Ms. Mohammed's credit card for the $2,750. It's going to start adding up for her or for her sponsors. She's going to come down with a bad case of the lawyers.

This is simply another variant of the "Flying Imams" legal suit. With every probe of this type properly handled --with particular attention paid to clearly and publicly shedding the light of day upon the demands and expectations of this ideology-- an opportunity arises to cordone off further attacks and to instruct the wider public as to the danger facing society.

Is that Abdullah's wife? Or one of his wives? :-) -posted by Elric66.
No Elric, poor and insignificant muslims like Abdul (slave) are not allowed to have multiple wives, or even one wife. This privilege is reserved for the muslim bourgeois. Rich Arabs taking multiple wives mean there are none left for poor little Abdul :(

Chatillon

Pessimistic? Yeah I am, I guess when you see these characters go around and around time and again making a mockery of our laws and for a good many, using them against us I get that way.

I don't think for one minute that Ms. Mohhammed and her slimy attorney haven't gone over every single scenario that they could bring into that lawsuit. The point I was trying to make is, play the veil game within the court system knowing full well you would be asked to remove it. What other choice did the judge have? Now she can sue him for violating her religious rights, don't get me wrong I hope she loses big, but I have my doubts

"poor and insignificant muslims like Abdul (slave) are not allowed to have multiple wives, or even one wife.'

...This is a lie.....

Marriage in Islam is considered to be of the utmost importance. There are numerous hadiths lauding the importance of marriage and family.

In Islamic law, marriage is a legal bond and social contract between a man and a woman as prompted by the Shari'a. There are two types of marriages mentioned in the Qur'an, the Nikah in verse 4:4 and the Nikah Mut'ah in verse 4:24.

.....

A quick look at google shows a Nabih Ayad as a male attorney.

linky

Exsgtbrown, of course marriage and unfettered procreation are encouraged in islam in order to produce as many little mobot soldiers as possible. But the reality is that the limiting factor that determines population size is the number of women. Polygamy means the best muslim women are taken by the bourgeois, leaving many young, lower class muslim men womanless and frustrated (making them perfect candidates to serve as jihadi drones, especially when you promise them 72 virgins.) Why do you think gang-rape is so prevalent in muslim countries? This is just another way that the Murder Machine is able to self-perpetuate and spread.

L. Drummond:

Your link doesn't work. I'd like to see the image you're refering to.

The post above states "Muhammad's attorney, Nabih Ayad, said that SHE unsuccessfully sought to get a different judge to hear the case and that SHE AND HER CLIENT plan to ask him to remove himself from the case..."

Apologies for the dodgy linking.

I just googled 'nabih ayad' then his images. The only hits were for male attorneys. From Dearborn, apparently.

Which would surprise nobody here, I guess.

trying again. This time with preview.

Here let me try

http://dwb.fresnobee.com/24hour/nation/story/3587248p-12848243c.html

The picture identifies a man as Nabih Ayad. The article copy is written incorrectly.

Muslim populations increase at an exponential rate, and sooner or later they will become a majority. Then we will have no choice but

1. To fight and possibly lose half the country as India, Serbia and others have, with massive loss of life, ethnic cleansing, rape and genocide.

2. Give in and see the extinction of the greatest civilisation in history.

3. There is war and we lose because of divisions within - result same as #2

4. There is a civil war and we win, but after all the horrors of a civil war, Muslims will be driven out. Not deported but forcibly and brutally driven out.

I do not like such options that will destroy or taint our civilisation for centuries. Far better to call for a divorce when two sides are as incompatible as they can be i.e., a free, liberal and tolerant society, and a repressed, regimented, aggressive and totalitarian society such as an Islamic one. This is about as incompatible as two can get, and a mutual coexistence under one nation is impossible.

Abdullah posted:- Dont give me that 'muslims go back to mecca' crap. For your information, apart from the fact that the eart belongs to God and not you, people like me were born and raised up in here. Half my entire genes are white so I have every much as right to Britannia lol as you fools do! So why don't you guys pack up ur bag and GO TO ISRAEL...? The country you founded by force

So you come from Britain matey boy! Well "we fools" as you describe us have had you and the rest of your evil cult sussed out a long time ago. Don't believe your own propaganda sunshine, Islam is most definately not the future of Britain! Why go to Israel (God Bless Her)when we can stay here and watch you lot panicking.

I think all Moslem women should wear a veil. And Moslem men should also wear distinctive outfits. I think it is important that they be clearly identified. Posted by: Seymour Paine

Muslims do this only to further their territorial claims on Infidel territory - physical, legal and in other domains.

However, if push comes to shove, and non-Muslims take it in their heads that they have had enough, and start taking action, all Muslims will quickly jettison any indentifying garb. They will even go so far as wearing a cross. They will do anything to stay on in Infidel countries until they are numerous enough to dominate.

It is the refusal of the Serbs to play this game of 'now you see it, now you dont', that so annoys Muslim propagandists, for this ploy failed with the Serbs. Ofcourse, the West fell for the propaganda garbage that Muslims with SA in the fore, put out, quite neglecting the centuries of the most cruel and brutal subjugation of Serbs by Muslims.

Hugh:

You are so right on the issue of cost. I wonder if some economics PhD student would consider trying to calculate the aggregate costs of Jihad on the U.S.? or even better on the West?

Death by a thousand cuts.

On a positive note, Judge Paruk is a true modern day Sobieski. Maybe those of us in Michigan can send him to Congress?

I do not like such options that will destroy or taint our civilisation for centuries. Far better to call for a divorce when two sides are as incompatible as they can be i.e., a free, liberal and tolerant society, and a repressed, regimented, aggressive and totalitarian society such as an Islamic one. This is about as incompatible as two can get, and a mutual coexistence under one nation is impossible.

Posted by: DP111

I think we can win an all-out war with them. Easily. We are just way too disunited to plan and execute a good war against them.

I would prefer a clean divorce as well. I don't like bloodshed - even if it's them.

But they need to understand that we have to live according to our rules. And no, we don't want them to sever off pieces of our countries.

Unfortunately we are seeling out the Serbs right now. Just as India was sold out resulting in the abomination called Pakistan. Now Pakistan is trying to get even more - via some claim of Sudetenstan inside Kashmir.

I've noticed the moslems LOVE forever-entagled situations.. never a clean break and a clear sitation. Then they wait until there's a moment of momentary weakness [weak lefty guvmints in the West for example or greedy corrupt leaders like Clintonbush] so they can cut off a piece off the body.

Today Serbia.. tomorrow Macedonia?

Oh yes, they feel this is the time to invade the Cathedral of Cordova. The Spanish guvmint is weak as a result of the former guvmint lying about the terror attacks. So the dhimwit sozis may just be enough to get the head of the camel into the tent.

I just spoke to my Spanish friend and he says once the moslems get inside the Cathedral they'll quickly force the Christians out.. they'll be in there pratying all the time.. grossing out the Spaniards with their smelly feet and general bad hygiene. He told me they do this all over and it's something known about them throughtout Spain.

He also mentioned the mahomet-bomb T-shirt lady was on Sanish TV which he gets on cable.

yes, they want an ongoing unresolved cloudy muddy picture.. like.. well.. let's "share" your chathedrals.. let's "share" your countries.. now we are the majority.. GET OUT!

It's called Share-ia.

Can i work as a foreign policy advisor for ONE Western guvmint?

I think the judge should give her a break. I mean, look at that prognathic jaw, protuberant lips, saddle nose, proptotic eyes and brachycephalic skull. Probably has a Fu Manchu beard, too. Who WANTS to see her?

It's past time to stop playing with these people. Get tou8gh now or else it will be much harder in the future. If they don't want to follow our laws, send them to Iran or Afghanistan where the women are so highly prized. What a wake up that would be.

The F-117 Nighthawk will wipe out every single Arabian horse on a battlefield.

http://library.thinkquest.org/4027/modern_fighter.html

Posted by: Johnathan

Unfortunately it will only do so when someone gives the order.
You saw what happened to the IDF when they did a half-assed hamas-removal in Lebastan.

WE are afraid to take on our on media. Then we have an army of ACLU lawyers ready to run to the most liberal court they can find so they get access to secret and vital miltary information.

Finally they report [always dutifully out-of-breath and tousled hair in the face] about Allied or IDF "atrocities".

Not only do we need a President to give the damn ORDER and a Congress willing to BACK him up - we also need to remove all activist judges who enable the media and other Fifth Columnists.

In the timeless words of Pogo: "I've met the enemy and he is us."

Meawhile there is NO lack of will to commit even the most heinous atrocities on their side. Only they don't have quite the means to carry them out as often and as well as they'd like.

So now they are doing the "soft jihad".. via the courts and the media.

Remember folks, they are RELENTLESS - Borg like.

"...the eart (sic) belongs to God..."

Yes, Abdullah, it does. He can claim it anytime He wants. I will not dispute His title.

Until that day, the Constitution of the United States of America is the law of the land. It is not and can not be superseded by the dogma of any socio- political philosophy, even one that masquerades as a religion.

Muslims cannot claim any special privleges under the Constitution on the basis of religion. This is a long established principle. It is not for America to make accommodations for the people who choose to move here. It is for those people to accommodate themselves to America and its Constitution.

For those Americans who choose to convert to Islam...I wish you well in your new location. You will never be happy here.

God bless America.

Islam's protected status as a fake religion is a burden that must be got rid of.

Dont give me that 'muslims go back to mecca' crap. For your information, apart from the fact that the eart belongs to God and not you, people like me were born and raised up in here. Half my entire genes are white so I have every much as right to Britannia lol as you fools do! So why don't you guys pack up ur bag and GO TO ISRAEL...? The country you founded by force

Posted by: Abdullah at March 29, 2007 10:44 AM

That filthy, vile demon you call a "prophet" was a child rapist, a murderer, a thief, a liar; there isn't one malevolent, evil trait he didn't possess. I'm really distressed to learn that the white gene pool has been contaminated with the likes of you. You're right, there is a simple solution to this asinine dilemma---take your muslim asses to an islamic hellhole where they belong and leave us the hell alone!

As for Israel, "WE" had nothing to do with the creation of Israel. Why does one tiny nation in a desert wasteland cause you so much angst? Muslims just can't stand to see an oasis of modernity and prosperity smack in the middle of islamic desolation. Israel stands out like a sore thumb and accentuates the misery, destitution, ignorance, illiteracy, stagnation, and utter depravity in the dozens of islamic countries that surround it. Muslims are rabid parasites incapable of cultivating a harmonious, peaceful, prosperous society so you suck the life blood out those around you, slowly draining their wealth, vitality, and strength. When you have sucked them dry, you start killing each other and move on to the next host. When islam and its acolytes finally kill all the hosts and render the earth barren once again, maybe the greatest scourge to ever plague the planet, islam, will finally die.

Provoslavni shows the wisdom of Solomon here:
"Show up for trial with Paruk in full Nijab. After all, the plaintiff is in Nijab too. Then when Ms Muhammed is on the stand, ask her to identify the person who dismissed her case.

Attorney: "Is that Judge Paruk?"

Ms Muhammed: "I don't know, I can't see his face"

Nice work there Prov and right on. As for your other post---hmmmmm.

I say--TAKE OFF THE MASKS!!!! This is America not islamabad.

"Polygamy means the best muslim women are taken by the bourgeois, "

.....How do you define the best Muslim Women?.....would an example be a woman who comes from a wealthy family,? or a woman who is a virgin,? or a women is cannot say no? ..

.....Would a "not the best Muslim woman" be fat, slovenly or have 6 children,? or a woman who constantly argues and demands the husband provide nice things like jewelry or a house? OR A woman who constantly complains?

Muslims today frequently just take women and force them to be wives, many wives are from pre arranged marriage situations and many are procured through the slave trade or though warfare...

....if Muslims have problems getting wives, it is because the Islamic religion has never taught love and peace,, The Muslims have grown up beliving that all you desire can be obtained through warfare, lies, deceit, intimidation,...Islam destroys what the rest of the world considers a normal family life....

'...I believe that God wants me that way.'

Soooo....,Ginnnah, why weren't you BORN with a naqib over your face? And, as other posters have so delicately put it, in a body bag?

Thanks BB, You are too kind. Incidently, most states have laws forbidding covering the face in public buildings. It's not unconstitutional because it doesn't target religion. These laws were enacted to prevent gangs from wearing ski-masks and groups like the Ku Klux Klan from showing for court in their hoods.

Hey, a woman in full nijab, a criminal gang-member in in his ski-mask and a hateful bigot in a hood. I doubt I'm the only one who sees the similarity.

Abdullag howls:

"For your information, apart from the fact that the eart belongs to God and not you, people like me were born and raised up in here. Half my entire genes are white so I have every much as right to Britannia lol as you fools do!"

Yes, you are right.

Earth does belong to God!
And God gave the earth to people, but warned them sternly:

"IT IS YOURS AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THAT ALLAH BABOON OUT!"

That is exactly what we are trying to do. Not too effectively yet, but that will come eventually. Once we are in a full swing we will kick your mohammedan ass out of here and you can scream that have "white genes" until you get blue in the face.

Oh, you were born in Britain?! So bloody what? So was every rat in the London sewer.

Women taken as captives in a war

Islam permits unlimited and boundless sex with women taken as prisoners in a war. This was (or is) the practice of the Muslims, including
"
Why do you think gang-rape is so prevalent in muslim countries? "

Because Muhammad said it was ok.....

"Muhammad during the ‘golden’ days of early Islam. The Qur’an permits a Muslim man to have this kind of coerced sex in the following verses:

004.024 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Sex with captive women and slave women is permitted…23:1-6"

She has a suit against a Car Rental agency? This person should not be allowed to DRIVE while her vision is obstructed ; veils obstruct vision.

Its very strange the words that you can make from the word "Veil"

Evil
Vile
Lie
Live

and 3 out of 4 of those words just about sums up islam! (How Strange)

Its very strange the words that you can make from the word "Veil"

Evil
Vile
Lie
Live

and 3 out of 4 of those words just about sums up islam! (How Strange)