Jihad Watch reported on this story several days ago, but this Tulsa World article has much more detail about the case. This looks as if it is yet another instance of Hamas-linked CAIR trying to trump up “Islamophobia” and fabricate an “anti-Muslim hate crime” where none exists; actual such cases are so thin on the ground that they have to resort to these fabrications in order to buttress their ridiculous claim that Muslims in the U.S. are subjected to routine discrimination and harassment.
What does Hamas-linked CAIR want in this case? It likely wants hijabbed Muslimas to be able to pass through security searches without removing their hijabs. They could have weapons concealed underneath, but that’s just too bad: Hamas-linked CAIR at every opportunity tries to reinforce the principle that where Islamic law and American practices conflict, it is American practices that must be set aside.
“Suit dismissed: Judge says Muslim woman didn’t show that her constitutional rights were violated,” by Curtis Killman, Tulsa World, January 23, 2019 (thanks to Doc):
A judge has dismissed a Muslim woman’s civil rights lawsuit after finding that her complaint failed to meet the legal burden to show that Tulsa County sheriff’s deputies violated her constitutional rights when they refused to let her enter the courthouse because she wouldn’t remove her hijab in public when she set off a metal detector.
U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan, in an opinion and order released Tuesday, dismissed claims against four sheriff’s deputies sued in their personal capacities….
Keith Wilkes, a private attorney representing the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office, issued the following statement Wednesday when asked to comment on the ruling:
“The decision by the ACLU and CAIR attorneys to hold a self-serving press conference last year in which they made substantive misstatements and gross exaggerations regarding the incident while failing to disclose pertinent facts, led to a national media story that wasn’t. Once the actual truth was exposed and applied to federal law, the Court dismissed Ms. Elqutt’s lawsuit at the earliest possible stage because she failed to establish there was any violation of her constitutional rights.
“The men and women of the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Department did their jobs. This was not a case of a person being targeted for her faith. It was a person required to go through a security checkpoint, like all others, who was permitted to walk through the metal detector with her hijab in-place. Unfortunately, she then set off two different metal detectors, four different times, because she had an unknown metal object under her hijab. Once female deputies were able to look under the hijab—outside the view of any men — Ms. Elqutt was cleared and allowed to proceed. There was no violation of her constitutional rights.
“Hundreds of people of all different walks of life, race, faith and ethnicity access the Tulsa County Courthouse each day, and this is the first time the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office has been accused of violating anyone’s constitutional rights while going through security. In fact, court records reveal that Ms. Elqutt herself went through security 8 times in 5 months before this incident, and two times since, all without incident. The Court made the right decision by dismissing this lawsuit.”
Elqutt filed the civil rights lawsuit after she was stopped by deputies after she set off a metal detector when she tried to enter the Tulsa County Courthouse April 10 while wearing a hijab.
The lawsuit, brought May 15 in Tulsa federal court on Elqutt’s behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation and the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sought injunctive relief and damages for claims of violation of the First Amendment and the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act.
An attorney for CAIR said they were disappointed with the ruling.
“We are exploring all of our options, including an appeal,” said Veronica Laizure.
Elqutt claimed in her lawsuit that deputies and the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office violated her First Amendment rights by requiring her to remove her hijab in public for search purposes before she could enter the Tulsa County Courthouse.
After explaining to deputies that it was against her religious beliefs to remove her hijab in front of men, Elqutt alleged deputies still refused to permit a female deputy to examine her hijab in a private space.
Regalado said at the time that the county did not have a room set aside at the courthouse for private security screenings.
Elqutt and her attorney eventually left the courthouse, where they were later met in a parking lot by female deputies. Elqutt agreed to let the female deputies remove Elqutt’s hijab while she crouched between two parked cars.
A small hair clip under the hijab set off the metal detectors, officials said at the time.
Elqutt claims in her lawsuit that men could have walked past while her hijab was removed.
Eagan noted that deputies had a legitimate concern that Elqutt could have been carrying a weapon when she repeatedly set off a metal detector.
A male deputy attempted to accommodate Elqutt by using a metal detector wand in an attempt to allow her to wear her hijab while entering the courthouse, Eagan wrote in her opinion and order.
“Even if the plaintiff is correct that she had a right to a religious accommodation, the facts alleged in her complaint show that defendants did attempt to accommodate the plaintiff’s religious beliefs,” Eagan wrote….
somehistory says
cair and moslims working with them to make illegal things “legal” and legal things “illegal”…left much out of their story.
Most likely, she wore the metal clip to set off the alarm on purpose…so she could claim they discriminated against her “religious beliefs” and then she could sue for big bucks.
She knew what was setting off the alarm. She could have just reached up and pulled it out, gone out to her car and taken it out and then showed the deputies what it was that she had under her gang head gear. But she didn’t want to spoil the effect of wearing it and making the alarm sound. This is a large part of the war of islam on the rest of mankind.
It’s good the judge discerned that the deputies were telling the truth and the moslim and her lawyers were lying.
Score one for justice.
Timothy says
Excellent outcome just ban the burka & the hijab. It is not against her religion to have men see her without the covering that is choice of the individual.
Ann Mix says
I agree and she had gone back and forth ten times before? Why? On what kind of business? and why isn’t her full name, Suha Elqutt in this article. I only see Ms Elquitt with her face blocked out. So, she doesn’t get stopped ten times so she adds something metal to set off the alarm. Totally testing hoping they do something wrong.
J D S says
Of course Muslims are using our laws against us….I’m glad this judge had the guts to out
These people in their place…especially HAMAS Linked CAIR..Wish the judge could have marked CAIR as a terrorist group.
Ashley says
Ms. Elqutt certainly inconvenienced a good many people by her antic.
She set off the metal detectors multiple times. Bomb squad should have been dispatched as she crouched between two parked cars for removal of her hijab…
somehistory says
The deputies had to make sure she didn’t have some explosive or gun under the scarf. Just because she couldn’t get inside the court, wouldn’t mean that she couldn’t have used it in another location.
She most likely didn’t expect to have to take it off in the parking lot.
william says
A Remington 270 would take care of this BS!!!
Rosie Barnes says
Security MUST override any religious beliefs, particularly at airports. In Britain, the alleged Somali killer of a Yorkshire policewoman was believed to have fled the country by dressing in a niqab and using his sister’s passport, because at no point in the immigration and security process was he asked to remove the veil.
Before that, he was dealt with by the courts on 11 occasions for 21 matters including two firearms and weapons offences, theft and offences against the person. Home Office officials decided not to deport him to Somalia, ruling that it was too dangerous for him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html
gravenimage says
+1
Walter Sieruk says
So what ! Let the Hamas -linked CAIR Muslims be engaged that the judge didn’t cave in to Muslin pressure and that the Muslim members of CAIR “have it their own way” -the Islamic way. This in America .Not Saudi Arabia .Therefore if the Muslims of CAIR as well as other Muslims are “enraged ” over the judges decision . Then their angry emotions are their problem. Maybe they need to grow up.
Furthermore related to this two statements should made clear.
First, the message needs to be made known to all the Muslims who live in the United States of America who dislike and maybe even despise the US Constitution and would like to replace it with Sharia law. Those same Muslims instead in trying to force Sharia law on American citizens and their nation those are free to leave and really should leave the USA and then go to live in either Shii ‘ite, Iran or Sunni , Saudi Arabia if they actually feel the Sharia law is the grand, great and wonderful .
Moreover, all this is a strong reminder of the wise words declared by Theodore Roosevelt in a speech. “There can be no fifty –fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only one hundred percent Americanism , only for those who are Americans and nothing else.”
Second, what is known as the Stealth jihad otherwise called the Muslim method of Islamic Gradualism to enact Sharia law in America. In contrast to the way of the violent jihad or also called the militant jihad .This non-violent form of the jihad for Islam is a very sly, insidious, subtle and deceptive way of working for the advancement of Islam.
This Muslim scheme for achieving the goal of the Islamic agenda is as, many times, as subtly effective as it is demonically clever. Furthermore, this Islamic gradualism, in some ways, is very similar to the instruction printed in the book entitled THE ART OF WAR by Sun Tzu. Which reads “At first, then, exhibit the coyness of a maiden, until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to opposes you”
Hilltop Watchman says
AKA, Hijrah, jihad by immigration and procreation, increasing numbers, using the infidels’ laws against them. Lao Tzu writ large buy with Islamic zealotry attached.
shortfattexan says
I have said for a long time that stealth jihad is a much greater threat to America than violent jihad ever was.
Violent jihad can kill a lot of people, ruin a lot of property, and cost a lot of money, but it can never destroy America. Stealth jihad most certainly can destroy America, and it will, unless changes are made.
gravenimage says
These tactics work in tandem.
Hugh Fitzgerald calls this the “Fast Jihad” and the “Slow Jihad”.
Ren says
Just let them be enraged.
Ashley says
+1
Enraging CAIR is as delicious as an Archway vanilla frosted cookie with a cold glass of milk to my tum-tum.
Sheikh Anvakh says
Or even a Tim Hortons maple icecap.
observer says
Or a double-thick choc shake at barristers…
Simo Hayha says
Or, a full slab of Baby Back Rips, slathered with spicy BBQ sauce!
Rich says
CAIR is an un-American activity. Only a very slow individual couldn’t see what the ultimate goal of CAIR is and that is to undermine the core American way of life. Big mistake to allow moslems to immigrate. Name one moslem country that is tolerant of other religions. I don’t mean token tolerance but actual tolerance.
IanB says
Or a bacon sandwich washed down with a good straight rye whiskey!
Westman says
Enraged, looking to sugar coat Islam with vinegar?
Exactly how does CAIR improve American Islamic relations when it acts like a combination of the SPLC and the ACLU; hogging cameras to decry perceived offenses? Its very name insists that it knows Islamic interests are very different and Islamic society intends to remain separate from unbelieving Americans.
Why doesn’t CAIR call itself by a more truthful title like, the Islamic Apartheid Enforcement Center? Didn’t we already have a bad experience with, “separate, but equal” from a majority? Now a minority demands separation. Imagine if Islam became a majority – does anyone think the minority would have, “equality”?
PRCS says
” Its very name insists that it knows Islamic interests are very different and Islamic society intends to remain separate from unbelieving Americans.”
Correct.
Council on AMERICAN ISLAMIC relations.
mortimer says
If the judge cannot clearly see the facial features and expressions of the accused and witnesses, how can the judge evaluate their credibility?
mortimer says
American law is fair and neutral and equal, because it is NOT discriminatory Sharia law.
gravenimage says
Exactly, Mortimer.
James Lincoln says
Any time that CAIR is “enraged”, some clear-thinking nonbeliever must be doing something right.
gravenimage says
🙂
mortimer says
Good point from JL. Eventually, no one will listen to CAIR crying wolf. It is Sharia law that is doing ALL THE DISCRIMINATION against Kafirs.
gravenimage says
Can’t wait for that day.
Joe Erdman says
Ahmed the Dead Terrorist
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ahmed+the+dead+terrorist+youtube+2018&view=detail&mid=F35091F9AAE3D65E87C8F35091F9AAE3D65E87C8&FORM=VIRE
dan says
George Bush made this fatal mistake: calling it a war on terror. It’s a war on Islam, which islam started and we honest people in the West must finish by pushing the savages back behind a wall somewhere in the Middle East and refusing to ever allow them and their horrible ideology to infect the rest of the world.
Phil nolan says
They can’t be trusted. They do not know Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
In their infernal ideology they can lie to get advantage, they can kill those who oppose them and their atrocities go on and on from moHamMad to today. Evil personified.
Pray to the One True God they see Alibabba as the devil he is…just saying.
Brigitte from Germany says
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/removal-d-mn-iihan-abdullahi-omar-5th-congressional-district-her-participation-marriage-fraud
sign it and share it please.
On the Febr. the 4th it`s too late.
PRCS says
Elqutt claimed her First Amendment rights were violated by requiring her to remove her hijab in public
***Actually, she agreed to do so–while crouched between two parked cars–as the county did not have a room set aside for private security screenings.
After explaining to deputies that it was against her religious beliefs to remove her hijab in front of men
***Actually, only some men.
Elqutt claims in her lawsuit that men could have walked past while her hijab was removed.
***Could have. But didn’t.
infidel says
Other than the fact this was a futile attempt by a cheating Muslim to make money off the infidels thru a frivolous law case, this could very well be attempt at a DRY-RUN for a possible terror attack… U know what I mean here.. This Muslims could be a test run as to how much deep the penetration could be achieved in the US Govt building without any alarm being raised… This Muslima needs to be watched from hereon.
somehistory says
“Elqutt herself went through security 8 times in 5 months before this incident, and two times since, all without incident. ”
*************************************************
Wondering all day just what kind of criminal she is that she has had to go to the courthouse so many times before and since. ??
NotALibNoMo says
I think Doug Hooper’s condom cap has the receptacle tip, so when he blows, it’s all contained.
MJP says
If you are going to live here assimilate or go back to the backwards 3rd world country you came from why should you be allowed in a legal establishment with head wear Native born citizens can’t do it