Sharia Chic : the New "Sexy"

[Jolie Rouge]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/ShariaChic.jpg

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015269.php

See video at http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/15/sharia-chic/


Sharia Chic
Hijab-Encrusted: Feminist Mag Shows Women the New "Sexy"; Medieval Black is the New Black

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/11/hijab-encrusted.html
By Debbie Schlussel

And now for the latest edition of "Reading Women's Mags So You Don't Have To--See What Your Wives/Daughters/Girlfriends Are Reading":

Marie Claire has done it again. The magazine which equates our female soldiers with female Islamic terrorists; the magazine which claims that Islamofascist TV broadcasts are liberalizing the Arab world (Ha!); the magazine which hates Christianity and loves women's lib--that magazine suddenly has selectively, yet again, discarded its feminist ethos to show us what it hopes will be a new fashion trend.

It's lovely how women who think they're so liberated they'll cheer anything anti-American, are embracing their future enslavers. Don't let the cover of December's Marie Claire fool you. Inside are not photos of Ashley Judd's breasts, like on the cover. Instead, lurking inside is a 13-page spread of Islamofascist fashion . . . and an article cheering a lawyer for Gitmo terrorists. Yes, this mag is full of chic . . . or full of something that sounds similar:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijabcover.jpg

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijab.jpg
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijab4.jpg
Check out the New Islamofascist face masks. All the rage in Dubai. SEXY. Will Come in Handy for Muslim Women's Pro Hockey Team.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijab2.jpg
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijab3.jpg
Sexy to you? This Outfit Available in Mourning-Your-Homicide-Bomber-Son Black, Mourning-Your-Honor-Killed-Daughter Black, or Just-Plain-Jihad Black.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijabmcd.jpg

Check it Out--They Eat At McDonald's (Halal), So They're Just Like Us. And, Oh, Yeah, "Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah Hu Akbar." (I Love Eating A Burger Through a Scarf, Too. Don't You?)


http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijabski.jpg
Wow, They Ski & Wear Chanel, So They Must Be Civilized. "We Support Bin Laden."

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijabmosque.jpghttp://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijabmosque2.jpg

She Dresses Like Jackie O When She Visits the Mosque. Well, Then, It Must Be a Religion of Peace.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijab6.jpg
No Way! The Olsen Twins Converted to Islam?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijablimo.jpghttp://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairehijablimo2.jpg

Check Out Our Accessories. An IPod, Silver Space-Age Boots, and Sunglasses Seductively in Her Mouth--Well, That Settles It. With Acccessories Like These, They'd Never Support Jihad. Would They?

FYI, the "model" in the middle of the above photo is Samar Breitem, who is "half-Palestinian" and lives in Dubai. She tells Marie Claire that she loves Levi's. That's the problem. They love Levis, but hate Levi Strauss. They love Baskin Robbins, but hate Baskin and Robbins. All of them, after all, were "evil Zionists" a/k/a Jews.

By the way, the photos were shot in Dubai, home of the new anti-Jew apartheid. No Israeli passports or passport stamps allowed (unless you're a Muslim, then it's okay). Not a peep from the libs that run Marie Claire.

:rolleyes:

And, last but not least, here's "Gitmo's Girl," Kristine Huskey, who's depicted in Marie Claire drinking cocktails and having a ball of fun in glam outfits, all while representing Gitmo's Islamic terrorists. Formerly parading around M-TV videos in purple lingerie, now she's shilling for terrorists . . . and quite clueless about it, saying:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairegitmogirl.jpg


I sometimes have this nightmare that my clients will get released and go join al Qaeda.

Uh, here's a clue: They already joined. That's why they're at Gitmo, honey. But odds are, they'll rejoin once you get 'em sprung from there, as many released Gitmo detainees have.

What does she care? She's too busy sipping a martini (and posing for a silly women's mag). Cheers to You, Terrorists . . .

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/marieclairegitmogirl2.jpg


Doesn't she know that Islam "frowns upon" women showing their ankles and on drinking alcohol ?

[Jolie Rouge]

Muslim women enjoying special swimsuits
By PETER PRENGAMAN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Feb 18, 4:30 PM ET

LOS ANGELES - Amana Siddiqi loved swimming as a child but gave it up as a teenager because her Muslim faith required she fully cover her body in public. "At age 15, I started to cover, so I stopped going to public pools," said Siddiqi, now 27, whose parents come from India and Pakistan. "Most of my friends stopped, too. They felt self-conscious."

Then last summer Siddiqi bought a specially made swimsuit that covers her body while allowing full motion — and went snorkeling and rode watercraft and slides while on vacation in Hawaii.

Muslim girls and women are increasingly participating in athletic activities, especially as second- and third-generation children of immigrants grow up surrounded by American influences. But doing so requires them to overcome a seemingly large obstacle: Islam's traditional emphasis on modest dress.

When it comes to water sports, the challenge can be even more difficult than in Muslim countries, where the sexes are often separated in pools and on beaches. America is predominantly coed, and increasingly the norm is skimpy swimsuits.

Enter the new-and-improved all-body suit.

While full-body swimwear has been around for decades, in the last couple years it has undergone a renaissance as the niche market has grown. Today about a dozen stores, based in the United States and abroad, sell swimwear to Muslim-American women, mostly through online catalogues. A full suit can cost more than $100, with pants around $60, shirts at $25 and water scarves and hoods about $15.

The material is high-tech. Synthetic combinations that include polyester, nylon and Lycra allow flexible movement in the water while not sticking to a woman's body when she exits the pool — which could produce the opposite effect of modesty. The suits are also increasingly stylish, with aqua to purple to hot pink colors, intricate sequin designs and miniskirts that go over long pants.

"We want to be modest, but we also want to be fashionable," said Shereen Sabet, who last year founded Splashgear, an online swimwear store for Muslim women based in Huntington Beach.

Sabet, 36, a microbiologist at California State University, Long Beach, said she decided to get into the business while trying to reconcile the conflict between her Muslim faith and a love of scuba diving. She realized that many female Muslim friends completely avoided the water because of modesty concerns. "Nothing in the Quran says women and men can't swim or scuba dive together," said Sabet, whose parents are from Egypt. "It's just a question of finding a solution."

For Hayat Diab, 65, finding a solution has helped her deal with severe arthritis. Diab, originally from Syria, lives in an Irvine apartment complex that has several pools. She had never swam in her life until two years ago, when she got a special suit that includes long pants, long-sleeved top and a cap to cover her hair. "When I go to the Jacuzzi, I feel all my joints relax," Diab said.

Her husband, Ibrahim Al-Tawil, 75, is a longtime swimmer who is now teaching his wife. "We are happy to be together in the swimming pool," he said.

Finding ways to navigate American culture and Islamic norms is a constant theme in Muslim focus groups, said David Morse, president of New American Dimensions, a multicultural marketing research company. "There is a desire to assimilate and be seen as everyday Americans," Morse said. "But because of Muslim customs like clothing, it can be hard to fit in."

Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Southern California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Muslim women often hold swimming parties in private pools but added that the special suits and public swimming are becoming more popular. "The suits basically protect women from the unwanted looks of men," he said.

For Sama Wareh, 23, a stylish suit helps her fit in while surfing. Before buying a Splashgear suit last year, she would go into the ocean wearing jogging pants, skirt and long-sleeved shirt. A lifeguard once asked her what others on the beach might have been wondering: "'Dude, are you like a Muslim surfer girl or something?'" she recalled.

Now people are asking her where to buy one of the suits. "A big reason why Muslim women don't do things in the water is it's embarrassing," said Wareh, whose parents are from Syria. "Once Muslim women see others doing it, they will too."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_re_us/muslim_women_swimsuits;_ylt=AtieBY77spRjMmSmjIWi77 ZH2ocA

____

On the Net:

Splashgear: http://www.splashgearusa.com/

Primo Moda http://www.primomoda.com/

Ahiida: http://www.ahiida.com/

[Jolie Rouge]

French pool bars Muslim woman for 'burquini' suit
Maria Danilova, Associated Press Writer
22 mins ago

PARIS – A Muslim woman garbed in a head-to-toe swimsuit — dubbed a "burquini" — may have opened a new chapter in France's tussle between religious practices and its stern secular code.

Officials insisted Wednesday they banned the woman's use of the Islam-friendly suit at a local pool because of France's pool hygiene standards — not out of hostility to overtly Muslim garb.

Under the policy, swimmers are not allowed in pools with baggy clothing, including surfer-style shorts. Only figure-hugging suits are permitted.

Nonetheless the woman, a 35-year-old convert to Islam identified only as Carole, complained of religious discrimination after trying to go swimming in a "burquini," a full-body swimsuit, in the town of Emerainville, southeast of Paris.

She was quoted as telling the daily Le Parisien newspaper that she had bought the burquini after deciding "it would allow me the pleasure of bathing without showing too much of myself, as Islam recommends."

"For me this is nothing but segregation," she said.

The issue of religious attire is a hot topic in France, where head-to-toe burqas or other full-body coverings worn by some Muslim fundamentalists are in official disfavor.

France is home to western Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated at 5 million, and Islam is the nation's second religion after Roman Catholicism.

A 2004 law banning the wearing of Muslim head scarves at public schools sparked fierce debate. That legislation also banned Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses in public classrooms.

French lawmakers recently revived the issue of Muslim dress with a proposal that the burqa and other voluminous Muslim attire be banned.

President Nicolas Sarkozy, a conservative, backs the move, saying such garb makes women prisoners.

The "burquini" covers the arms to the wrists and the legs to the ankle and has a hood to cover neck and hair.

An official in charge of swimming pools for the Emerainville region, Daniel Guillaume, said the refusal to allow the local woman to swim in her "burquini" had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with public health standards.

"These clothes are used in public, so they can contain molecules, viruses, et cetera, which will go in the water and could be transmitted to other bathers," Guillaume said in a telephone interview.

"We reminded this woman that one should not bathe all dressed, just as we would tell someone who is a nudist not to bathe all naked," he said.

Guillaume said France's public health standards require all pool-goers to don swimsuits for women and tight, swimming briefs for men — and caps to cover their hair. Bathers also must shower before entering the water.

Guillaume said Carole had tried to file a complaint at a local police station, but her request was turned down as groundless.

Carole told the daily Le Parisien she would protest with the help of anti-discrimination groups.

Emerainville Mayor Alan Kelyor said he could not understand why the woman would want to swim in head-to-toe clothes.

"We are going back in civilization," he said by telephone. Women have fought for decades for equal rights with men, he said. "Now we are putting them back in burqas and veils."

The suits have a clear market.

Women "jump on the occasion so they can swim with their families. Otherwise, they end up staying on the beach and watching," said Leila Mouhoubia, who runs an online site from France that specializes in the sale of Islamic swimsuits. Sales, she said, are strong.

"I think it's forbidden (in France) because it presents an image of the Muslim woman (and) they have prejudices against Muslims," she said by telephone. "They want women to be undressed."

Mouloud Aounit, head of the anti-racism group known as MRAP, said the decision to ban Carole from the pool appeared fair, since pool authorities were observing regulations. But Aounit lamented that the incident was likely to fuel religious tensions.

"The rules must be the same for everybody, regardless of the color of their skin or their religion," Aounit said. "The concern I have is that this case will again lead to stigmatization of the Muslim population in France."

The all-body suits, worn regularly by some women in Muslim countries, are growing popular in the West. They can be seen on female Muslim lifeguards on Australian beaches, in the United States and various European countries, from the Netherlands to Sweden — which OKed them after two women won discrimination cases last year.

__________

Associated Press Writers Rod McGuirk in Sydney, Australia, Melissa Eddy in Berlin, Germany, Malin Rising in Stockholm, Sweden, Ian MacDougall in Oslo, Norway, and Toby Sterlin in Amsterdam, the Netherlands contributed to this report.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_burquini_banned

[Jolie Rouge]

Barbie meets sharia
November 22, 2009 10:00 AM

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/21/article-1229760-074B1535000005DC-764_468x286.jpg

No, it’s not a joke: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229760/Its-Barbie-burka-World-famous-doll-gets-makeover-hammer-50th-anniversary.html


One of the world’s most famous children’s toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover – wearing a burkha.

Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the iconic doll is going undercover for a charity auction in connection with Sotheby’s for Save The Children.

More than 500 Barbies went on show yesterday at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy.

…The company director of Laird Assessors from The Wirral, Cheshire, said: ‘Bring it on Burkha Barbie, I think this is a great idea. ‘I think this is really important for girls, wherever they are from they should have the opportunity to play with a Barbie that they feel represents them.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/21/article-1229760-074B37DE000005DC-314_468x619.jpg
Designer: Eliana Lorena is putting Barbie undercover for an auction to celebrate the doll's 50th anniversary

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229760/Its-Barbie-burka-World-famous-doll-gets-makeover-hammer-50th-anniversary.html#ixzz0XlPB1zQU

Comments

No word yet on whether the dolls will be subjected to female genital mutilation or come with stoning pits in order to accurately represent their “diversity.”

----

will burka barbie not be allowed out of the toybox without a chaperone if action man is in the room? what happens if a brother and sister both want to play with their dolls at the same time?

---

Er...the burkha is not "traditional Islamic dress" - It was invented by a recent and horrific regime. it's not in the Koran that women need to cover entirely. The black veil outfit in the middle more represents traditional Islamic dress

[Jolie Rouge]

See also http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/568249-textbook-case-sharia-creep.html


With Dharmaveer’s kind permission, I reproduce one of his recent posts below: http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2009/01/sharia-vs-civilization.html

Shari’a vs. Civilization

Modern civilisation is based upon a few axioms. These are held as self-evident, and while not every society has been able to arrive at successful practice of them, most would agree with them in principle. These are:


]1. Equality of all human beings in the eyes of the law. In particular, men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, and members of all religious groups are equal in the eyes of the law.

2. Freedom of beliefs in general, and religion in particular. A person is free to choose his beliefs, including her/his faith and the manner of her/his worship.

3. Freedom of expression and freedom to dissent. Freedom to intellectually scrutinize any doctrine, including a religious one.

4. Belief in democracy as the ideal mode of governance.


Once again, while no society has arrived at this perfect ideal in practise, most modern nations would agree to all four points in principle.

- - - - - - - - -

But not Islam. Not Shari’a. Islamic law (Shari’a) is categorically and emphatically opposed to ALL 4 axioms of modern civilization. Let us inspect each one in turn.

1. Shari’a law denies equality to women and to non-Muslims. Both the Kuran and Hadith — the foundations of Shari’a law — assert that women are inferior to men, and this is reflected in Shari’a law. In particular, the testimony of a woman is worth only half of a man in a Shari’a court.

Similarly, since the Kuran and Hadith assert that “unbelievers” are not the equal of Muslims in any manner, the testimony of a non-Muslim is worth only half of a Muslim.

Once again, this is not just the case with “radical Islamists”, but has been agreed upon by all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki) since their beginning.

2. While Islam exhorts all Muslims to wage continuous war (Jihad) upon non-Muslims in order to expand the Islamic state, Shari’a law does not allow any Muslim to leave his faith. This includes someone who may have originally been of a different faith before converting to Islam, and now wants to return to her/his original faith. The penalty for a Muslim who leaves Islam is death, according to all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence. This is based on numerous Hadith where either Muhammad directly says that those who leave Islam must be killed, or his close companions bear witness to him having said so. In several Hadith, this sentence is actually carried out (i.e., a former Muslim is put to death, and this is recorded in the Hadith). Indeed, there is a Hadith which records the execution of such a person (who was originally Jewish, became Muslim, and reverted to Judaism).

Shari’a law also does not give non-Muslims the right to build or repair their places of worship. It does not allow idol worship as a means of worship, and generally approves of the demolition of the temples of anyone it considers “polytheist” or “idolator”. This has been used to justify the destruction of literally thousands of Hindu temples all over India during the years of Islamic rule. Even today, strict implementations of shari’a law demolish idols, such as the Taliban’s destruction of the centuries old Bamiyan Buddhas.

3. Shari’a does not allow any sort of open discussion of Islam. Islam is held to be a doctrine straight from Allah, binding upon humans for all time and in all places. Hence, criticism of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is punishable by death. This is part of law even in countries that do not have full fledged Shari’a law, such as Pakistan. Under Pakistan’s Tauheen-e-rasool (literally “disrespect of Prophet”) act, any criticism of Muhammad is punishable with death.

4. Shari’a is a strict alternative to democracy. In other words, Shari’a posits itself as a political system, and does not recognize the legitimacy of any other political system such as democracy. Every single school of Islamic jurisprudence says governance by Shari’a is the only acceptable form of Islamic government. Indeed, bringing about such governance by Shari’a law is considered the ultimate goal of the Muslim “umma” (Muslim nation). Democracy is categorically rejected as an acceptable system of governance. Almost every Islamist writing pours scorn on democracy and secularism as “western inventions” that are “contaminating the Muslim ummah.”

So Islamic Shari’a law is opposed to all four basic axioms of modern civilization as we know it. It is not a coincidence that Islamic societies “look very different” from free societies. I have not even gone into issues such as barbarity of punishments (such as stoning to death, chopping limbs etc. which are imposed under Shari’a law). I am speaking simply of the basic axioms that underlie modern human civilization and society and which mankind has generally come to agree upon, with the one exception of Islam. Islam rejects all these axioms. To accept any imposition of Shari’a law, no matter how “harmless” it is deliberately made to appear, would be tantamount to rolling back centuries of human civilisational progress. I particularly appeal to British readers of this blog to understand that by allowing even a mild form of Shari’a, they are allowing the imposition of a system that does not accept women and non-Muslims as complete human beings and forever relegates them to a status between human and animal. Is this what Britain stands for these days? I am appalled. Please, my British readers, raise your voices now.

What I have written here is not something our venal politicians will openly state.

But these are the issues we face today. In India, as evidenced by the Shah Bano case, politicians are only too eager to please their Muslim vote banks by allowing limited forms of Shari’a. Shari’a law might soon be allowed in limited form in Britain — a startling new story in Europe’s lack of will to stand up to this civilisational assault. The Indian media, in a characteristically spineless display, did not give any coverage to the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) posters saying “No to democracy, No to secularism, Yes to Shari’a” which appeared in many Muslim localities of cities including Mumbai. Make no mistake — rejection of democracy and secularism, and their replacement by Shari’a, is core to Islamist teaching. It is up to honest intellectuals to inform the public about what Shari’a means.

It means the end of civilization as we know it.

[Jolie Rouge]

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/620364-reason-fear-sharia-law.html


[b]Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?
When truth = slander
by Alyssa A. Lappen
January 2, 2008 1:15 AM

A narrow, technical New York Appeals Court decision rendered last month essentially means that American writers and publishers can be held subject to Islamic law. Alyssa Lappen explains how.


Unless the U.S. Congress and New York legislatures act immediately to stop them, foreign terror financiers and libel tourists now can essentially impose sharia (Islamic) law on American writers and publishers.

Intended or not, a narrow, technical New York Appeals Court decision on Thursday Dec. 20, 2007 produces that net effect. The ruling concerns jurisdiction in Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld’s suit against Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, seeking a federal declaratory judgment against him to render unenforceable in the U.S. a U.K. High Court default “libel” decision. By implication, the New York Appeals Court ruling harms all publishers and writers in New York, the world’s publishing capital.

Ehrenfeld’s case stems from her 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It, where American Center for Democracy Director reports Mahfouz’ well-documented terror funding. (Full disclosure: Since September 2005, I’ve been an ACD Senior Fellow.) As always after such terror financing reports, Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain. His attorneys informed U.K. High Court Justice David Eady that former CIA director R. James Woolsey wrote her book’s foreword. “Say no more,” Eady replied. “I award you a judgment by default, and if you want, an injunction, too.”

Eady then ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize, retract, pay Mahfouz $225,913.37 in damages and destroy remaining copies of her book. Instead, she ignored the British default judgment and false libel claim—never tried on its merits—and asked the Southern District Court of New York to rule the U.K. judgment unenforceable here.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court’s seminal 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision defined libel or slander by a journalist as stating or writing falsehoods or misrepresentations that damage someone’s reputation—and in cases of public figures, doing so with malice.

Under sharia, by contrast, libel constitutes any oral or written remark offensive to a complainant, regardless of its accuracy or intent. Slander “means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him,” according to Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368). 1

Repeat: Sharia regards even the truth as slander if its subject dislikes the facts. Now applied through foreign courts, sharia law interpretations of libel have demonstrably undermined U.S. press viability already. Though Mahfouz never proved merits in any libel case, he has threatened or sued more than 35 journalists and publishers (including many in the U.S.) through Britain’s High Court, and exacted fines, apologies and retractions from all but Ehrenfeld. Last Thursday, New York’s Appeals Court substantially (if not intentionally) allowed the application of sharia rules here.

New York State recently held that it can collect sales taxes from “commercial” enterprises with as little physical presence as a single link on any New York-based website. While temporarily reversed on November 15, the state’s controversial opinion will be enforced after the 2007 Christmas season.

Yet, also by New York fiat, Constitutional First Amendment rights now take a back seat to the state’s conservative “long-arm” statutes—which protect distant commercial enterprises from state courts. A Saudi national suing an American journalist in Britain, Mahfouz hired numerous New York agents and couriers and used many New York electronic and telephone communication systems expressly to halt Ehrenfeld’s investigations and publications concerning terror finance. However, on Dec. 20 the New York Appeals Court established Mahfouz’ New York-based commercial transactions as less commercial (or significant) than a distant merchant’s sales link on a New York-based website.

In its unanimous June 8, 2007 request for a local ruling on jurisdiction, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel specifically extended as wide a berth as possible to the New York Court of Appeals to consider First Amendment rights within the context of Ehrenfeld’s case.

However, the New York Court ignored the federal instructions to consider Constitutional issues—or the effects this case will consequently have on Constitutional rights in the world’s publishing capital. “However pernicious the effect of this practice [libel tourism] may be, our duty here is to determine whether defendant’s New York contacts establish a proper basis for jurisdiction,” wrote Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, an appointee of former Governor Mario Cuomo.

Shockingly, New York’s Court of Appeals allowed Mahfouz’ commercial actions (and any similar commercial actions of any other foreign terror financier and libel tourist) to subjugate Constitutional First Amendment rights to archaic commercial statutes.

Now, the U.S. Congress and New York legislators must swiftly enact new “long-arm” statues, suitable to our electronic age, before further damage to the U.S. Constitution ensues.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/sharia_libel_law_now_applies_i.php

NOTE:

1 Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368), Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, 1991 and 1994, Amana Publications (revised ed., 1994), p. 730.

Alyssa A. Lappen, an American Center for Democracy Senior Fellow and American Congress for Truth Contributing Editor, is a former senior editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance and former associate editor of Forbes.

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/567786-does-sharia-libel-law-now-apply-u-s.html




http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/625190-sudan-trouser-woman-ready-40-000-lashes.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/612748-muslim-television-channel-founder-charged-beheading-his-wife.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Elderly woman sentanced to 40 lashes

A Saudi court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment and deportation from the kingdom for having two unrelated men in her house, according to local media reports. According to the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan, troubles for the woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, began last year when a member of the religious police entered her house in the city of Al-Chamli and found her with two unrelated men, "Fahd" and "Hadian."

Fahd told the policeman that he had the right to be there, because Sawadi had breast-fed him as a baby and was therefore considered to be a son to her in Islam, according to Al-Watan. Fahd, 24, added that his friend Hadian was escorting him as he delivered bread for the elderly woman. The policeman then arrested both men.

Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism and punishes unrelated men and women who are caught mingling.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, feared by many Saudis, is made up of several thousand religious policemen charged with duties such as enforcing dress codes, prayer times and segregation of the sexes. Under Saudi law, women face many restrictions, including a strict dress code and a ban on driving. Women also need to have a man's permission to travel.

Al Watan obtained the court's verdict and reported that it was partly based on the testimony of the religious police. In his ruling, the judge said it had been proved that Fahd is not the Sawadi's son through breastfeeding. The court also doled out punishment to the two men. Fahd was sentenced to four months in prison and 40 lashes; Hadian was sentenced to six months in prison and 60 lashes. In a phone call with Al Watan, the judge declined to comment and suggested the newspaper review the case with the Ministry of Justice.

Sawadi told the newspaper that she will appeal, adding that Fahd is indeed her son through breastfeeding.

The case has sparked anger in Saudi Arabia. "It's made everybody angry because this is like a grandmother," Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider told CNN. "Forty lashes -- how can she handle that pain? You cannot justify it."

This is not the first Saudi court case to cause controversy.

In 2007, a 19-year-old gang-rape victim in the Saudi city of Qatif was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison for meeting with an unrelated male. The seven rapists, who had abducted the woman and man, received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison. The case sparked international outrage and Saudi King Abdullah subsequently pardoned the "Qatif Girl" and the unrelated male.

Many Saudis are hopeful that the Ministry of Justice will be reformed. Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz announced in February a major Cabinet reshuffling in which many hard-line conservatives, including the head of the commission, were dismissed and replaced with younger, more moderate members.

The new appointments represented the largest shakeup since King Abdullah took power in 2005 and were welcomed in Saudi Arabia as progressive moves on the part of the king, whom many see as a reformer. Among ministers who've been replaced is the minister of justice.

The actions of the religious police have come under increased scrutiny in Saudi Arabia recently, as more and more Saudis urge that the commission's powers be limited. Last week, the religious police detained two male novelists for questioning after they tried to get the autograph of a female writer, Halima Muzfar, at a book fair in Riyadh, the capital of the kingdom. "This is the problem with the religious police," added Al-Huwaider, "watching people and thinking they're bad all the time. It has nothing to do with religion. It's all about control. And the more you spread fear among people, the more you control them. It's giving a bad reputation to the country."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ef=mpstoryview

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/614567-elderly-woman-sentanced-40-lashes.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Reason to fear Sharia Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0DJjrOxE9I

-----



Pair faces jail time in Dubai over kiss
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100315/od_nm/us_emirates_kissing;_ylt=AjsG9m_u8HNtFbS6Gkj6um2s0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFmYWFsdjc1BHBvcwMyMDEEc2VjA2FjY29yZ Glvbl9vZGRfbmV3cwRzbGsDcGFpcmZhY2VzamFp

DUBAI (Reuters) – A British pair caught kissing in public in Dubai face up to a month in jail in the Gulf Arab emirate for indecency after an Emirati mother complained her child had seen their indiscretion.
The pair, a British man living in Dubai and a female friend, were arrested in November on accusations of kissing and touching each other intimately in public and consuming alcohol, their lawyer said. They were ordered jailed for a month.

The case is the third time in under two years in which Britons have hit the headlines by falling foul of decency laws in Dubai, a flashy Muslim emirate popular with sun-seeking Western tourists and expatriates.

A lawyer for the pair, who launched an appeal on Sunday, said there had been no inappropriate kissing and the two were just friends. A verdict in the appeal is expected on April 4.

"There was no lip kissing. It was just a normal greeting that is not considered offensive," lawyer Khalaf al-Hosani told the court, adding the complainant's testimony was contradictory.

The British man's mother in London said her son, Ayman Najafi, had vowed to clear his name.

"My Ayman is a good boy, he's very wise and mature. I can't believe it," his mother Maida Najafi was quoted as saying in The Independent. "He knows the rules over there. He would never do that. He wouldn't even do it over here."

The pair, free on bail, were also fined 1,000 dirhams ($272) for illegal consumption of alcohol, the lawyer said. They were to be deported after the completion of their jail sentence.

Dubai's foreign population has expanded rapidly in recent years as expatriates flocked to the Gulf Arab trade and tourism hub for its tax-free earnings and year-round sunshine.

The changes have challenged the Emirati population, which is now vastly outnumbered by foreigners, raising concern that their emirate's rapid pace of growth is a threat to their social and religious identity in what remains a deeply conservative region.

In a high-profile case in 2008, a British couple narrowly escaped jail after a court found them guilty of engaging in drunken sexual activity out of wedlock, and for doing so in public on a beach in the emirate.

They were sentenced to three months in prison followed by deportation, but had their jail terms overturned on appeal.

In a separate case this year, a British couple who shared a hotel room managed to escape trial in Dubai for having sex out of wedlock by producing a marriage certificate.

A British embassy spokesman said it could confirm that a British national was arrested in November and the mission had provided consular assistance, but gave no further details.




Well, why cant people be careful in public. No one is stopping them doing anything in private. But please, respect the local culture when in foreign country.


Let me get this straight: It's OK for the government of Dubai to be concerned about the cultural impact of non-Moslem foreigners but it's not OK for Western governments to be concerned about the impact of Moslem foreigners? Nice double standard.


See this is why I love love the Christian world, I can kiss in public and get drunk on St Patricks day. To our
brave American soldiers if you ever wondered what you are fighting for it is this. And I thank you so much. God Bless you.


When visiting a moslem country we must abide by their laws - fine - then they should also abide by the laws of the country they are visiting or living in as well, many of them - not all- come to the US and think they can abuse their wifes and daughters (by beating and sometimes killing them).


I am dumbfounded about the fact that Dubai goes to such great length to build a tourist destination. Also goes to such great lengths to advertise to attract the tourists. Then has no tolerance for what tourists do. These morons are religious zealots and after reading about these poor people, I will never go to visit this backwards country. I hope their city rots. Certainly very few in the Arab nations can afford to vacation there. Over 90% of their citizens make less than $1 a day. If they are so "forward thinking", they need to be much more tolerant of other cultures


In a forign country .. "FOLLOW THIER RULES". or just stay home.


When in Dubai, do as the Dubious do. Dubai dooby doo...

[Jolie Rouge]

Dubai upholds British pair's jail term over kiss
2 hrs 18 mins ago

DUBAI (Reuters) – A Dubai court Sunday upheld a one-month jail sentence given to a British pair for kissing in public, media reports said.

The British man living in Dubai and a female friend were arrested in November on charges of kissing intimately in public and consuming alcohol. An Emirati mother had complained her child had seen their indiscretion.

The case is the third time in under two years that Britons have fallen foul of indecency laws in Dubai, a Muslim emirate popular with sun-seeking Western tourists and expatriates.

The defendants are consulting their lawyer on whether to appeal Sunday's ruling before a cassation court, the website of the daily Gulf News reported.

The pair, who had been free on bail, are also to pay a fine of 1,000 dirhams ($272) for illegal consumption of alcohol and will be deported after serving their jail term, the website said.

Dubai's foreign population expanded rapidly in recent years as expatriates flocked to the Gulf Arab trade and tourism hub for its tax-free earnings and year-round sunshine.

The changes have challenged the Emirati population, now vastly outnumbered by foreigners, raising concerns that the rapid pace of growth is a threat to their social and religious identity in what remains a deeply conservative region.

In 2008, a British couple narrowly escaped jail after a court found them guilty of engaging in drunken sexual activity out of wedlock and in public on a beach in the emirate.

They were sentenced to three months in prison followed by deportation, but had their jail terms overturned on appeal.

In another case this year, a British couple who shared a hotel room managed to escape trial in Dubai for having sex out of wedlock by producing a marriage certificate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100405/od_nm/us_britain_kissing;_ylt=Aj3KeQs.TzdqA9Cf04YHaIis0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTFmN3FlbTZlBHBvcwMyMDEEc2VjA2FjY29yZG lvbl9vZGRfbmV3cwRzbGsDZHViYWl1cGhvbGRz

[Jolie Rouge]

June 09, 2010[/b]
Are we suffering from a surfeit of unsexy overexposure?

'Does wearing sexy lingerie under the burka subvert the burka?" asks Amba in the comments to our previous post, crossposted at Cloven Not Crested, "Exposed: What really goes on beneath the burka":


Is it actually sexier that way — is the ad pro-burka?? Are we suffering from a surfeit of unsexy overexposure, compared to, say, the Japanese who could go wild at the sight of the back of a fully kimono'ed geisha's neck? Does the ad thus imply that concealment by the burka actually empowers a woman’s sexuality? Should we take up wearing burkas over our bikinis? What kind of dhimmitude is that? Of a piece, I would say, with the sinister Western attraction to Islam because it is so filled with moral fervor, purity, and conviction.

The "sinister" — left in Latin —Western attraction to Islam appears alive and well, exclusively on the left side of the aisle, where a fellow feeling for a dictatorship of relativism keeps the romance alive. But the Liaison Dangereuse lingerie ad's "message" is in the eye of the beholder. Over here on the right side of the aisle, discreetly armed with our bikini beneath our street clothes, we look to the Tea Partiers for "moral fervor, purity and conviction," and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, unveiled, is giving us the "commonsense porn" — Glenn Beck's words — that floats our boat. Following the distaff glories of yesterday's primaries, we're looking for some hot and heavy conservative commonsense porn now through November from the ladies that lunch

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2010/06/are-we-suffering-from-a-surfeit-of-unsexy-overexposure.html

[Jolie Rouge]

6/23/2010
Christians Arrested at Dearborn Arab Festival

Four Christians were reportedly jailed last Friday at a Dearborn, MI, Arab festival: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026594.php


“Police in the heavily Arab Detroit suburb of Dearborn say they arrested four Christian missionaries for disorderly conduct at an Arab cultural festival.

Police Chief Ron Haddad says his department made the arrests Friday. The four are free on bond.”

The link above is to Hot Air where the post states the Christians were handing out literature. The BlogProf says he has corresponded with one of the arrested men who also attended last year’s Dearborn festival, and he apparently claims they weren’t even doing that: http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-dearborn-mi-3-christians-arrested.html

I received this note from David Wood of Answering Muslims:


Muslims threatened to kill Nabeel and me if we showed up again at Arab Fest in Dearborn, so we went there yesterday. They didn’t kill us. Instead, police arrested us and we got to spend a night in jail (along with two others who were video recording us). Interesting city. I feel a documentary coming on. Title: “Welcome to Dearborn.”

Is it now illegal to preach Christianity in Dearborn, Michigan? Have Sharia rules been imposed there?

David added in a later note:


Yes, we’re banned from handing out literature, but we didn’t do that. We followed the rules, and still got thrown in jail. They flat out lied about us. We can prove they lied with the video footage (just like last year), but the police took our cameras and won’t let us have the footage. There’s major oppression of anyone who criticizes Islam.”

I’d like to hear more from the police because this sounds like the arrests were made based on trumped-up disorderly conduct charges. If so, a lawsuit and court order might convince the Dearborn police not to pick the easy way out. Frankly, though, I hope there is a better explanation because it shouldn’t be this easy to get Americans to put the Sharia way over U.S. Constitutional law.

– DRJ

Comments (8)
8 Comments »
I hope that — in response — a hundred Christians are on hand to pass out literature at the next Dearborn Arab Festival.

Comment by aunursa — 6/23/2010 @ 6:23 pm

What is it with police taking cameras? I can understand if the recording itself was part of a crime, but what is the reason in this situation? Sounds to me like a “Civil Rights Violation”.

RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA by Larry Norman
…
And we are passing out leaflets and underground pamphlets
From Buffalo to Monterey
And we’re talkin’ ’bout Jesus and all of a sudden
We’re arrested and taken away.
…
And to think it might happen right here in America,
I see you shaking your heads and I hear you saying
It just can’t be true.
But it’s happened to me right here in America,
Wait ’til it happens to you.

Comment by MD in Philly — 6/23/2010 @ 6:47 pm

Greetings:

In a reverse psychology kind of way, this is emblematic of how to attack Islam, and I don’t mean Islamism, radical Islam or any other of our current post-modern constructs. Where Islam is most vulnerable is in its scriptures, the koran, haddiths and suras. When those little tidbits of Islam, like Mohammed’s sex with his 9 year old bride come to the fore, people may just say to themselves, “Hmmm, are you sure that’s a religion?” That’s why muslims are so dead set against being prostelitized. When they lose control of the “message” that thin veneer of religion begins to wear through and the underlying political ideology becomes apparent. And that ideology is what must be attacked and, if not destroyed, be driven into worldwide disrepute.

Comment by 11B40 — 6/23/2010 @ 6:50 pm

This is how it works, isn’t it? They just take over a suburb of a large American city. All the good progressive multi-cultis have been programmed to say, “Well, they’re the majority there and in the interest of promoting harmony we should let them observe their customs.” Then they start to take over other suburbs and pretty soon Detroit is London or Amsterdam or Brussels, and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

Annursa, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Let’s face it, though: the last two or three generations of Americans have been stuffed so full of multicultural third-worldsim that there is virtually no chance you can find 100 Christians who would bother to fight this. The ones that would fight probably don’t give a rat’s ass about Detroit and figure (maybe rightly so) that it’s a lost cause anyway.

Comment by JVW — 6/23/2010 @ 6:56 pm

Then they start to take over other suburbs and pretty soon Detroit is London or Amsterdam or Brussels

Yes… heaven forbid that the economic cesspool known as Detroit should ever become half as thriving as London.

Comment by Mike — 6/23/2010 @ 7:28 pm

Any word on how Dearborn police feel about Hare Krishnas?

Comment by elissa — 6/23/2010 @ 7:32 pm

Mike (7:28 pm): A person could easily make the argument that the adoption of a repressive set of laws and customs is a small price to pay for economic progress, but that person isn’t going to be me. Besides, I assume that you don’t really see a link between London’s traditional place as a center of world finance and it’s toleration of the city’s Islamist faction.

Comment by JVW — 6/23/2010 @ 8:06 pm

I would be willing to put a $100 dollars towards the expense of busing an inner city Detroit Baptist congregation to go witness at the next event.

Comment by BradnSA — 6/23/2010 @ 8:32 pm

http://patterico.com/2010/06/23/christians-arrested-in-dearborn-at-arab-festival/

[Jolie Rouge]

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/641323-islam-nutshell.html

Jay Leno among celebrities protesting Beverly Hills Hotel
Ted Rowlands Tuesday, May 6, 2014 - 2:21pm

(CNN) — The Beverly Hills Hotel has been a haven for Hollywood's elite since 1912 -- two years before the City of Beverly Hills was even created.

But now some stars are rushing for the exits.

On Monday, a number of celebrities took part in a demonstration across from the famed Sunset Boulevard lodge, protesting not the hotel but its ownership -- an investment group controlled by the Sultan of Brunei.

In late April, the small Muslim nation on the northern coast of the island of Borneo implemented Sharia law, marked by strong punishments for those found guilty of homosexuality or adultery -- including stoning the convicted to death. The law was praised by the sultan, who isn't just the country's ruler but also a major political and cultural figure. "We're just making people aware," Jay Leno, who was among the demonstrators, told CNN. "It's not a political issue. This is not something that's debatable. ... It's people being stoned to death," he said.

A number of organizations have moved -- or threatened to move -- events scheduled for the hotel. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Feminist Majority Foundation moved its Global Women's Rights Awards from the Beverly Hills Hotel to the Hammer Museum in nearby Westwood. The awards, which were held Monday night, are co-chaired by Leno and his wife, Mavis.

Also saying they're staying away, according to the Los Angeles Times: The Hollywood Reporter's annual Women in Entertainment breakfast, the Motion Picture & Television Fund's Night Before the Oscars and a fundraising luncheon hosted by Teen Line, a peer helpline. Moreover, such notables as Ellen DeGeneres and mogul Richard Branson have announced they won't patronize the hotel or other properties in the Dorchester Collection of luxury hotels, which owns and manages the Beverly Hills Hotel and the Hotel Bel-Air. "I won't be visiting the Hotel Bel-Air or the Beverly Hills Hotel until this is resolved," DeGeneres tweeted to her 28.8 million followers.

Leno said he was well aware of the concerns. "I know a number of people are canceling events at the hotel, and it's all economics," he told CNN.

But Christopher Cowdray, the Dorchester Collection's CEO, said the celebrities and groups protesting are taking out their anger on the wrong place. "The actions they're taking are unfounded," he said. "It's going to hurt our employees and this has nothing to do with them whatsoever," he said. "It's not their fight."

The sultan has owned the Beverly Hills Hotel since 1987. The Dorchester Collection was established in 1996 to oversee that hotel and others in its luxury portfolio, including the Hotel Bel-Air, Paris' Plaza Athenee and London's Dorchester.

Cowdray said that celebrities wanting to influence politics in Brunei would be better off lobbying the U.S. State Department to take action. At a briefing Monday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, "We have very serious concerns."

The City of Beverly Hills is also making its opinion known. Mayor Lili Bosse is introducing a resolution before the city council that would urge the sultan to divest his interest in the hotel that bears the city's name. "We have a history of standing strong against injustice," she said.

Like Leno, she emphasized that the issue wasn't the hotel, but what was going on in Brunei. "The resolution is not a call for a boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel," she said. "This is really a focus on the government and their laws and not a statement about the hotel."

http://www.fox44.com/news/jay-leno-among-celebrities-protesting-beverly-hills-hotel

[Jolie Rouge]

Muslim Woman Tries to Use Sharia Law on a Cop – Gets a Major Dose of Karma Instead

By Jason DeWitt on October 11, 2014


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMpD4Cbjl3o&feature=player_embedded

When a burqa-clad Muslim mother of seven was pulled over by a police officer, she tried to use the race card to get out of a traffic violation. When that doesn’t work, she berates him in a nasty fashion, and threatens that “he’ll be sorry.”

But when she later lies about the stop, and files a false complaint against the cop, she gets a rude awakening: he got it all on tape.

Australian police pulled over the Muslim woman, Carnita Matthews, for a random breath test and received a citation for not properly displaying her “provisional license” (as an immigrant) as required by law. Throughout the video of the police footage, Matthews calls the officer a racist and claims she was only pulled over because she was wearing a traditional burqa — a “hiqab,” actually, which covers everything but her eyes.

Matthews says, “All cops are racist” on tape. Matthews later filed a lie-filled complaint against the officer alleging that he forcibly tried to remove her veil after he asked her to lower it for identification purposes and she refused due to religious reasons.

But the officer’s dashcam showed she was a liar — and committed a documented fraud. And she paid the price for her arrogance. Matthews was sentenced to six months in jail for filing a false complaint against the police officer.

Incredibly, her sleazy lawyer actually tried to weasel her out of it by claiming she could be anyone under that niqab — which is exactly the reason why they should be banned from being used on drivers licenses, or banned outright, as they are in France.

She got off easy. Without the dashcam this guy would have been shredded by the system. She should have been deported. What do you think?

http://toprightnews.com/?p=6566



Muslim woman Carnita Matthews escapes jail by remaining behind her burqa

Janet Fife-Yeomans and Paul Kent
The Daily Telegraph
June 21, 2011 12:00AM


UPDATE 5.31pm: THE woman at the centre of the burqa row, Carnita Matthews, has a long record of driving offences and a history of not paying her fines.

Court documents have revealed that she had been fined seven times for traffic infringements before she was stopped by police in June last year for not displaying her P-plates in the incident that sparked the row that spilled over to the District Court in NSW yesterday.

Since she first received her learner licence in 1998 at the age of 33, she has twice had her provisional licence suspended for totting up too many demerit points and twice had her licence suspended for non payment of fines.

The State Debt Recovery Office had to recover the fines. Both of those two suspensions for non payment of fines were later lifted.

It is not known how many times she was physically stopped by police and whether she had her face covered by a burqa or a niqab on those occasions.

A number of times she was caught on camera speeding and disobeying traffic lights.

After being stopped by NSW police last year for not displaying her P-plates, Ms Matthews was ordered to pay $276 in fines and court costs.

She claimed on Channel Seven and allegedly in a statutory declaration to Campbelltown police that the officer who stopped her had attempted to tear the burqa off her face, a claim that was proven untrue by the police patrol car video camera.

A magistrate last year found her guilty of making a deliberately false statement and sentenced her to jail for six months. Ms Matthews appealed, saying there was no proof she was the person in the burqa making the atatement and Judge Clive Jeffreys in the District Court yesterday upheld her appeal.

The news comes as women wearing a burqa may be ordered to remove it to identify themselves in the wake of the Carnita Matthews case.

Police Minister Mike Gallacher has revealed that police do not currently have the legal power to require women to show their face if the women refuse on religious or cultural grounds.

He said he wanted the law tightened up.

"Police powers in relation to face coverings are not clear," Mr Gallacher said.

"It’s time to address that."

He said he had spoken to rank and file police who wanted the situation clarified.

Any decision on whether to appeal the controversial judgment by Judge Clive Jeffreys would not be made until after the judge hands down the reason for his decision which is expected tomorrow.

The government is also considering passing new laws requiring people who make complaints against police, or in the case of witnesses giving evidence, to have to provide at least one fingerprint and their signature.

This follows the finding by the judge that he could not be certain that it was Ms Matthews who made the statutory declaration complaining about the officer who stopped her car because the person who handed the document in to the police station wore a burqa.

Mr Gallacher said he was waiting until Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione returned next week to discuss exactly what needed to be done.

He said he did not expect this to inflame community anger about women wearing full face coverings.

He said he had been told that there was nothing in Muslim culture or religion that stopped women from identifiying themselves in certain circumstances.

Yesterday, Ms Matthews avoided jail because her identity could not be proven.

Ms Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney's southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.

The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station - what started the uproar in the first place.

More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting "Allah Akbar" as they stormed out of Downing Centre Court with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them.

Tempers rose and they began jostling with police after several members of the group attacked cameramen.

It marked a stark difference from their behaviour minutes earlier, when they had quietly assembled outside the lifts for prayer shortly after the judge's decision.

Mrs Matthew's lawyer Stephen Hopper defended their actions saying: "They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them."

Judge Jeffreys said yesterday that even if Mrs Matthews had made the complaint, he could not be sure she knew it was a "false" statement.

"I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint," he said.

"Even if I was satisfied that she made the complaint, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false."

Mrs Matthews made the claim in her court appearance last year, saying police could not prove it was her behind the burqa when the complaint was handed in to police. The local magistrate rejected it.

The case had lit up the religious debate when a magistrate found Mrs Matthews had deliberately made false complaints that Sergeant Paul Kearney was racist and had attempted to tear her burqa off her face when she declined to remove it on request.

She was pulled over for a random breath test last June, and accused Sgt Kearney of racism only after he booked her for failing to properly display her P-plates.

The incident was captured on a patrol car video camera and helped clear Sgt Kearney, prompting calls for all police cars to carry in-built cameras to avoid false claims.

"I've got my P-plates on my car ... there was nothing wrong with how they were displayed," Mrs Matthews says on the video.

"You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn't handle it. All cops are racist."

She then threatens, "100 per cent", that she will take the matter to court and fight the charge.

France was the first country in Europe to implement a full ban on covering up faces in public.

France's burqa ban descended into farce when the first women to be summoned before a European court for illegally wearing the garments were refused entry, because they would not remove their face coverings.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/judge-could-not-be-sure-who-was-behind-the-veil/story-e6freuy9-1226078801032?nk=c0bc75e95c1bf962e670951ea6bf5172

[Jolie Rouge]

Muslim Woman Refuses To Take Off Head Scarf For Police … Pays The Price
Posted on July 5, 2015 by Robert Rich

As has been made perfectly clear, Muslims care nothing for rules unless they were the set forth by Muhammad. However, when one Muslim woman decided that she would not follow an officer’s orders to remove her hijab, well, let’s just say she found out how big of a mistake that was after the fact.

It all began in Michigan’s Wayne County where Maha Aldhalimi had parked in a no-parking zone outside of her local Walmart on September 15, 2014. Things got even worse for the Muslim woman after police wrote her a ticket.

They ran her license plate number and discovered she had a warrant out for her arrest for another parking ticket that she failed to pay. Apparently she made a habit out of breaking the rules when it came to where she wanted to park.

As one would imagine, Aldhalimi was arrested, but this is where things took a turn for the worse. According to reports, officers ordered the Muslim woman to remove her head scarf so that they could process her. She declined.

She tried explaining to officers that it was strictly against her religion and that she wasn’t supposed to take it off in front of strangers, but her pleas fell upon deaf ears. Officers then told her one last time to “remove her hijab or it would be removed involuntarily against her will.”

At that point, the woman “was shivering and crying from the humiliation and distress of the encounter and orders,” but she reluctantly complied with the request. Since that time, Aldhalimi has filed a lawsuit against the police in the U.S. District Court in Detroit with the Michigan chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Too bad for her, the Dearborn Police Department is fully backing their actions, saying they have the right to remove a hijab for safety reasons. Here’s a tip; if you don’t want to be forced to remove your hijab, follow the rules. If you don’t like the rules, feel free to live elsewhere

As for the alleged “discrimination” against Aldhalimi, this was actually quite the opposite. Officers were treating her exactly the same way they would anyone else. Quit whining and get over it.

http://madworldnews.com/muslim-head-scarf-police/


She was driving? A good, strict MOSLEM woman was driving? Since u can adapt your lifestyle to be allowed to drive, you can take off the hijab!

...

If you don't want to abide by the rules and laws and NOT an American citizen then move back to YOUR country!!!

..

I can imagine the trouble brewing, if they decided to book her into the county lockup, and had to strip search her too; if other citizens are facing this process, she shouldn't be considered a special interest case and treated any differently.

[Jolie Rouge]

Sharia forbids women from driving .... In Islam woman are permitted to remove their burkas when it is deemed necessary to do so. They are making an issue out of this and using it as a pretext for an act of rebellion against the United States. In order to erode the Liberty that is countercultural to real Islam.

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/08/30/illinois-to-allow-burqas-in-driving-licenses/