Islamophobia Watch

A U.S. Federal Judge heard and dismissed a case on Monday involving a Muslim Detroit woman who claims that being forced to remove her veil in court caused her to lose her case.

In October 2006, 44-year old Ginnnah Muhammad donned a niqab – a traditional veil and scarf that covers the entire head and most of the face – during her hearing in which she was disputing a $3,000 fee from Enterprise Rent-A-Car to repair a vehicle which Muhammad claims burglars had broken into. According to the Associated Press, Judge Paul Paruk "told her he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave her a choice: Take off the veil or have the case dismissed."

Margaret Nelson, Assistant state attorney general, represented Paruk and argued that he needed to "fully observe" Muhammad in order to properly determine the facts. "It was a temporary, necessary, limited action (that had) only incidental impact on the practice of her religion," Nelson said.

Wired PR News, 13 May 2008

"We have a bad habit in Western secular society of thinking that we know best. And Western feminism often has an equally bad habit of thinking that its ideals are the right ideals for women of all cultures.

"In our society, the veils and scarves worn by Muslim women are commonly seen as symbols and tools of an oppressive Islamic patriarchy. This sort of establishment thinking makes feminism inaccessible for women of different beliefs, which robs the movement of its global power. Women who would like to be identified as feminists but choose to wear a headscarf don't always seem to have a place.

"Western stereotypes surrounding the hijab – the scarf that covers the neck and hair of Muslim women – include the assumption that women are wearing it because of subjugation and religious indoctrination. Some argue that such coverage is used to make women subservient and invisible. But what really makes them invisible is assuming that the women who choose to wear the hijab, the abaya or anything else did not make the choice themselves."

Amanda Teuscher in The Post, 6 May 2008

See also "Front Page news: Islamophobia makes you an expert on niqab" at Muslimah Media Watch

"Well, even a stopped clock is right two times a day and so it is that I find myself rather agreeing with the BNP's recently elected to the London Assembly Richard Barnbrook who says that he will press for the Union Flag to be flown permanently over City Hall, for burkas to be banned from public buildings and for official celebrations to mark St George's Day. He will resist the planned construction of a huge new mosque, the biggest place of worship in Britain, in Newham, East London.

"This seems fair enough to me – after all London IS British and not merely an overseas branch of Islamabad. I think the Burqa SHOULD be banned, and feel that the huge new mega mosque planned for East London should also be banned until such times as existing mosques prove they are not little more than recruiting offices for Jihad, and surely the flying of the Union Flag over City Hall is non-controversial?"

A Tangled Web, 6 May 2008

"They speak in a heavily accented version of English, suffocating beneath tent-like cloaks. Voiceless and enslaved, these Muslim women wrap themselves up in head scarves in public. While the rest of American women take the slightest sunray as a signal for baring flesh and flaunting assets, these fully covered women stand out as more than unfashionable but as victims of oppression.

"Such are the tragic misconceptions of American Muslim women-barbaric, veiled housewives victimized by an Islamic lifestyle. To about 10 million Muslim women, that lifestyle includes the female head covering, an Islamic dress code called Hijab and a symbol of modesty and freedom."

Hanan Salem in The Connection, 1 May 2008

A Muslim woman who lost a small-claims suit in Hamtramck district court in 2006 after she refused to remove her religious veil during testimony took her case before a federal judge today, hoping to overturn the district judge's decision and establish precedent in eastern Michigan courtrooms.

But after 30 minutes of legal arguments, U.S. District Judge John Feikens said that he would issue a written decision in the case. He gave no indication of when he might rule, but hinted through questions to lawyers that he may take no action at all, which lawyers conceded he could do under Supreme Court decisions.

To get into the courthouse today, Ginnah Muhammad had to remove her veil and show a photo ID. She had to remove her veil in a private area in the presence of a female court security officer and show her Michigan license, which contains her photo. After court, Muhammad and her attorney, Nahib Ayad, said she routinely is required to remove her veil in the presence of female security officers when she goes to airports, and is accommodated by female officers.

"If the judge rules in our favor, it would preclude other judges from doing the same thing to others," Ayad, of Plymouth, said Monday. "It is one of those cases that probably will go to the U.S. Supreme Court." Ayad said he would appeal if the decision goes against his client.

Detroit Free press, 29 April 2008

A 20-year-old Malmö woman has been awarded damages after she was asked to leave a bus for wearing a veil. The woman has received 25,000 kronor ($4,203) from public bus service operator Arriva after an agreement was reached with the Ombudsman against ethnic discrimination (DO), according to local newspaper Sydsvenskan.

The woman was instructed to leave the bus in the southern Swedish city when she refused to remove the niqab veil that she was wearing as part of her sartorial hijab headdress. The bus driver had asked the woman to remove her niqab so that he could identify her, however the woman was using a bus pass that did not require identification.

"The bus driver has not acted according to Arriva's values. There is no doubt where the fault lies and this is most regrettable. We are happy to pay out the money to make up for it," said Jan Wildau at Arriva. As a result of the incident the bus driver, who was employed on an hourly basis, no longer works for Arriva.

The Local, 12 April 2008

Writing in the Louisiana State University newspaper The Daily Reveille, Shirien Elmasraya proposes to her fellow students that they should share her experience of wearing Islamic clothing:

"Ever wonder what it's like for women that wear hijab – or the head scarf? I certainly get some crazy questions sometimes. 'Do you take a shower with that on?' is pretty common. And so is, 'Do you wear that because you're bald?' That one's my favorite. I certainly don't mind the questions, and I am happy to answer them whenever I get them. But, now it's your turn. I challenge the women on this campus to walk a day in my shoes. I challenge women to wear hijab for a whole day on April 25, 2008 and then talk about the experience afterward."

The opening shots in a £34,000 employment battle between a pink-haired salon owner and a headscarf-wearing Muslim stylist were fired yesterday with an accusation of "blatant" religious discrimination. Bushra Noah, 19, is claiming that amount in compensation after being turned down for a job at the Wedge salon, which specialises in "urban, edgy and funky" cuts. Owner Sarah Desrosiers, 32, says it is an "absolutely basic" job requirement that stylists should have their hair on show if they are to cut other people's.

But Miss Noah argued: "I know my punk from my funk and my urban from my trendy. The fact that I wear a headscarf does not mean that I cannot assist in an alternative form of hairdressing. It is essential to my religion and is non-negotiable. I have been wearing it from the age of 13 and I had never suffered from such blatant discrimination until I visited Miss Desrosiers."

She told a tribunal in central London how her interview at Wedge, at King's Cross, left her devastated. She said: "Miss Desrosiers looked at me in shock. She asked me if I wore my headscarf all the time and I explained that I did. She asked me if I ever took it off and I said that I only took it off at home. She said as this is a hair salon it was essential that I did not wear a headscarf. Miss Desrosiers then said how uncomfortable she felt with me being around."

Daily Mail, 1 April 2008

Jacob Wheeler interviews Asmaa Abdol-Hamid.

In These Times, 28 March 2008

"It's a measure of America's multicultural journey over the past half-century that we've gone from 'God and Man at Yale' to Allah and Woman at Harvard. In a contretemps scarcely imaginable in William F. Buckley's day, Harvard has closed one of its gyms to men for six hours a week so that Muslim women can exercise comfortably. 'Sharia at Harvard,' warned blogger Andrew Sullivan. A Harvard Crimson columnist blasted 'Harvard's misguided accommodationist policy.'

"Meanwhile, a separate controversy has flared over broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer from the steps of Harvard's main library during Islamic Awareness Week. Three graduate students, writing in the Crimson, argued that the prayer sowed 'seeds of division and disrespect' by declaring that 'there is no lord except God' and that 'Mohammad is the Messenger of God'. Harvard, they wrote, 'should not grant license to any religious group, minority or otherwise, to use a loudspeaker to declare false the profoundly important and personal beliefs of others.' ...

"My reaction is more along the lines of: 'Get a grip.' It's reasonable to set aside a few off-peak hours at one of Harvard's many gyms. It's not offensive to have the call to prayer echoing across Harvard Yard, any more than it is to ring church bells or erect a giant menorah there.

"I share the apprehensions stirred up by the more radical followers of Islam, with their drive to restore the caliphate and subjugate women. But I come to this issue as a member of another minority religion, Judaism, whose adherents often seek flexibility from the majority culture in order to practice their faith. As with Islam, my religion's more observant believers endorse practices – segregating the sexes at prayer, excluding women from engaging in certain rituals – that I find disturbing, bordering on offensive. I have relatives who would shrink from shaking my hand. Still, I would defend to the death their right not to touch me."

Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, 26 March 2008

Cf. Debbie Schlussel's comments