ISLAM IN THE USA Sharia Whining Muslim


Sharia shake-down con-artists.

This woman and her cadre of Islamo law-fare soft-jihadis shouldn’t be allowed a victory in this case, whatsoever. This is an issue where all laws must be obeyed across the board, no special rights, which in this case is tantamount to public officials adhering to Islamic law.

NOTE: Also, the removal of her scarf for the holding cell is standard operating procedures  for the police to keep the perp from killing his/herself by strangulation. They removes belts and shoelaces for the same reason.

Local Muslim woman filing lawsuit against Dearborn Heights Police for forcing her to remove hijab during arrest

By Samer Hijazi | Tuesday, 01.20.2015, 08:45 PM
Malak Kazan (left), with Attorney Amir Makled, is filing a lawsuit against the city of Dearborn Heights for forcing her to remove her hijab.  Photo credit: Samer Hijazi

DEARBORN HEIGHTS – A 27-year-old local Muslim woman is filing a lawsuit against the Dearborn Heights Police department for forcing her to remove her hijab when she was arrested and booked for a traffic misdemeanor offense on July 9, 2014.Malak Kazan said she was humiliated by the department’s policy, which required her to remove her scarf when she was detained for driving on a suspended license. As part of the booking process, Kazan was asked to remove her hihab for her mug shot.

Kazan allegedly expressed concern about the policy to the police men on duty, claiming it was a violation of her religion. She allegedly asked for a female police officer, but was told they couldn’t provide her with one.

After growing frustration, Kazan was able to speak to a supervisor, who told her that removing head wear was part of the department’s policy and that she needed to comply or she would be further detained. 

Local Attorney Amir Makled from the Law Office of Cyril C. Hall, is filing the case at the U.S. District Court this week. He is demanding the department change its policy and is also seeking both compensatory and punitive damages for his client.  

“To be exposed in front of men who aren’t part of her immediate family is a serious breach of faith and practice,” said Makled. “She has a sincere belief in her religion and to be demanded to remove her scarf is a clear violation. She felt extremely humiliated.”

After Kazan was forced to remove her hijab for her mug shot, she was allegedly told she couldn’t put it back on while she was in custody. 

This incident marks the latest in several discriminatory claims launched against the city of Dearborn Heights and its police department. 

In late 2014, the American Arab Civil Rights League (ACRL) also filed a suit against the city claiming that its police officers lacked diversity training and treated Muslim Americans like “second class citizens.”

Makled called on Dearborn Heights Police Chief Lee Gavin to provide the police force with extensive diversity training in order to better reflect the city’s multi-cultured residents.

“It’s clear to me that the city needs further diversity training and more diversity is needed in the police force,” Makled said. “Their policies need to be reviewed and need to reflect and serve the constituents in the city.”

More here. H/T: Bernie B.

22 Responses

  1. Considering it’s Dearbornistan, she should have that one thrown out in no time

  2. The dumb bitch was driving on a suspended license. She already broke the law twice by doing that. Fuck her rights to wear that head bag. Get with the program, or fuck off back to Sand Land.

  3. So this land bound porpoise can wear yoga pants and a tight fitting sweater, but suddenly feels as if her modesty was violated by the police when asked to remove the hijab for the mugshot? She apparently has no issue with a male lawyer standing next to her with his hand on her back – I hope he’s related to her for Islam’s sake!

    1. Spot on.

      She is not dumb but clever enough to shake down the department to avoid being booked for driving with a suspended license.


  4. The attorney is standing too close to her and by the looks of the photo his right arm may actually be touching her.
    They are not married, nor are they close relatives therefore they should both be stoned to death at once, but she should be raped beforehand because after all, it’s her fault because she didn’t have her face covered and those titties are a little too prominent in that figure-hugging top she is wearing.
    Of course Muslim rules only apply when they choose to apply them, so if the little fat minx can wear what she is wearing in the photo and stand too close to a strange man, then she can take her fucking hijab off!

  5. “Kazan allegedly expressed concern about the policy to the police men on duty, claiming it was a violation of her religion.”

    Perhaps her slimy looking lawyer can point out where in the koran it stipulates that muslim women have to wear hejabs.
    “She has a sincere belief in her religion and to be demanded to remove her scarf is a clear violation…”
    It certainly IS NOT a clear violation. Her neurotic insistence on wearing a cloth headcovering lest she smite unrelated men with her ravishing beauty is HER personal choice.

    This is classic lawfare. Notice “He is demanding the department change its policy …”
    Apart from this being a great example of creeping islamisation – it is also shortsighted. If muslim women are allowed to wear burkas and hejabs – then he has to extend that same right to burglars and rapists etc.

    1. Quran (24:31) – “And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known.” The woman is not only supposed to cover herself, except with relatives, but to look down, so as to avoid making eye-contact with men.

      Qur’an (33:55) – “It shall be no crime in them as to their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their woman, or the slaves which their right hands possess, if they speak to them unveiled” A woman is only allowed to present herself unveiled to family and slaves.

      1. “…, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, ..”

        Great – so let them wear their hejabs over their boobs. This is what the koran actually says, no?

        But if you are unable to think for yourself and make conscious choices – and you really want to give up real individuality and blindly do what a book written in scribbly by some backward bedouins tells you to do – then of course – you can

        The REAL point here is that headcoverings are not the hallmark of citizens of an open culture – in this century or any other.

    2. Q : what is 5,000 dead lawyers lying on the ocean floor
      A : a good start
      oldie but goldie


    by Amir Taheri
    New York Post
    August 15, 2003

    August 15, 2003 — FRANCE’S Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just appointed a commit- tee to draft a law to ban the Islamist hijab (headgear) in state-owned establishments, including schools and hospitals. The decision has drawn fire from the French “church” of Islam, an organization created by Raffarin’s government last spring. Germany is facing its hijab problem, with a number of Islamist organizations suing federal and state authorities for “religious discrimination” because of bans imposed on the controversial headgear.In the United States, several Muslim women are suing airport-security firms for having violated their First Amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers.

    All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.

    That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.

    This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi’ite community.

    In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told this writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. (A casual visit to the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the Louvres in Paris, would reveal the original of the neo-Islamist hijab in numerous paintings depicting Virgin Mary and other female figures from the Old and New Testament.)

    Sadr’s idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shi’ite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon.

    Sadr’s neo-hijab made its first appearance in Iran in 1977 as a symbol of Islamist-Marxist opposition to the Shah’s regime. When the mullahs seized power in Tehran in 1979, the number of women wearing the hijab exploded into tens of thousands.

    In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that “scientific research had shown that women’s hair emitted rays that drove men insane.” To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.

    By the mid 1980s, a form of hijab never seen in Islam before the 1970s had become standard gear for millions of women all over the world, including Europe and America.

    Some younger Muslim women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab was an essential part of the faith. (Katherine Bullock, a Canadian, so loved the idea of covering her hair that she converted to Islam while studying the hijab.)

    The garb is designed to promote gender apartheid. It covers the woman’s ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings. It also underlines the concept of woman as object, all wrapped up and marked out.

    Muslim women, like women in all societies, had covered their head with a variety of gears over the centuries. These had such names as lachak, chador, rusari, rubandeh, chaqchur, maqne’a and picheh, among others.

    All had tribal, ethnic and generally folkloric origins and were never associated with religion. (In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colorful headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go topless.)

    Muslim women could easily check the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute “must” of Islam.

    This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. It is as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Chinese civilization.

    It is used as a means of exerting pressure on Muslim women who do not wear it because they do not share the sick ideology behind it. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed, first on Muslims, and then on the world through psychological pressure, violence, terror, and, ultimately, war.

    The tragedy is that many of those who wear it are not aware of its implications. They do so because they have been brainwashed into believing that a woman cannot be a “good Muslim” without covering her head with the Sadr-designed hijab.

    Even today, less than 1 percent of Muslim women wear the hijab that has bewitched some Western liberals as a symbol of multicultural diversity. The hijab debate in Europe and the United States comes at a time when the controversial headgear is seriously questioned in Iran, the only country to impose it by law.

    Last year, the Islamist regime authorized a number of girl colleges in Tehran to allow students to discard the hijab while inside school buildings. The experiment was launched after a government study identified the hijab as the cause of “widespread depression and falling academic standards” and even suicide among teenage girls.

    The Ministry of Education in Tehran has just announced that the experiment will be extended to other girls schools next month when the new academic year begins. Schools where the hijab was discarded have shown “real improvements” in academic standards reflected in a 30 percent rise in the number of students obtaining the highest grades.

    Meanwhile, several woman members of the Iranian Islamic Majlis (parliament) are preparing a draft to raise the legal age for wearing the hijab from six to 12, thus sparing millions of children the trauma of having their heads covered.

    Another sign that the Islamic Republic may be softening its position on hijab is a recent decision to allow the employees of state-owned companies outside Iran to discard the hijab. (The new rule has enabled hundreds of women, working for Iran-owned companies in Paris, London, and other European capitals, for example, to go to work without the cursed hijab.)

    The delicious irony of militant Islamists asking “Zionist-Crusader” courts in France, Germany and the United States to decide what is “Islamic” and what is not will not be missed. The judges and the juries who will be asked to decide the cases should know that they are dealing not with Islam, which is a religious faith, but with Islamism, which is a political doctrine.

    The hijab-wearing militants have a right to promote their political ideology. But they have no right to speak in the name of Islam.


    1. We don’t care if they don’t have the right to speak in the name of a religion we don’t care, we want them to get the hell out of our country. GET OUT!!!!!

  7. I want them systematically importuned ceaselessly. Until they fucking voluntarily pack up and go. Or we seize their assets and throw them out penniless.

  8. What’s the point of wearing a hijab if she’s wearing those tight and poorly fitted clothes? Last time I checked she’s not supposed to wear outfits that show ones figure

  9. Why do these people come to our lands, willingly fleeing their cesspit homelands, then immediately set about recreating their former cesspit homelands in their newly chosen country of residence. It is up to them to accomodate themselves to OUR norms, and not for us to change to fit theirs.

    1. Hoekom, I ‘ve said the exact same thing a number of times myself. why do we want people in love with an ideology that only breeds cesspools?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.