muslim woman in hijab in dark room
The woman says she felt naked and humiliated after removing her hijab for a mugshot.

Should Muslim women have to remove their hijab for a mugshot? A woman is suing a Michigan county and sheriff’s office after they forced her to do just that – and then posted the photo online. 

The woman says she felt violated and exposed by the actions of police, and the lawsuit describes her feeling almost as if she were “naked in a public space.” 

Now, she’s hoping the legal system will punish the county and sheriff’s office that caused her an “insurmountable amount of humiliation and trauma.”

Under Cover Cops

On April 8, 2023, the woman was arrested by the Kent County, Michigan Sheriff’s Office following a domestic dispute with her husband.

While charges were ultimately not filed against her, she was required by law to take a booking photo upon entering the county jail. The woman was asked to remove her hijab, which she did because she feared “punishment and physical force by the officers” should she refuse. 

The lawsuit says that the woman removed her hijab in front of male officers, despite her hesitations. However, the sheriff’s office disputes that account, and says that the woman was taken to a separate area by female officers. 

“As she was being processed into the jail our female corrections officer took her out of view of all male officers and inmates and asked her to remove the head covering to inspect it for weapons or other restricted material, and then she was allowed to put it back on before entering the booking area,” the sheriff’s office stated. They also insisted that men were not present when the booking photo was taken either. 

Not Picture Perfect

That's when things turned from bad to worse, though.

A separate booking photo was taken of her in the hijab. By the sheriff’s office’s own policy, that is the one that should have been posted online. 

But it wasn’t. Instead, the photo of her out of hijab was posted on the department's website instead, for all the world to see – a grave violation of her religious practice. 

As the lawsuit explains, “family and non-family members were able to access the image with a mere search of her name… The fact that it can be viewed again and again by men who are not members of her immediate family is haunting.”

“Exposed and Violated”

The Michigan woman’s lawsuit argued that, “like many Muslim women whose religious beliefs dictate that they wear a hijab, [she] felt exposed and violated without hers.”

By the way, if this headline looks familiar, it's because this has happened before – and recently. Last year, a Tennessee woman faced a similar situation when she was forced to remove her hijab for a mugshot, and she, similarly, described herself as feeling “naked” without it. 

Future of Police Hijab Policy

Religious freedom advocates generally agree that Muslim women who wear hijabs should not be forced to remove them for police mugshots, and more police departments across the nation are scrapping requirements they remove the garment.

Even setting aside the potential religious sensitivities at play, if the purpose of a mugshot is identification, they argue, shouldn’t women who wear hijabs in public be photographed with them on?

On the other hand, some police departments say that one simply cannot take an accurate photo with part of the head obscured. It’s not personal, they argue, and the same policy applies to any other possible religious headwear, including turbans and yarmulkes. 

But what do you think? Was the woman’s religious freedom violated when she was coerced into taking a mugshot without her hijab? What about when the incorrect photo was posted online? 

168 comments

  1. ServantOfJudgement's Avatar ServantOfJudgement

    Crime causes suspension of rights. This is universal to all humans.

    Move along.

    1. John Alex Paxson's Avatar John Alex Paxson

      I agree 100%

    2. Michael Fox's Avatar Michael Fox

      My question to that would be, “Are your rights suspended before you’re convicted?”

      1. Danny D. Maynard's Avatar Danny D. Maynard

        Becoming a target means you lose some rights, but are guaranteed Due Process. Nudity is described in legal code. Same for nakedness. If I can be searched and photographed at places like theme parks and concerts and downtowns, she can be searched at the police station. Privacy is not guaranteed in the Due Process ceremonies.

        1. Keith Graham Ainsworth's Avatar Keith Graham Ainsworth

          You might be excused for being upset if the searchers took photos of you naked, then published them on the internet though

    3. Keith Graham Ainsworth's Avatar Keith Graham Ainsworth

      No it doesn't. Even the most evil criminals have rights

      1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

        Yes keith, but not unlimited rights. And what rights exist depends on the society which uses force to back itself. "Greater good" is the justification for society that uses Force to limit rights, which is every society at some point.

  1. Merlin's Avatar Merlin

    What if it was a burka? Religious traditions should not circumvent our Criminal Justice system, especially law enforcement. If the law has a requirement that is not compatible with your way of life, either find another place to go or adapt. Compromising our investigative tools could would give the sinister more of an advantage. Anyone could construct a “religion” with illegal practices that would use the 1st Amendment to protect their crime.

    1. Danny D. Maynard's Avatar Danny D. Maynard

      I also feel the policy needs to be 100% population-wide. As long as the policy is done the same everywhere, then I feel that is acceptable, but one cannot hide, not even under a burqa! Burqas are not needed to live. They are a choice, not a requirement. No one is born religious.

      1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

        "If the law has a requirement that is not compatible with your way of life, either find another place to go or adapt." In this case this is a reasonable bottom line.

  1. Revd. R. Vincent's Avatar Revd. R. Vincent

    Frankly, whilst I would accept a Muslim woman's right to wear the hijab, it is a cultural rather than a religious doctrine. If everyone else is legally obliged to remove head coverings (except for our Sikh friends) then everyone should have to remove head coverings. The United States, like the UK, has a constitution based on a Christian doctrine. Yes, there is room for freedom of religion and belief but, as the saying goes, when in Rome...

    1. Rev Ned's Avatar Rev Ned

      If the word “Christian” is mentioned anywhere in The Constitution please tell me, exactly, where that is.

      1. William Self's Avatar William Self

        Why would you suggest the word is in the constritution? The original poster never suggested that. Interesting.

      2. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

        Ned, what makes you believe that the word Christian must be contained in a document in order for that document to be based on Christian values or any other values?

        1. Danny D. Maynard's Avatar Danny D. Maynard

          Because historically, Christians have done one heck of a lot of usurping. I remember learning in grade school that the Sun never sets on the British Empire. That is still mostly true today, although the Empire has given way to alliances like NATO, United Nations, European Union, organization of American States and the like.

      3. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

        He never said it was, he said it was based on Christian teachings and it is.

      4. Revd. R. Vincent's Avatar Revd. R. Vincent

        In the UK, much of our constitution isn't written. However, our education system was founded on Christian principles. We used to have morning prayers. The House of Commons still has morning prayers. In court, one would in the first instance be asked to swear on a bible. Most marriages happen in Christian churches. As for the USA, the Constitution was written by men of the Christian faith and the country was founded on a Christian doctrine. It doesn't have to be written to be so. The Founding Fathers would not have felt the need to mention Chritianity specifically. It would have been a given, just as in the UK.

        1. Danny D. Maynard's Avatar Danny D. Maynard

          Actually, the division between the Colonies and the States under the Articles of Confederation (the ruling document from the Post July 4, 1778 period to 1789 when the US Constitution was ratified unanimously) were some of the reasons they had to create the US Constitution. The states had too much power, and interstate commerce ground to a halt. Each state had its own currency and thus, banks and currency became a "rich" problem! The centralization of much of that power divided domestic and international rights and power to keep many of the problems plaguing the colonies individually, as a country and working internationally.

          English history is certainly ancient and malleable. The US Constitution is more current, more precise and logically malleable though a predefined written process.

        2. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

          The country was not exclusively founded on a Christian doctor, that assumption is false and in error. Much of the Constitution is based in British common law and Roman republicanism... And not by literal reference either, but by presence.

          1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

            Sorry but every one of the Founding fathers say you dont know what you are talking about

            1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

              Well Daniel I just talked to some of them, and they say you are full of it.

              1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Yea and sorry but you cant even do sarcasm correctly. But hey if this is all you got in your CYA attempt, its pitifully poor

              2. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

                Pleasing a noisesome crank is not in the constitution either.

              3. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Then why are you hear doing exactly what you are complaining about?

              4. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

                I didn't know I needed a reason to be here in order to please you, invited as I was by the website. I still don't. Why are you here, Mr. Beam-in-eye?

              5. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Oh so you dont want to answer the question and try and evade it. You know that does not do much for your credibility.

  1. Lionheart's Avatar Lionheart

    Do nuns have to remove their Habit, and Jews their Yarmulka, for a mugshot?

    I really don’t know the answer.

    🦁❤️

    1. Anthony Jones Boyette's Avatar Anthony Jones Boyette

      My Yarmulka does not hide my face, my hair color, biometric info, or any physical trait. I can be identified in a photo while wearing my Yarmulka. In fact, you can't ever see it in a DL photo as it sits on the back of the head and DL/passport photos are taking from the front..

      1. Danny D. Maynard's Avatar Danny D. Maynard

        It covers bald spots, or color of hair underneath, and those are statistocally and physical important!

        1. Lady Mutt Cat's Avatar Lady Mutt Cat

          As Anthony said, you can't even see them in a frontal photograph. Get over yourself.

    2. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

      I think that’s a good question. If they don’t then neither should she. I would say that if they want to search her, they better have a lady cop do it. That’s not special treatment in my opinion, but courtesy.

      1. Annamarie's Avatar Annamarie

        It's also respect for another human being.

      2. Patricia Ann Gross's Avatar Patricia Ann Gross

        More than courtesy or respect. It's standard operating procedure. Women are searched by women and men by men. It gets rid of the issue of sexual harassment by an officer.

        1. Mary Shaw's Avatar Mary Shaw

          Does it though? There are gay men and women officers. Just stating a fact.

          1. Bond Wright's Avatar Bond Wright

            The world population is 10% homosexual. I doubt that MANY are working in law enforcement that we have to "worry" about them molesting anyone. Just stating a fact.

    3. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

      Such policies very not only from state to state but can from County to County within a state.

      Although really, with Jewish men, removing their kippah would serve no purpose in any practical sense because that little bit of covering does nothing to obscure their overall appearance if you're taking a front and side photos, unlike Islamic hijabs and nun's habits.

    4. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      Yes they do Lion.

    5. Steven Ferrell's Avatar Steven Ferrell

      Yes they gave to remove those items for booking photos and inspection.

    6. Anthony Jones Boyette's Avatar Anthony Jones Boyette

      Comment removed by user.

    7. Patricia Ann Gross's Avatar Patricia Ann Gross

      I was going to ask the same thing.

    8. Steven Ferrell's Avatar Steven Ferrell

      Yes they gave to remove those items for booking photos and inspection.

    9. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

      Couldn't you hide drugs and other illegal items under a habit or a kippa? What about wigs?

  1. David George Promis's Avatar David George Promis

    Religious belief versus law. In this case I believe it’s “much ado about nothing”. With all that is currently going on in the World where people are being killed over religious ideology the very idea that she overdramatized “feeling exposed” is down right offensive and spoiled in nature. People need to rethink their place in the scheme of what constitutes rights in regards to freedoms. Unfortunately we tend to overkill every few years and either swing far left or far right, and right now we are far left demanding that individual idiosyncrasies rule.

  1. Alexander Arends's Avatar Alexander Arends

    I believe that local laws supersede religious laws. I don't believe that the Sheriff's department broke any laws but may habe broken protocol. I wonder if women suspected of a crime in some Muslim countries have to remove their jihab when booked, or if they are just automatically sentenced to death.

    1. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

      Alexander, I believe the sad truth in many cases is that women who are accused of having committed a crime often have more than their hijab removed. It is my understanding that they are often stripped, raped, beaten, and then perhaps killed.

    2. Patricia Rae Tooke's Avatar Patricia Rae Tooke

      This country was founded on the separation of religion and the state. We seem to have forgotten that. Individual religious beliefs are beside the point. The law is the law. And covering up the hair and head does not give the law a clear picture of who you are.

    3. Lyle Roy Gleason's Avatar Lyle Roy Gleason

      I agree! Governmental Law MUST supercede Religious Law, or else any Islamic family can freely murder any woman under a 'Fetwah', who they believe has 'shamed' them, or violated any tenet of the Quran regarding a woman's conduct, and then claim that, according to the Quran, they have committed no crime as far as they are concerned. Don't believe me? This very situation occurred up in Canada recently, and was a major 'cause celeb' between the Canadian government and the local Islamic community, as to who's laws ultimately apply!

  1. Bridget Kielas-Fecyk's Avatar Bridget Kielas-Fecyk

    I'm sorry you were put through this. If you were Christian / Catholic, devout, and wore headwear as part of your faith, they would not, likely, force you to remove your headscarf. But because you're Muslim, they're treating you badly.

    1. John Alex Paxson's Avatar John Alex Paxson

      You must adhere to the laws of the country you are in ... Law first ... everything else comes after the fact.

    2. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      No they would require you to do the same no matter who it is. And The Quran directly states that religion should not be forced. Although hijab is highly encouraged in Islam, no one is allowed to be pressured into compliance. People who pressure others (even their children) may have good intentions; however, forcing and pressuring hijab only leads to a negative association with Islam. Therefor its only her belief that she shouldnt remove it, its not based on fact. A muslum woman tried to sue Florida for this exact same type of thing and both the state and the 11th US district court said nope....they have to make sure they can ID her and since this was a mug shot, then she had no right to refuse.

      So this case should be thrown out.

      1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

        "...in Islam, no one is allowed to be pressured into compliance." That's a laugh!

        1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

          Laugh all you want, but then again the Islamic Bible is calling you out for your ignorance.

    3. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

      Bridget, what makes you think that a nun would not have to remove her habit? Do you have any evidence to that effect? I disagree with you about this woman being targeted for being Muslim. It might be the case that you've read too much into this situation.

    4. David George Promis's Avatar David George Promis

      That’s just conjecture on your part, and the type of response that perpetuates the derision that is currently overtaking our culture. 😊

    5. Katherine E Saunders's Avatar Katherine E Saunders

      What a ridiculous comment.

    6. ORDM Genie G's Avatar ORDM Genie G

      Please…. They are treated like royalty. Untouchable.

    7. Bond Wright's Avatar Bond Wright

      Anyone and everyone must remove any pieces of clothing that hides their identity. Partially or mostly. This only makes common sense to uphold our laws. The purpose of that scarf IS to cover her--her identity. It was created by patriarchal men to cover up women and is sexist in its intent. If not, why don't the men have to wear them, too? Women are beaten by men when they don't do it. Just look at what happened recently in Iran when women refused to wear it. There was an uprising of women in protest against it. And, some were beaten. Some were imprison and tortured. And, some were murdered. Our laws must be honored and proper photographs allowed/insisted upon. Take it off for the DMV.

  1. Christopher Michael Norton-Beavers's Avatar Christopher Michael Norton-Beavers

    You can call me an ********* if you want but I'm sorry. You live in the USA and you need to follow our laws and law procedures. If you want YOUR laws and religious beliefs used go back to your home country.

    1. Danny D. Maynard's Avatar Danny D. Maynard

      Not all Muslims were born elsewhere. Some were born in the USA. What do you say now?

  1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

    Much to do about lesson nothing. She probably has more civil rights and protections in the cop shop than she does anywhere else.

  1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

    Much ado about less than nothing. She probably has more civil rights and protections in the cop shop than she does anywhere else in her daily life.

  1. Anthony Jones Boyette's Avatar Anthony Jones Boyette

    " if the purpose of a mugshot is identification, they argue, shouldn’t women who wear hijabs in public be photographed with them on?"

    It's amazing how some people can twist logic to suit their agenda. I have to confirm that humans are dumber than they were 100 years ago. I blame that mostly on our assembly-line public school system high school diploma mills.

    Now on to the correct answer: NO, they shouldn't be mugshotted with their hajib on. Why? Because if the intent of a mugshot is to "identify the offender" as the law says, then taking a photo of a black hajib does not identify the offender. It identifies the hajib.

    Practical example: I could line up 10 women draped in black hajibs.....and you couldn't pick this lady out of the lineup could you? See Sir, that is not "identification".

  1. Joy's Avatar Joy

    YOUR religious beliefs do not supersede OUR legal protections. Quit trying to make the world a theocracy.

  1. Maria Elisa Koch's Avatar Maria Elisa Koch

    If her hijab covered her face then, yes, she needed to remove it, if not they were wrong.

  1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

    I am so sorry for the trauma you were put through. I understand your feelings. I’m so sorry you were treated so horribly. We are supposed to feel safe with police, not fear. My prayers for you. 🙏🏼

    1. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

      Here we go again. To allow anyone special consideration because of religion is unconstitutional. I assume part of the reason she left her culture to join this culture was our constitution which guarantees equal treatment. But, equal treatment follows equal responsibility. She should stop trying to beat the system and accept responsibility for her actions. That's how this culture works.

      1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

        Hey James, tell that to republicans who fight to keep child marriage legal in the US for “religious purposes.” Many of those same states have atheists barred from running for political office. For religious purposes. We have a religion here who forces legal issues onto everyone who isn’t Christian. I hope you that same passion towards them as they take people’s freedom of expression, free speech, and freedom of association away.

        1. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

          Those mean ole Republicans who do those things in the name of their religion should be ashamed of themselves as should anyone who did likewise even if she were moslem.

        2. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

          Comment removed by user.

        3. Danny D. Maynard's Avatar Danny D. Maynard

          Forcing one to follow religious rituals and other such decrees and behaviors is a folly mission. Forcing never succeeds!

        4. Judith's Avatar Judith

          No republican wants child marriages. Ask Warren Jeffs. The FLDS is serving a life sentence for rape of his "child brides" and assisting in the marriage of child brides to other men. These convictions were in conservative Republican voting states.

          1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

            Senator Mike Moon from MO does. He defends them. Republicans know how to sacrifice one of their own to make sure the rest are preserved. Every time child marriage is brought up for debate and is talked about to be banned, republicans are the ones to champion it for religious reasons.

            Congress has set some limits on child marriage, but because marriage is regulated at the state level, the United States has no national law banning child marriage and no national minimum age to marry. Several states have recently revived debates about child marriage; earlier this year, Michigan banned the practice. But many more states need to take action.

            https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/us-national-child-marriage-state-regulation/675909/#

        5. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

          And not one of the GOP has ever done this Ruhnke....in fact they and any other sane person quickly stop this when they find it. And how surprising (not really) that you would try and use a politically biased source as your proof.

          1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

            Sure it’s left, but that doesn’t mean Senator Mike Moon didn’t say those l things. I guess anything that disproves the noises coming from your keyboard or mouth is automatically biased or wrong, Isn’t it, Grey?

            An yes he defended child marriage in his statements. Matt Walsh defended and pushed the idea that 15-16 year old should be getting married. Him being a right wing talking head an all that. Teenagers aren’t children, but that doesn’t mean they should be getting married at that age.

            He later on went to “clarify” what he said, but I’ve often seen gross right wingers refer to young girls as women and 25 year old women as girls. Maybe not prominent politicians, but it’s there.

            https://www.businessinsider.com/mike-moon-gop-missouri-lawmaker-defends-childs-right-to-marry-2023-4?amp

            https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/missouri-lawmaker-defends-12-year-olds-getting-married/amp/

            For you to say that no Republican is for it is ludicrous because the data suggests otherwise.

            https://19thnews.org/2023/07/explaining-child-marriage-laws-united-states/

            Oh look. Idaho Republicans defending child marriage. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1050471

            https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/4283941-child-marriage-is-still-legal-in-most-of-the-u-s-heres-why/amp/

            1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

              Ok so you have just destroyed yourself. Its ONE GUY, and you tried to imply its the whole right.

              how desperate have you become?

              1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

                lol one guy? There are entire states where right wingers are defending the practice every time it’s brought up to be axed or banned. Or it’s ignored, like all the other things right wingers ignore and pretend don’t happen. Like you’re doing now. It is the whole right, and some democrats.

                Destroyed myself? Lmfao. You sound like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Whatever you say Comander Cobra.

              2. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Sorry Ruhnke, but your own sources prove that its not entire states as you claim. So if you cant be truthful then why should anyone listen to you?

      2. John Alex Paxson's Avatar John Alex Paxson

        Well said!

      3. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

        Then I guess you dont like the 1st Amendment that clearly states NO law can be passed that would cause a person to violate their religious teachings.

        1. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

          No, I LOVE the first amendment. That is why I referred to it in my comment. The law was not passed in order to prevent the free exercise of her religion. The law was passed to protect the citizenry.

          1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

            No that part of the Constitution was passed only to make sure that there is not a national religion like in england and you cannot make a law that would require someone to violate actual recognized religious teachings, nothing more. Thats why I find people who claim this means the separation of church and state completely ignorant of what the 1st amendment actually says.

            1. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

              The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. Unfortunately, since Warren, The Court has conflated a few casual words of Thomas Jefferson to be original intent. You and I both know they are wrong - problem is how to tell them.

              1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Nope sorry Article 3 of the US Constitution clearly does not give the SCOTUS the ability nor authority to interpret anything. And the 10th Amendment clearly says that unless the Constitution clearly gives you the authority, then you do not have it and never have had it no matter who says you do.

              2. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

                There is an old adage that says "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." From now on I'll refer to it as the Daniel Grey corollary.

              3. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                No that would have to be called by your name as you seemingly dont like what the 1st says or what the 10th says as it completely destroys you and any attempted point you were trying to make.

        2. Danny D. Maynard's Avatar Danny D. Maynard

          That is not true. Religion is not above the law as along as the law is applied the same everywhere within that jurisdiction -- national, state, county city and village.

          1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

            Oh really? then please explain why you cant make a law and require people to abide by it if it violates their established religious teachings?

            1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

              The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

              Not respecting an established religion means that Christian nationalists trying force their version on Christianity, which is what they’re doing with Project 2025. A long list of unconstitutional laws that target anyone who isn’t part of their regime or way of thinking.

              You’re Wrong Grey. I just copied and pasted word for word what the first amendment is for. If your religious teachings and practices violate the rights of others, they’re unconstitutional and subject to legal repercussions.

              You disagreeing with a law that gives rights to people whose very existence goes against your religious teachings, doesn’t mean you get to target them or do anything to make their lives harder. But I know that doesn’t deter y’all.

              The reason for the first amendment in the first place was that many who came to the colonies were trying to escape religious persecution for their views. That doesn’t mean you get to turn around and play persecutor.

              1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                No I am factually correct. All the 1st Amendment does is state that there shall not be a national religion and you cant make a law that would cause a person to violate their religion. And in the case above the Quran clearly does not require a woman to wear this so its not against her religion to have to remove it.

                What part of the Constitution dont you seem to understand? Even the Supreme Court of the US has said this repeatedly in at least 16 decisions since 1995, so who are you to try and say they are wrong?

              2. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

                I just posted word for word what the first amendment says.

                Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Meaning yes, there will be no national religion. If religious persons violate the law their religion cannot keep them from being prosecuted. Except Christian nationalists are trying pervert and corrupt the law for their own selfish and disgusting views.

                It’s not the constitution I have an issue with. It’s your corrupted and biased interpretation of the constitution that I call into question.

                You’re right, the Quran doesn’t say the hijab is required. Only modesty is, and the hijab, in many of those cultures is a symbol of modesty to them. That doesn’t mean it should be targeted and discriminated against either. Which has been going on in both Europe and The US. Call it a matter of basic courtesy. When basic courtesy goes out the window, tragedy is close to follow.

              3. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                How can it be corrupted and biased when you just went through and said the same thing I did, that CONGRESS cannot make a national religion.

                So I guess you are saying your opinion is corrupt and biased as well?

  1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

    Much Ado about less than nothing.

  1. ORDM Genie G's Avatar ORDM Genie G

    She should respect laws and rules of the country where she lives. Here our faces and hair are visible on licenses, passports and mugshots. In a Muslim country women are required to wear a hijab or a burka and western women living there respect it (or might get killed). She is getting a sweeter deal here…

  1. Michael John Hamer's Avatar Michael John Hamer

    This is a cultural issue, not a religious one. I know many Muslim women that do not where a hijab, shayla or burka. Lived in the UAE for 8 years. I also know many Muslim men that occasionally drink alcohol, a few Saudis as well. This is a right that would most likely not be afforded her during the booking process in most in most countries with Islamic governments, where there is no presumption of innocence.

  1. William Vasiliou's Avatar William Vasiliou

    I have not heard of Nuns committing crimes while wearing their Habits.

  1. Sally Ann Yozviak's Avatar Sally Ann Yozviak

    She gave up her right when she committed a crime. Period. You don’t like our rules here in USA? Go back your country where there are plenty of rules!!

    1. Jennifer Lee's Avatar Jennifer Lee

      Funny how one could guess if someone follows trump by their racial slurs

      1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

        no different then the people who claim to be democrats and call people every name and racial slur they can think of....so whats your point exactly?

    2. Lady Mutt Cat's Avatar Lady Mutt Cat

      She gives up her rights when she's CONVICTED of a crime. What part of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law don't you understand?

  1. Bridget Kielas-Fecyk's Avatar Bridget Kielas-Fecyk

    Just for reference, I believe in freedom of religion for ALL religions, and freedom FROM religion for everyone who are not religious and do not intend to be. No one has the right to force their beliefs onto anyone else no matter who they are.

    1. Revd. R. Vincent's Avatar Revd. R. Vincent

      I agree 100%

  1. shiningwolf9's Avatar shiningwolf9

    This comment is not directed toward religious freedom, but fear. Many women live in fear and anxiousness, about not being covered, especially with hijab. It isn't "freedom", it is Law, stemming from authoritarian clergy of a religious faith. There have been many instances of women being jailed, tortured, and hanged for either not wearing the head covering, or not wearing it correctly, allowing some of the hair to show. This is not religious freedom, but religious tyranny. This is why women are afraid to be seen by men not their husbands, or family, without the "covering".

    1. Anthony Jones Boyette's Avatar Anthony Jones Boyette

      Very inaccurate. Religion is not "Law", at least not in America. Laws are statutory and made by legislature or Agency in America, not by religious practice.

      No one is jailed, tortured, or hanged in America for not wearing a burka or hijab or Yarmulke.
      There is not crime in America for not doing what the Bible. the Torah. or whatever book you claim says you have to do to get to heaven. Christians violate their own rules everyday and no one is charged with a crime.

      This is the biggest problem with these people. They don't want to come here and assimilate as Americans, they want to come here and bring their country with them and expect me to conform to their customs. It doesn't work that way. "When in Rome..." Civil statute trumps religious freedom all day every day in the U,S, courts.

      If your idea passed the logic test, couldn't one argue that "it's against my religion to be arrested, so go away officer" and avoid the whole mugshot/photo quarrel?

    2. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

      shiningwolf9, while I might agree with your comment if this jad happened in Saudi Arabia. But it didn't. It happened in the United States and therefore there is no such concern.

    3. John Alex Paxson's Avatar John Alex Paxson

      Good point.

    4. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      No it isnt law. The Quran directly states that religion should not be forced. Although hijab is highly encouraged in Islam, no one is allowed to be pressured into compliance. People who pressure others (even their children) may have good intentions; however, forcing and pressuring hijab only leads to a negative association with Islam

    5. Revd. R. Vincent's Avatar Revd. R. Vincent

      The hijab and burka are cultural rather than religious or a legal requirement.

    6. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

      Similar reasoning is applicable to why Blacks tend to fly or fight when approached by police. Makes it interesting. Doesn't make it right.

  1. Catherine's Avatar Catherine

    On the flip side, from India, albeit from 2015:

    https://www.deccanherald.com/india/keralite-nun-refuses-take-aipmt-2141306

    "The Supreme Court had yesterday refused to entertain plea of an Islamic organisation that Muslim girl applicants be allowed to wear 'hijab' (scarf), a customary religious dress, while appearing for the AIPMT."

    Why should any religion overule police protocols?

  1. tuppennyblue's Avatar tuppennyblue

    When I was strip-searched by the police, I felt naked too! Suck it up!

  1. Kathy Beverlee Hall's Avatar Kathy Beverlee Hall

    Greetings From Chief Rev. Lady Kathy,

    This whole event is elementary! Why? Because this woman should have thought about her situation and planned better because of her belief system. Although this story is discorded and some made up by officials, apparently to clean up the edges.

    Unfortunately, this Muslim woman should always be prepared when you are having an altercation or disagreement, especially in public or when the authorities are called. One has to expect someone to go to jail. It's as simple as that! Most likely!

    If this matter was that important, she could have avoided or stopped herself from having this altercation with her husband and just secretly left or waited for him to hit her and then let he'd go to jail. (Alternative Approach)?

    Most Muslim women have to be more intelligent nowadays while living in the USA! Learn how to defend themselves, know the laws here, and always have a plan to escape an abusive situation! Stop living so naive! The Muslim religion is perceived to be a domineering religion, where men can still be in their countries governed by "Shariah law," stoning is still practiced to stone women to death! (Unbelievable, Right) Places: Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates, to name a few.

    It can be seen as an arrogant way to overpower women once they place this belief in their heads! Because I could see them building a countercase against her. Religion is based on faith.

    Your life is essential. If anyone is abusing you, stand up for your rights because her husband psychologically outsmarted his wife. He already knew "he had the upper hand."

    I speak on this because my Ex-husband came home drunk one day and broke up all my religious artifacts, leaving me to call the police. However, all the evidence points to him and the stick in his hand with his fingerprints. So he went to jail, and the rest is history. I contacted support woman groups and got a court order for protection to keep him 500 Ft. away from me. Yeah, he threatened me, and I was prepared to fight back, not be submissive, not conform to his threats, or become passive.

    In conclusion, this Muslim woman now knows how the system works! I feel everyone should take several mugshots if they get arrested, and authorities should have a special camera for Religious people wearing the Hijab, wraps, etc.!

    VIEWS & OPINIONS DISCLAIMERS Chi Ori Publishing Company, Llc.

    Any content provided by our Author, Writer, Blogger is of their opinion and is not intended to express malign towards Any Religion, Ethnic group, Club, Organization, Communities, Company, Individual or Anyone or Anything or Animals.©

    1. Revd. R. Vincent's Avatar Revd. R. Vincent

      As a devout Muslim, is she not supposed to do as her husband tells her? Had she been anywhere but the USA she may well have suffered a greater indignity for daring to fight with her husband. I would have thought that, given the circumstances, and the fact that she has more rights in the USA than she would in, say, Saudi Arabia, she is making more of the incident than is necessary.

  1. Nathaniel Joseph Merritt's Avatar Nathaniel Joseph Merritt

    OUR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS END WHERE OUR CIVIC DUTIES AND CIVIC RESPONSIBILITIES BEGIN!

  1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

    "Should Muslim women have to remove their hijab for a mugshot?"

    Just think about that for a moment. If her hijab covers her face as intended, what exactly is the mugshot of? Certainly not her mug. So it's not a mugshot, it's a "???shot."

    So in her booking slip, where it says occupation is written what, "standup comedian?" Oh the shame.

  1. William Self's Avatar William Self

    I beleive everyone feels exposed when their mugshot is published. I do find it interesting that one would complain about it when they are part of a society that requires mugshots as part of their long practiced criminal justice system.

  1. Mark Hannon's Avatar Mark Hannon

    This was a "domestic dispute with her husband". And she was never charged with any crime. Of course Kent County, MI would haul in a woman for fighting with her husband. They are totally about a woman knowing her place like the Apostle Paul supposedly wrote.

    1. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

      Mark, while your comments are very passionate, I also think it might be a bit spurious. Is there any evidence that Kent county, Michigan has a pattern of arresting women in order to show them their proper place according to the writings of the Apostle Paul? As for one of the spouses going to jail when there is a domestic disturbance, I guess if they took the woman this time it's a sure sign that Kent county, Michigan is being non sexist. Clearly, and Kent county, Michigan women have the equal right to be jailed in a cases of domestic disturbances.

      1. August Louise Steinbrook's Avatar August Louise Steinbrook

        I completely agree with you . If she broke the law she she be held to the same laws every other female is .

      2. Mark Hannon's Avatar Mark Hannon

        My sister and her husband had 3 sons. Her husband was transferred from the Detroit area to the Grand Rapids area. The realtor directed them away from some neighborhoods because their sons would not be able to play outside on Sundays. This was about 25 years ago and they did find a good area but she will attest to it still being difficult for non-Christian (and non-Dutch reformed) to get along in the suburbs of Grand Rapids that are policed by the Sherriff's department.

        Just look at Amway or the politicians coming out of western Michigan. The company I worked for in Detroit had one partner that was from western Michigan and he was against woman being promoted over men. He would not let his kids watch tv except for videos his church approved.

  1. Robert Randolph Walker's Avatar Robert Randolph Walker

    No, she is not right! This is a christian country still. She needs to have IDENTIFICATION photos like everybody else or haul *** for a muslim (lower case on purpose!) country!

    1. Cheryl Pettijohn's Avatar Cheryl Pettijohn

      While Christianity may be the predominant religion in this country, this is NOT a Christian country. You are marginalizing all others. When you designate people as 'other', you set them up for harassment and eventual extermination. This is not what Christ would want.

      1. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

        Cheryl, the United States was founded on Christian values and, therefore, one could make the case it is a Christian nation as opposed to a Muslim nation. But why would a Muslim in a Christian nation need to fear harassment or extermination. To the best of my knowledge, it's Christians who have had to fear being marginalized, harassed, and exterminated in Muslim countries. I think your fears might be misplaced.

  1. Geoffrey C. Olive's Avatar Geoffrey C. Olive
    1. Religion is the bane of humanity!
    2. People sue to get money!
  1. Annamarie's Avatar Annamarie

    It's pure evil. How anyone can do those things to another vulnerable being is pure evil.

  1. Albert Smith's Avatar Albert Smith

    I agree that hijab is a custom and not a religious requirement just as coverings are practiced in Orthodox Jewish sects. Where it’s necessary for identification reasons photos should be taken both with and without coverings but should not be released until conviction. This should be applied for any religious conviction, male or female.

    1. Sally Ann Yozviak's Avatar Sally Ann Yozviak

      When she committed a crime she gave up Her right

  1. Larry Michael Damato's Avatar Larry Michael Damato

    LEAVE YOUR RELIGIOUS AND CUSTOM BELIEFS UNDER YOUR OWN ROOF.... ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE,LET US JUST CONCENTRATE ON EQUALITY....WHY ANYONE WOULD COME TO THE UNITED STATES TO CONTINUE TO BE A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN IS ABSURD... WOMEN WHO FOUGHT FOR EQUAL STATUS ARE BEING SLAPPED IN THE FACE BY THESE BACKWARD BELIEFS...WHEN FREE THINKING WOMEN ARE IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES THEY DO COVER UP IN THE HOST COUNTRY.....

  1. Kevin Oconnell's Avatar Kevin Oconnell

    For purpose of legal identity, yes ! there should have been a picture of her taken without a veil, who's to say she wasn't involved with other incidents or more later on. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she couldn't commit crimes, how ever caution should have been taken to prevent exposure of her face to the public

  1. August Louise Steinbrook's Avatar August Louise Steinbrook

    The photo posted online was not necessary!!!! That was just wrong! However if she violated the laws of Michigan,and went to jail then a mugshot photo being taking according to the policy of the department is not unreasonable. The American constitution does require equal protection under the law. I understand her religion does not permit the photo with out the hijab but her religion I'm guessing does not permit her to break the state laws either. She should be held to the exact same standards as every single other American. She clearly did something to warrent a police officer to arrest her. No other person is allowed special treatments. Therefore if she didn't want a mugshot photo taking she didn't have engaged in a domestic dispute with whoever she did. This lawsuit is unfounded the way I see it.

  1. Tod Steinbauer's Avatar Tod Steinbauer

    The Hijab is not in their religious teachings it is a culturale belief forced on the woman buy the men going back thousands of years.

  1. Edward L. Bagby III's Avatar Edward L. Bagby III

    Do we really care?

  1. Pamela Kay Waters's Avatar Pamela Kay Waters

    You come to this country expect to go by the laws. Especially if you have done something that makes you need to get a mugshot in the 1st place.

  1. Johnny Rivas's Avatar Johnny Rivas

    Yes everyone has to remove all head coverings and glasses to take a mugshot

  1. Kenneth Clay Ford's Avatar Kenneth Clay Ford

    They should be removed a weapon could be in there and just like anyone else has to remove head wearing piece but once removed and searched and the photo is taken then it can be worn again. The photo with the head ware should be the one posted on line.

  1. Ahmed Abduljabar Al-Hujazi's Avatar Ahmed Abduljabar Al-Hujazi

    First: Why did they post the picture online? What was the purpose behind posting it? Second: Islam does not detail what the covering/dressing is for men or women. Only that women should dress modestly. The extent to which a woman covers herself is, as some have already mentioned, skewed by cultural bias.
    Third: A person, not convicted of a crime, should not be made to feel humiliated or dehumanized. How many of us would approve of having to strip down to our underwear, or be made to wear a "bathing suit" for police mug shots? The technology exists, just as Apple, for facial recognition devices to be used by police, which would be more accurate and less error prone than relying on a comparison to a mug shot or driver's license photo. It's only because the police are not equipped efficiently, that we have to rely on photos. The bottom-line is that, until our society becomes more culturally sensitive, we are going to have such unfortunate incidents.

    1. Lady Mutt Cat's Avatar Lady Mutt Cat

      She was asked to remove it and she complied. She wasn't forced to. The extent to which men and women cover themselves also has a lot to do with the law. Ours is a country in which the norm is to have one's head uncovered. Cultural sensitivity needs to stop when people can be harmed by it. Female genital mutilation and marrying off your daughter at 12 are also features of Islamic cultures but are not allowed here. They are disgusting here, just as they should be everywhere. When people move to a different country, then maybe they need to adjust to that society's norms and not expect that society's norms to change for them.

  1. Stephen B. Knutti's Avatar Stephen B. Knutti

    No, she does not have a case. Everyone else has to take off their hat or turban, or habit. Why do these muslims think they are exempt from the laws of the country that they willingly came to?? If she hadn't broken the law in the first place, she wouldn't be in the position, now would she? It's all perspective.

  1. Katherine E Saunders's Avatar Katherine E Saunders

    I'm sure I will upset a few with my opinion.
    Our country is going to hell in a hand basket when we are allowing immigrates to define what our laws state. Her head covering literally covers part of her face. How are the officers supposed to get a good mugshot? I seriously hope she gets laughed out of court.

    1. Jennifer Lee's Avatar Jennifer Lee

      Yikes short sighted

    2. James Riggle-Johnson's Avatar James Riggle-Johnson

      What makes you think she is an immigrant? There are American citizens, born in this country, that are muslim.

  1. RAYMOND BENITEZ's Avatar RAYMOND BENITEZ

    SUBJECT: Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty The President has instructed to issue guidance interpreting religious Liberty Protections in federal law, as appropriate. Exec. Order No. 13798 § 4, 82 Fed. Reg. 21675 (May 4, 2017). Consistent with that instruction.

    Principles of Religious Liberty

    Religious liberty is a foundational principle of enduring importance in America, enshrined. in our Constitution and other sources of federal law. As James Madison explained in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, the free exercise of religion “is in its nature an unalienable right” because the duty owed to one’s Creator “is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”1 Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs or even to worship in a sacred place. It also encompasses religious. observance and practice. Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose. between living out his or her faith and complying with the law. Therefore, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance and practice should be reasonably. accommodated in all government activity, including employment, contracting, and programming. The following twenty principles should guide administrative agencies and executive departments. in carrying out this task. These principles should be understood and interpreted in light of the legal analysis set forth in the appendix to this memorandum.

    1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      Sorry but the president CANNOT issue any such Executive Order and neither can any of the Presidents department heads. In EPA v West Virginia, the SCOTUS told the President and his minions that they could NOT in any way issue an executive order nor make a mandate and expect it to be followed as law. Seems according to Article 1 of the Constitution, the ONLY people who have the authority to give legal weight to anything is the US Congress and if the President or his minions want something like this then they MUST go and have Congress pass it into law or its not legal nor binding.

      https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/west-virginia-v-environmental-protection-agency/

      What this means is neither the President (no matter which party that they belong to) NOR any of the Departments have the constitutional authority to issue a mandate nor an executive order without approval by congress since they are the ones who make the laws as per the constitution

  1. Lisbeth Kieran Bushey's Avatar Lisbeth Kieran Bushey

    This is a gross violation of her rights. Just because she has allegedly committed a crime does not mean that she has given up her rights.

  1. Jennifer Lee's Avatar Jennifer Lee

    Mug shot is one thing: post on line knowing her religious disposition… yup! That was crossing the Rubicon

    Sue the hijab off them honey!

  1. Salmons Lee David's Avatar Salmons Lee David

    Anyone that commits a crime has a clear photo taken usually from 3 different angles. It is normal for those photos to be posted on website of people arrested. This is just normal procedures.

  1. CJC's Avatar CJC

    It is a safety issue; and she is not special. She lives in the US and doesn't want to follow the rules.

  1. James Riggle-Johnson's Avatar James Riggle-Johnson

    Why are there so many comments talking about immigrants living by our laws? Who said this woman was an immigrant? There are American citizens who are Muslim.

  1. Cheryl Pettijohn's Avatar Cheryl Pettijohn

    I think having a mugshot taken with all female police officers would be acceptable, and publishing the mugshot online is unacceptable.

  1. Nicholas J Page's Avatar Nicholas J Page

    This is a difficult one yes because you have to have a full mugshot including hair colour scars etc.But on the other hand The Hijab is a symbol of their heritage beliefs etc.

    1. Anthony Jones Boyette's Avatar Anthony Jones Boyette

      Actually there's nothing at "difficult" at all about it.

      A mugshot is a civil public record, not a religious worship service. Ones "heritage and beliefs" are irrelevant in this circumstance. Obviously, if you've been arrested and are getting a mugshot, you aren't following any credible religion else you wouldn't be getting your mug shot in the first place. Religious observers don't omit criminal acts.

  1. Bishop William Dusenberry, DD's Avatar Bishop William Dusenberry, DD

    One would think (at least this ULC Bishop Emeritus does) that if an Islamic female had her Hijab stolen, she’d have a good excuse for not wearing it, is she was arrested for not wearing it. But under Christian laws, one gets arrested for not wearing pants, unless they’re under a certain age; is the same true, in Islamic countries?

    1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      You are not and never were a Bishop. This "church" does not have such a rank as this.

  1. Dr. Zerpersande, NSC's Avatar Dr. Zerpersande, NSC

    Why would the police department have a rule about not posting the real pic? If that policy is in place it’s as good as an admission that they screwed pooch. Screw the pooch, pay the mooch. Or something like that. Not bc they violated some religious mumbo woo woo but bc they violated their own policy.

    Pay the woman and change the policy,

  1. David Sanchez jr 2's Avatar David Sanchez jr 2

    I believe the faulty doorway that keeps messing people up is gods footstool. when he was casted out of paradise for quarentine, it was so he could be registered because he was out late hanging up signs still, but everyone else was keyed in the system already.

  1. Darren Edward Kelly's Avatar Darren Edward Kelly

    Protestant much?

  1. Alan Delayne Hart's Avatar Alan Delayne Hart

    When in Rome, do as the Romans. We live in the Roman cult "legal"system ...not common law. The would not have been an arrest of the woman if she had not done harm to another or their property under common law. The Roman cult makes trillions of dollars on their Ruling Parasite game of estate manipulation.

    The learning here is multifold...you are not the government name. FIRST MIDDLE LAST is the name the USDC gave to you a few days after your nativity. ... if you look at the passport you have a "given" name and a "surname", they are different legally speaking. If you are charged under the government name you may abate the charges by correcting the assumption the authorities made and correct the "offer" to contract with your surname and a statement you have been found to be living, not an artificial entity. For the full story you must study the LAW at Vocational Science of Freedom, YouTube and other social media meeting places.

  1. Rev Ned's Avatar Rev Ned

    What if she was wearing a burka?

  1. Russell Shepherd's Avatar Russell Shepherd

    I bet if insulted her and she reported me she could identify me because I don't ware a face covering

  1. Illoria Anderson's Avatar Illoria Anderson

    Both pictures should be posted. You cannot tell a person is who they say they are if you cannot SEE their face. It is LAW to remove head coverings or face masks even corrective lenses when getting a mugshot. It is our law here in the U.S to be able to PROPERLY identify a criminal or suspect in a case. If you have religious garments covering your face which is needed for a mugshot to be properly taken, then you should have to remove it for the standard procedure and of course Female officers will be there because it's a safety issue for any women arrested. She was NOT violated at all. Her religious rights were still upheld, she was taken through a thorough booking process. It is people who have done no criminal activities before that and ones who are not born and raised in the U.S who will claim their rights were violated because of the bills and laws passed to make foreign persons comfortable in our Country.

    1. Denise Rispoli Becknell's Avatar Denise Rispoli Becknell

      She wasn't covering her face - only her hair.

  1. Michelle R. Nelson's Avatar Michelle R. Nelson

    It's my understanding that she was asked to remove it so that she could be checked for weapons and then allowed to put it back on. According to the report, the picture was posted in error. I sympathize with her feelings and religious beliefs but mistakes do happen.

  1. Denise Rispoli Becknell's Avatar Denise Rispoli Becknell

    Muslim women who embrace the hijab do so because of humility - making them "disrobe" to take a photo to POST online is criminal. It isn't right. Anyone can color their hair and change their appearance by wearing a wig - but they usually don't change their face - it makes more sense that she leave the hijab on because she would NEVER go outside without it! SO while we are looking for the woman with the brown hair, she could slip right by because of the hijab covering her hair. Why strip a person of their customs if it really wouldn't make any difference - in fact, showing her WITH the hijab would make it a LOT easier to find her if we were looking for her since not so many people wear a head covering!

  1. Pastor Wm. Dawson's Avatar Pastor Wm. Dawson

    No, she is not in the right to refuse to take it off. What makes her any better than other people arrested? Just because she is muslim does not mean she gets different rights than anyone else in this country. If she doesn't like it then she may leave and return to her own country.

  1. Amber M. Castleman's Avatar Amber M. Castleman

    Hijab is not a religion custom or tradition a hijab is technically a country's culture and custom not a religion beliefs system so the officers who posted her photo were not wrong against religious beliefs. But there are wrong for posting her photo on internet they should have posted it in the police arrest records data system not the internet.

  1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

    Has anybody checked to see what they actually do with mugshots in Muslim countries, countries that are formally legally a Muslim country? Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey?

  1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

    I was wondering how they handle it when when a woman is arrested in Afghanistan?

  1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

    Did you ever wonder how they handle it when a woman is arrested in Afghanistan? They leave the woman's hijab on. Now that is respect and godly decorum.

    Also it hides the scars, blood, and injuries from the beatings, acid and stabbing.

  1. Lady Mutt Cat's Avatar Lady Mutt Cat

    The article said that she was asked to remove her hijab and she complied. Regardless of why she did it, SHE COMPLIED. There is no suggestion that any force was used. I don't see where she has a leg to stand on legally.

  1. Bishop William Dusenberry, DD's Avatar Bishop William Dusenberry, DD

    One of my fellow ministers, posted, stating that I was never a bishop in the ULC, as I’ve stated I was, on several of my numerous posts. However I have in my possession my ULC Bishop Certificate, which I received while the ULC’ “founding father” Bishop Kirby J. Hensley was still in charge of the ULC; which now makes me a ULC Bishop Emeritus. If the current ULC management doesn’t agree with me in this regard, it is free to excommunicate me, and put this matter to rest, once and for all.

  1. Gerard Anthony Ritchie's Avatar Gerard Anthony Ritchie

    If the police version of events are true, and presumably tgat will be tested in court, then they appear to have acted with reasonable cultural sensitivity up to the point of publishing the photo. Publishing the wrong photo is the problem. That requires proper investigation, preferably by an independant party. And the person that selected and published the wrong photo needs to be identified, their motives need to be determined (if possible as they may lie) and they need to be held to account for their action. Obviously, the poor woman that feels violated and humiliated needs an official apology from the police and the court will determine if she is due compensation. But above all, the police should be reviewing their process to enure they don't get into this situation again. This is not an issue of whether Muslim women should have their police mugshot taken with or without their hijab but that they should be treated with respect and not subjected to unnecessary humiliation and distress. The police are supposed to protect and serve their communities. So common courtesy and treating people with respect is not too much to ask is it?

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
Don't have an account yet? Create Account