PDA

View Full Version : Islam "insulted" by alleged child killer's mug shot, says husband



bijou
04-10-2009, 10:37 AM
http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/041009hadid.jpg_20090410_09_01_44_7-116-165.imageContent
The police booking photo of alleged child killer Nour Hadid released Tuesday is an "insult against our religion," says Hadid's husband, Alaeddin.

Orland Park police detectives say the 26-year-old Muslim woman was treated as any other suspect in a murder probe would be, and they did not intend to humiliate her when they photographed her Sunday without her headscarf and wearing only a skimpy top.


Nour Hadid is accused of beating her 2-year-old niece Bhia Hadid to death over four days at her home on the 9000 block of West 140th Street. The child had 55 separate bruises and was beaten "from head to toe," according to prosecutors, who say Hadid confessed.

But Alaeddin Hadid - who insists his wife is innocent - said Orland Park police are "really going to be in big trouble" for releasing the woman's booking photo to the news media after she was charged with first-degree murder.

...link (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1520478,041009mugshot.article)

Alaeddin may want to check his priorities; murder of a child is rather more of an insult than hair being on show.

Speedy
04-10-2009, 10:44 AM
Fuck him! There are places where everyone is treated EQUALLY regardless of religion and mugshots are one of them.

Gingersnap
04-10-2009, 10:46 AM
Nobody gives a flip what his wife looks like. All suspects charged with a crime get photographed by the police. If this was an important issue for him, he should have either picked a different country to live in or picked a different wife.

stsinner
04-10-2009, 12:57 PM
Nobody gives a flip what his wife looks like. All suspects charged with a crime get photographed by the police. If this was an important issue for him, he should have either picked a different country to live in or picked a different wife.


LOL... Good one!

PoliCon
04-10-2009, 01:19 PM
If he has a problem with how our laws oporate - he should have stayed in an islamic country.

Elspeth
04-10-2009, 01:35 PM
She beat a child to death and he is worried about a perceived insult? Hello, your kid is dead. Anybody there????

PoliCon
04-10-2009, 03:16 PM
She beat a child to death and he is worried about a perceived insult? Hello, your kid is dead. Anybody there????

Yes - but the child in question is just a girl and therefore CHATTEL.

wilbur
04-10-2009, 03:43 PM
Interesting question... to what extent do we accommodate religious practices even though it seems contrary to our bests interests?

In many cases states don't mandate that a priest be legally obligated to give information regarding grave crimes over to the authorities... all because they were admitted in a special box... why should we mandate that a Muslim woman be forced to take off her burka for identification?

patriot45
04-10-2009, 03:48 PM
Interesting question... to what extent do we accommodate religious practices even though it seems contrary to our bests interests?

In many cases states don't mandate that a priest be legally obligated to give information regarding grave crimes over to the authorities... all because they were admitted in a special box... why should we mandate that a Muslim woman be forced to take off her burka for identification?

Nice jab, Wilbur, a little box Ha! Do lawyers and Dr.s sit in a little box to hear something confidential? Its a confidentual thingy.

Admit it a mugshot in a burka is inane. Also when she is in prison, I would imagine she couldn't wear it either.

FlaGator
04-10-2009, 04:04 PM
Interesting question... to what extent do we accommodate religious practices even though it seems contrary to our bests interests?

In many cases states don't mandate that a priest be legally obligated to give information regarding grave crimes over to the authorities... all because they were admitted in a special box... why should we mandate that a Muslim woman be forced to take off her burka for identification?

You don't even try to hide your comtempt any longer do you?

wilbur
04-10-2009, 04:21 PM
You don't even try to hide your comtempt any longer do you?

I would say the same thing about people commenting in this thread... but the difference between what we already tolerate, and this present issue over the burka isnt very large as people suppose... just because something like confession is pretty much a norm in our society doesnt make it any less puzzling or bizarre.

We let indians eat peyote to go off on psychedelic mind trances... otherwise illegal but we tolerate it because its religious. With all the myriads of forms of identification, why can we justify these other things and not justify letting a woman keep her burka on... which obviously offends her to her religious core as much as any act of blasphemy would offend you?

Sonnabend
04-10-2009, 04:53 PM
Interesting question... to what extent do we accommodate religious practices even though it seems contrary to our bests interests?Ask the 102 dead after the Mohammed cartoons....oh wait....


In many cases states don't mandate that a priest be legally obligated to give information regarding grave crimes over to the authorities... all because they were admitted in a special box... why should we mandate that a Muslim woman be forced to take off her burka for identification?Because she is a wanted criminal in a murder case. That's why.


I would say the same thing about people commenting in this thread... but the difference between what we already tolerate, and this present issue over the burka isnt very large as people suppose... just because something like confession is pretty much a norm in our society doesnt make it any less puzzling or bizarre.Islam is bizarre. Islam is violent. The woman is a murderer.


We let indians eat peyote to go off on psychedelic mind trances... otherwise illegal but we tolerate it because its religious. With all the myriads of forms of identification, why can we justify these other things and not justify letting a woman keep her burka onBecause they want her full face for identification because she is a wanted criminal in a murder case, and because they dont take mug shots of a killer with his ski mask on.

I find 102 dead offensive.
I find honour killings offensive.
I find a little girl beaten to death offensive.
I am just sorry that she probably wont get the death penalty.Thats one criminal I would see off with a smile, and a wave, and a hearty wish that she say hi to Satan when she gets where she is going

FlaGator
04-10-2009, 07:38 PM
I would say the same thing about people commenting in this thread... but the difference between what we already tolerate, and this present issue over the burka isnt very large as people suppose... just because something like confession is pretty much a norm in our society doesnt make it any less puzzling or bizarre.

We let indians eat peyote to go off on psychedelic mind trances... otherwise illegal but we tolerate it because its religious. With all the myriads of forms of identification, why can we justify these other things and not justify letting a woman keep her burka on... which obviously offends her to her religious core as much as any act of blasphemy would offend you?

You've got to be kidding me. You've been eating that peyote that you just mentioned haven't you?

Sonnabend
04-10-2009, 07:42 PM
With all the myriads of forms of identification, why can we justify these other things and not justify letting a woman keep her burka on.Because it's the US or Australia, and not some primitive, bullet riddled witchburning,economic basket case fifth world Islamic dominated shithole.

Because she is in prison awaiting trial for murder, and because her face is, and should be, plastered everywhere for everyone to see yet another example of the Religion of Peace™ at work.

You like women in burkas?

Go live in Iran.

Sonnabend
04-10-2009, 07:49 PM
US, Australia, other Western countries.

Our law. Obey it or else.
Our freedoms. Respect them or fuck off.
Our way, or the highway...your choice.

If you don't like how we live and you cant obey our laws, there's an airport near you with planes leaving all the time.

Live as we do or get the fuck out.We dont give a fuck if you are "offended"..a little girl is dead. My sympathy is reserved for her.

US, Australia, if you dont like it here....LEAVE.

We dont want you.

Gingersnap
04-10-2009, 09:40 PM
Interesting question... to what extent do we accommodate religious practices even though it seems contrary to our bests interests?

In many cases states don't mandate that a priest be legally obligated to give information regarding grave crimes over to the authorities... all because they were admitted in a special box?

Because it's really just hearsay and no more important legally than getting lit and having a FOAF repeat your stuff to the cops. That might have a legal consequence eventually but it would never be admissible without a boatload of actual physical evidence.

People who obscure their faces or otherwise present a frankly unusual appearance have a direct impact on identification and communication in our society. In this society, criminal mugshots are an accepted part of communication now. The Smoking Gun won't give you a pass because you're Amish, Hindu, or atheist.

That this woman belongs to a culture that requires women to veil means pretty much nothing. In this culture, a face is not indecent, perverted, sexually titillating, or hopelessly lust-provoking. In this culture, women who normally cover their hair are expected to uncover for police purposes and some employment purposes.

FlaGator
04-10-2009, 09:43 PM
Because it's really just hearsay and no more important legally than getting lit and having a FOAF repeat your stuff to the cops. That might have a legal consequence eventually but it would never be admissible without a boatload of actual physical evidence.

People who obscure their faces or otherwise present a frankly unusual appearance have a direct impact on identification and communication in our society. In this society, criminal mugshots are an accepted part of communication now. The Smoking Gun won't give you a pass because you're Amish, Hindu, or atheist.

That this woman belongs to a culture that requires women to veil means pretty much nothing. In this culture, a face is not indecent, perverted, sexually titillating, or hopelessly lust-provoking. In this culture, women who normally cover their hair are expected to uncover for police purposes and some employment purposes.

I don't think that wilbur well comprehend that. I think he's been drinking... alot... today.

Gingersnap
04-10-2009, 10:08 PM
I don't think that wilbur well comprehend that. I think he's been drinking... alot... today.

Too bad. It's a well reasoned and interesting take on his stuff. Sadly, my sky-god obligations will not allow me to look at his answers until Monday unless he replies fairly quickly. :D

Gingersnap
04-10-2009, 10:20 PM
i find muslim women who are uncovered to be very offensive. i also feel muslim men who are uncovered are equally offensive. i am thankfull i already had supper before viewing this thread.

Actually, both male and female Muslims have modesty obligations that would prevent either sex from using a conventional California beach. As would be true of traditional Christians, LDS, some pagans, Hindus, many Buddhists, Orthodox Anybody, some Conservative Jews, many animists, atheists who have access to 3-way mirrors, and others.

Elspeth
04-10-2009, 10:49 PM
Because it's really just hearsay and no more important legally than getting lit and having a FOAF repeat your stuff to the cops. That might have a legal consequence eventually but it would never be admissible without a boatload of actual physical evidence.

People who obscure their faces or otherwise present a frankly unusual appearance have a direct impact on identification and communication in our society. In this society, criminal mugshots are an accepted part of communication now. The Smoking Gun won't give you a pass because you're Amish, Hindu, or atheist.

That this woman belongs to a culture that requires women to veil means pretty much nothing. In this culture, a face is not indecent, perverted, sexually titillating, or hopelessly lust-provoking. In this culture, women who normally cover their hair are expected to uncover for police purposes and some employment purposes.

Bravo, Gingersnap!

I'm going to quote you when anyone starts talking about this case.

Gingersnap
04-10-2009, 11:16 PM
Bravo, Gingersnap!

I'm going to quote you when anyone starts talking about this case.

Feel free. I'm in so much trouble for being logical that a few more coals won't heat my fire up much. :D

SarasotaRepub
04-10-2009, 11:18 PM
And for Driver's licenses. Remember the muzzie woman down in FL a few years ago who wanted her pic taken in a burka?

Sooo sorry Mrs. Aladdin, you want a driver's lic. in FL, you take the bag off your head and get your pic taken like everyone else in the USA.

Sonnabend
04-10-2009, 11:37 PM
the muslim women are not allowed to drive in a lot of middle eastern countries why should they be allowed to drive here?

Freedom.

That's why.

Who're you, anyway?

Rockntractor
04-10-2009, 11:57 PM
Freedom.

That's why.

Who're you, anyway?
i guess i should have clarified my comment. the husbands of these women agree with these laws concerning their wives when they are in the middle east. why do they feel there wives should drive over here.if it was a freedom issue they would not force the bondage of the burka on their wives over here either.it is not an issue of their religeous freedom. they only want to tear down our culture. as to who i am i am one who uses words to express my freedom. not suicide bombers and beheadings.

wilbur
04-11-2009, 12:39 AM
Because it's really just hearsay and no more important legally than getting lit and having a FOAF repeat your stuff to the cops. That might have a legal consequence eventually but it would never be admissible without a boatload of actual physical evidence.


But all the same, these are laws you and I have to abide by. You, I or anyone else can be punished severely if we fail to report a serious crime. The confessional privilege is special treatment under the law... giving extraordinary treatment to those who claim that the laws of this country are laws that they ultimately do not have to answer to.



People who obscure their faces or otherwise present a frankly unusual appearance have a direct impact on identification and communication in our society. In this society, criminal mugshots are an accepted part of communication now. The Smoking Gun won't give you a pass because you're Amish, Hindu, or atheist.

That this woman belongs to a culture that requires women to veil means pretty much nothing. In this culture, a face is not indecent, perverted, sexually titillating, or hopelessly lust-provoking. In this culture, women who normally cover their hair are expected to uncover for police purposes and some employment purposes.

But is this worse or much different that say the harm that may result from not requiring priests to report crimes, like the rape of an alter boy by a fellow priest, when spoken about in the confines of a confessional? Why is a line there, but no line when it comes to Muslim attire? This lady was actually only wearing a headscarf, so her face wasn't obscured.

Your rationale seems pretty arbitrary. Special treatment for one religion, but not another.

Sonnabend
04-11-2009, 01:24 AM
This lady was actually only wearing a headscarf, so her face wasn't obscured.

Hair colour, complexion.

This is a mug shot, she is being booked for MURDER, not a damned driving license.

No scarf, no concealment, no hiding anything.

Full face photo, if you dont like it, tough shit. Maybe she should have thought of that before she beat her daughter to death.


The confessional privilege is special treatment under the law... giving extraordinary treatment to those who claim that the laws of this country are laws that they ultimately do not have to answer to.

She's Muslim. Not a Catholic. Irrelevant.Catholics who are booked for murder also get a full face photo taken.

Sonnabend
04-11-2009, 01:26 AM
i guess i should have clarified my comment.

Yes.


the husbands of these women agree with these laws concerning their wives when they are in the middle east. why do they feel there wives should drive over here.

Because they are free to do so. Next?


if it was a freedom issue they would not force the bondage of the burka on their wives over here either.

Talk to him.


as to who i am i am one who uses words to express my freedom. not suicide bombers and beheadings.

I smell troll.

wilbur
04-11-2009, 01:36 AM
Hair colour, complexion.

This is a mug shot, she is being booked for MURDER, not a damned driving license.

No scarf, no concealment, no hiding anything.

Full face photo, if you dont like it, tough shit. Maybe she should have thought of that before she beat her daughter to death.



She's Muslim. Not a Catholic. Irrelevant.Catholics who are booked for murder also get a full face photo taken.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this by a long shot.

I'm trying to hear the justifications for making some special allowances for religious customs but not others that seem similarly severe... say when a priest hears a confession of a child rapist and is under no obligation under the law to report it nor could be punished for failing to report the crime, while you or I could go to jail for the same thing.

PoliCon
04-11-2009, 02:05 AM
quite simply - this country is founded and has a legal system based upon JUDEO-CHRISTIAN principles and beliefs - a key reason why we accommodate one and not the other.

Putting that aside - we accommodate the sanctity of the confessional because it is based in a concept that this country believes in - forgiveness. What principles core to our belief structure does hijab promote?

Sonnabend
04-11-2009, 03:55 AM
I'm not disagreeing with any of this by a long shot. I'm trying to hear the justifications for making some special allowances for religious customs but not others that seem similarly severe... say when a priest hears a confession of a child rapist and is under no obligation under the law to report it nor could be punished for failing to report the crime, while you or I could go to jail for the same thing.

This isnt about Catholics and kindly threadjack elsewhere. Start a new thread on the matter.

FlaGator
04-11-2009, 07:03 AM
quite simply - this country is founded and has a legal system based upon JUDEO-CHRISTIAN principles and beliefs - a key reason why we accommodate one and not the other.

Putting that aside - we accommodate the sanctity of the confessional because it is based in a concept that this country believes in - forgiveness. What principles core to our belief structure does hijab promote?

Now you've gone and done it. You've raised that whole 'Country founded on Judeo-Christian ethic' thing to Wilbur. Now his going to ask you to discuss it in the dome and then not show up.:rolleyes:

Sonnabend
04-11-2009, 09:10 AM
He is just disappointed the thread wasn't about Dr Snatchpeeper...wilbur is the last of the Paulbots....and a liberal.

djones520
04-11-2009, 09:24 AM
He is just disappointed the thread wasn't about Dr Snatchpeeper...wilbur is the last of the Paulbots....and a liberal.

An ultra-conservative liberal?

PoliCon
04-11-2009, 08:55 PM
STAFF - can we get a thread split and the crap sent to the dome so we can actually discuss the issue of the OP?

SarasotaRepub
04-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Done. There is a Dome Thread now with RocknTractor name as the title.