Matt Bracken: The Three Faces of Yasmin Seweid

To paraphrase a sentence in the coverage of the case by The New York Daily News: Yasmin Seweid joins a growing list of local and national alleged hate-crime victims who made up incidents of “Islamophobia” out of whole cloth.

For those who are not familiar with what happened, this Daily News article from a few days ago will fill in the facts, despite the paper’s obvious ideological bias. Ms. Seweid’s story is actually quite sad:

Muslim Student Filed Bias Crime Report to Avoid Curfew Punishment

A Muslim student who said she was harassed on the subway by drunken, hate-spewing white men shouting “Donald Trump!” lied to police because she broke her curfew, law enforcement sources said Wednesday.

Yasmin Seweid, 18, joined a growing list of local and national alleged hate-crime victims when she told cops she was taunted Dec. 1 on the No. 6 train by three men who called her a terrorist and tried to snatch her hijab off her head while straphangers did nothing.

But Seweid finally broke down Wednesday and was arrested after she admitted to detectives that it was all a big lie.

“Nothing happened, and there was no victim,” a police source said.

Police sources say Seweid made up the story because she didn’t want to get in trouble for breaking her curfew after being out late drinking with friends.

Her strict, Muslim parents allegedly forced Seweid to shave her head over the incident and were upset that she was dating a Christian, sources said.

The bareheaded Baruch College student, not wearing her hijab, was charged with filing a false report and released after her arraignment early Thursday in Manhattan Criminal Court. A relative covered Seweid’s face with a black down jacket as she was escorted into a waiting SUV following her brief court appearance.

She faces up to a year in jail for each charge.

33 thoughts on “Matt Bracken: The Three Faces of Yasmin Seweid

  1. Nothing new here. Happens all the time anywhere.
    Here in the Netherlands we had several cases like that the past few years.
    Same old story; a young muslima goes for a night on the town, takes of her headscarf en starts boozing. Afterwards she is afraid the family might smell the alcohol on her breath so to cover up the smell on her breath she poors a can of beer over her head and comes op with a cockamamy story; “boo hoo snivel snivel some big blond Geert Wilders adept began to call me names and sweared at me and poored beer over my head” So the entire family, all 57 of them (family honour and all that rot) off to the police station to file a complaint.

    It is my considered opinion that from now on [epithets] like that should be given a breathalyzer test before the complaint is even being considered for registration.

  2. We must stop referring to Islam as a “religion”. Our only chance to successfully fight against this violent supremacist totalitarian political ideology to deny their ability to hide behind laws designed to protect religious freedom.

    • Crossware, so important what you said “We must stop referring to islam as a religion”, since it is a gang-cult, as I’ve seen others, even apostates say that, and as such subject to RICO statutes, at minimum in fact!

      How right you are, and only a little are people awakening to that reality, including some apostates, even. This fundamental truth must be hammered again and again, without fail, ceaselessly. Any fool should be able to understand no religion requires its members to behead, and murder, all less believing peoples, even its own, worse all others.

      When and where in history, (or current definitions), has existed an accepted ‘religion’ which practices generously the following for 1400 years, and requires all others who don’t believe, or formerly were supposed to have believed, to be murdered, beheaded, that homosexuality requires death by pitching off a high structure, that thievery requires alternate limb amputations, practices homosexual rapes of any age, rape of any age, all manner of thuggery, tortures of unimaginable kinds to humans and animals, pedophilia, child marriage, clitorectomies, crimes of all kinds, lying, deceit, even cannibalism, and every other kind of perversion, and destroyed mental order imaginable?

      So called normal society, civilization, is itself sick, when it pronounces the above existential abominations to be acceptable as any type of ‘religion’ of any degree. It shows by example, that society has little pride in decency, goodness, nor self-respect for how far it has come, typically. Society as a whole needs a massive overwhelming dose of self-respect and reality thinking.

      Consider too, that American society, that portion that voted, shows another symptom of sickness, in that a bit more than half, neither recognizes nor cares when it does recognize, the rampant criminality, crookedness, and deceit of hrc, (and her perennial crooked little boy), wjc, her whole adult life, and her political party’s rampant criminality and embrace of broken minds, and criminals and acts, in general. That is one of the saddest primary lessons to arise from this recent election, and the display of the most unimaginable overgrown immature adult children, unable to tell right from wrong behavior, fundamentally, who utterly cannot behave as normal, traditional adults. Rather tantrum throwing dangerous adults…..

      But I repeat myself…..

    • You are correct CrossWare. By no Western definition or understanding of religion does Islam even come close to being defined as such. Yet here we are in the ‘enlightened’ 21st Century still declaring a supremacist and totalitarian ideological system as another ‘Great Religion’.

    • Hello CrossWare,

      I enjoy seeing your translations and your opinions equally well.

      But let me say, I think you’ll get into trouble depending on the government to define what is and is not a religion and thereby qualifies for special treatment.

      Note that the Obama administration is literally stuffed with political appointees who consider Islam to be a beautiful religion and who state firmly, for the public record anyway, that the Islamic State and even Saudi Arabia are perversions of Islam. Imagine the Obama administration with the power to designate what is and is not a religion.

      My thought is that we go back to the original wording and intent of the first amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

      It seems to me that giving any religion special privileges of circumventing any law or any special privileges at all is a direct violation of the first amendment. So, you make a modification in the immigration law. Any potential immigrant has to specify he supports the system of Constitutional laws, as such, without modification, including the absolute right of freedom of religion or freedom from religion. You then make citizenship a provisional process lasting, say, 20 years or so. In other words, any provisional citizen who is assumed to have lied or changed his loyalties can have the citizenship process halted and is subject to being deported.

      Mosques (and churches, synagogues and the like) would have no special privileges against observers (undercover agents) in public proceedings).

      It is pretty obvious this process would filter out just about all Muslims. No observant Muslim can truthfully state he supports the present Constitution. I know there’s a weasel provision about Constitutional amendments, but they should not be allowed that wriggle room. They support it as is, or out. Any Muslim who lies, and is caught making a contradictory statement in public, i.e., in a mosque, would be subject to deportation.

      The downside, if you look at it like that, is that the established religions will have to give up their cozy position: no more inspection exemptions, animal cruelty exemptions, allegiance-pledge exemptions. Religions will stand or fall on their own merits, rather than the free rent they allow.

      Of course, any law passed with the purpose of targeting a religious practice, without a concrete public benefit, would be declared unconstitutional by a functioning Supreme Court.

      Putting all religions under a general obligation to obey all laws is not being hostile to religions. Christianity and traditional Judaism have survived much more onerous conditions than being required to impartially obey laws made for the public good. If religious establishments had to live by exactly the same laws everyone else does, there would be less tolerance for irrational or obstructive laws with religious exemptions.

      Most important, it would put the protection of the United States on a rational, non-political basis that could be defended by logic and which doesn’t tinker with Constitutional rights.

      • Thank you very much! 🙂

        I agree with you about filtering out muslims at the border.
        I am not sure what to do with the ones already inside the country and breeding like rabbits (to fulfill their hijra)?

      • Ronald, I believe it would be far easier and more effective to have Islam declared a non-religion through a special commission of inquiry that can avoid tinkering with constitutional rights.

        Congressman Peter King is pretty much on the ball when it comes to all things Islamic.

        The Australian parliament has several senators who will be pushing for a Royal Commission into Islam next year. Its goal will be to determine whether Islam is truly a religion, and if not, what Islam can then be likened to.

        The process you describe still allows the Islamic ‘sleepers’ to go undetected and allows the Muslim to implement the use of taqiyya to convince the gullible that Islam and Muslims mean no harm.

        It is the use of taqiyya by Islam that has befuddled the Western thinker for millennia – it is time that this Islamic underhandedness, especially in matters diplomatic, be finally recognized for what it is.

        The Australian Constitution also has similar wording regarding religion to the 1st Amendment of the American Constitution. I think you would agree that it is the politically appointed judges in the highest courts of our lands who have taken to interpreting, rather than upholding our constitutions, that also presents a problem in applying the law of the land to Islam.

        But once Islam is declared a non-religion and found to be a supremacist totalitarian ideology similar to National Socialism and Communism, Islam can then be exposed as a clear and present danger to national security. Western governments who support its growth would then be bound to withdraw all funding and associated support and to investigate other sources of Islamic funding, such as halal tax, Muslim charities and Mosque building.

        The simple act of having a Muslim swear allegiance to anything other than to Islam is just that – a simple act to convince the gullible that there is no problem.

        • I agree. It may take a constitutional amendment to confirm that Islam does not enjoy the status of “religion” (and to define what “Islam” means, considering all the sects and splinter groups), but that action would not change the status of religion per se.

          There are precedents for such actions. Any number of cults and wacko groups have tried to gain the status of “religion” in the past, but not all of them have succeeded. Thus it has been established that merely saying that your group is a religion does not in fact make it a religion.

          Dr. Bill Warner, inter alia, could give expert witness testimony to the fact that Islam is demonstrably, overwhelmingly about politics and law. Its texts reveal that it is mostly a totalitarian political ideology that aims to co-opt, deceive, and subvert those who do not adhere to it.

    • Here in UK we had a Korean ‘Catholic’ man who founded the Moonie Cult in the 1970s. He was a crook of course, who wanted to make himself rich by conning young white and mainly female, middle-class converts out of any money they had, while helping himself to as many of them that he could have sex with. So not an evil guy, just a bit unsavoury. Our Home Secretary at the time had the Rev Sun Young Moon deported. Now fast forward to 2016. We now have a cult that is far more harmful to society than the Moonies, has about 3 million followers, and nobody is even thinking about deportation, let alone talking about it. That is Islam, a death cult which destroys healthy societies. The only way for us non-Moslems to handle this is to restrict
      the spread of Islam, of any sort, and to return ALL of them to their
      original lands. Otherwise our societies die. That is the obvious truth.
      Why are we not talking about this ?

  3. That humiliated young woman is in great danger.

    A muslim female is the chattel of her father. Under Islam’s rules, there is no legal penalty for “a parent who kills his offspring”. Islamic “honor”, as in “honor-killing”, means male supremacy.

    The sinister back-up of this sinister crime is that if the father fail to take action to remedy the loss of his male muslim supremacy then he pays. His fellow believer muslim males from his “community” will become his executioners.

    In London Kurdish Muslim Abdalla Yones cut the throat of his 16-year-old daughter Heshu because she had become too westernised. She had planned to run away from home after starting a relationship with an 18-year-old Lebanese Christian boy.

    This is Sharia. London police, ever unwilling, or too cowardly, to call it what it is, say she was a “victim of a clash of cultures”.

    Police believe there were 12 such killings in Britain last year, including six in London.

    • I wonder if the increasing number of rape victims are victims of “clash of cultures”? If so, will the press then admit that some cultures are better than others? I’m not holding my breath.

      • “will the press then admit that some cultures are better than others? ”

        Why do you want validation of your values by the press?

        The press owes us full and accurate coverage. You can then confidently apply your own values. I don’t particularly want the daily newspaper to say “This shows the Islamic culture is inferior.” But, if they show that honor killings are fully consistent with sharia, and traditional in Muslim cultures, it is fully sufficient to make your own value judgments.

    • Michael. If we can finally change the ‘thinking’ of the police hierarchy in all Western countries then the police will be better able to carry out their responsibilities to the full letter of the law. But before we can do this, we must first get the government tentacles out of all police forces.

  4. NATO countries are now occupied by an enemy with a bottomless pit of new terrorist recruits. On call from behind the mosque barracks doors and the Islam rules so called no go areas. All nicely situated behind the EU Schengen non-lines. How did that happen? How many more sick lying disengenuous devout and ordinary peace loving Muslims and other rape happy sodomites and thieves in action does it take before there is revolution? Is this what we want for our grandchildren? The Koran – read it. Muslims – listen to them.

    • You have a good point.

      It takes a large amount of police resources to put a tail on one man, and investigate a serious crime. Police budgets are allocated on the assumption of a certain level of criminality in the population.

      Once we import high-crime populations like Muslims or Africans, the police resources become overstrained. They cannot handle the increase in crime associated with the migration. This gives a great advantage to the criminal, domestic and especially the immigrant, as there is a political pressure to no emphasize immigrant crime. Publicizing immigrant crime would put the current government in a bad light.

      The immigrants came from a culture adapted to high-crime, low self-restraint populations. The immigrants came from cultures where they could expect to be imprisoned or killed for violating the rules, and this is the levels they function on. They don’t have a concept of self-restraint in the face of eventual punishment. If they get out of line, the punishment is immediate and often brutal.

      Part of the breakdown of third-world societies comes from the insistence of the Western governments of enforcing Western government structures. Thus, the brutal methods used by the Syrian Assad government against rebels causes Westerners to call for the overthrow of Assad. This ignores that fact that Syrians willing to live under the government strictures, including non-Muslim Christians and Yazidis, are protected and safe. Syrians who rebel against the government are not so safe. But, giving high-crime, low impulse-control people the freedom of action results in brutal anarchy.

      I think it would be functional to import a very small number of these people each year, to keep the police and the population on their toes and to remind them they do NOT want these people in their borders in any substantial number.

  5. And that reminds me of the forty dollar joke. What is the forty dollar joke, you may be asking. Well, most of you probably aren’t, but someone may be.

    A fellow asks his buddy at work if he wants to go to happy hour after work. His buddy says, “No way. I can’t – not after the last time – my wife would leave me”
    An hour later the two are at the bar and the fellow who made the promise to his wife is drinking way too fast and hard. After a while he throws up all over the bar and himself. He goes to the men’s room to try and clean up, but it’s of little use and he’s still a mess. He’s crying to his friend, “What am I going to do? She’s going to hit the roof. My marriage is over.”
    His friend answers, “Relax, this is all you have to do. Put a twenty dollar bill in your shirt pocket. When your wife starts with you just pat the pocket and tell her that you were minding your own business when a drunk threw up on you and he gave you twenty dollars to have your shirt cleaned. It works every time.”
    The fellow who made the promise to his wife replied, “You’re a genius, let’s have another drink.”
    Somehow he made it home and, sure enough, his wife was all over him with “You promised you’d never do this again, you smell like a distillery and worse, that’s the last straw – I’m moving to my mother’s!”
    The poor sotted fellow, now staggering and slurring, said, “Honey, relax. I wasn’t drinking. I was just minding my own business when some drunk guy threw up on me. But it’s OK because he gave me twenty dollars to clean my shirt.”
    And with that, he confidently patted his shirt pocket. Being that she’s his wife, his wife reached in his pocket to take the money. “Hey, why is there forty dollars here?” she demanded.
    “Oh yeah, the [person of illegitimate birth] [evacuated his bowels] in my pants too.”

    I’m sorry Abbott, I’m a bad boy. I did the best I could with it, moderate away. But I don’t care who you are, that’s a good joke. And it was a better plan than claiming to be attacked by a Trump supporter – see how that ties back in to the topic?

    Alright, I’ll just go now.

  6. This reminds me of the Tawana Brawley incident of 1985. Has Al Sharpton weighed in on this?

  7. I agree that what Seweid did was wrong. It was wrong to her, to her family and the NYPD who took her accusations seriously. But you don’t have to blame an entire religion for her actions. That’s like me saying, “The Westboro Baptist Church are hateful. ALL baptist christians are evil people. And catholics are ALL child rapists” but I know that this is NOT true. The Quran clearly states that lying is a sin. What you’re letting your brain feed into is the ridiculous claims of Islamic extremists who use Islam as an excuse for their terrible actions. Murder, lying and anything else BAD that you can think of are ALL prohibited in Islam. Seweid used her hijab to her advantage to lie and Islam didn’t make her do it.

    • You are mistaken about Islamic practice as it pertains to lying. Lying is sometimes permissible, and can even be mandatory.

      It is important to note what Islamic law says about lying. In Book R “Holding One’s Tongue,” §r8.0 “Lying” at r8.2 “Permissible Lying,” Reliance of the Traveller cites the iconic Islamic legal jurist Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, to say:

      This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest…When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e., when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible) and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.

      The source I just cited is ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

      The Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994) is “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ’Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The publisher is listed as amana publications in Beltsville, Maryland.

      This is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

      • From my knowledge the type of lying that is allowed is little white lies that do no harm. What Seweid did was harmful and prohibited.

        • Lying is permitted if it serves a cause that advances Islam. It is mandatory if the cause is mandatory. That includes little lies (“I think you are nice”), big lies (“Islam does not permit killing”), and everything in between.

          I advise you to study Islamic law using the same sources that Muslims use.

          Use materials written by Muslims who are qualified to teach under the criteria that qualifies them as educators in Islamic law, aimed at Muslim students. That’s how you will find out what Islamic law is REALLY all about.

    • I think you are pretty naive. I agree with Baron, you must study their practices. Most of the time sins (lying, stealing or hurting one another etc) only applicable between Muslims. Infidels are fair game as they are not count as human beings.

    • In sharia, a parent does not suffer a penalty for murder of his child.

      That’s quite enough. The Muslima goes out on a night of drinking, and knows she can be punished and killed for dishonoring the family, all fully permissible under Islamic law.

      So, she tells a lie to cover up and save her life, which is an Islamic sin, more or less, without penalty. And you say, she was acting outside Islamic law. The fact is, she was acting and reacting fully within the framework of Islamic law. The alternative for her would be to admit her guilt and accept her own killing. Most likely she would go to Islamic hell because she’s a sinning Islamic woman, the majority of whom go to hell, according to Muhammad.

      So, go ahead and tell me the whole incident is an aberration of Islam.

    • She sure enough is a pretty young lady. But it seems her brain is already mush.

      I think it is true that all men (non-gender specific term referring to all mankind) are created equal, but the garbage some are inculcated with after birth (not afterbirth) is what differentiates us.

  8. I was reading Nicolai Sennels old posts today, mainly the ones on how dysfunctional Muslim culture/family structure is. You could pick almost any essay from his website, but this is a good start:

    While almost all other cultures changed from primitive and medieval to democratic and egalitarian societies, one culture has managed to keep even its most brutal and backward traditions and values for 1,400 years until today. Still today, the majority of Muslims prefer to live by values that can be traced all the way back to the desert tribes in which the founder of their religion lived. Getting to know life in Muslim families and societies is like traveling back to the time of Muhammad. Here one finds shocking laws and traditions that are obviously criminal and inhumane — but for some reason accepted — in our otherwise humanistic culture.

    While non-Muslim scientists invent new fantastic medicines and technologies daily; discover the most amazing things about the universe, its building blocks and inhabitants; and Western voters and politicians have created the most humane, rich and free societies in world history – most Islamic countries are still amputating limbs for theft; stoning women and homosexuals; heavily inbred; denying people free speech and democracy; and contributing absolutely nothing when it comes to science, human rights or peace.

    What are the cultural psychological factors making Islam able to stay medieval for 1,400 years?


    Because he’s describing a pathological culture cemented in place for the past millennium-and-a-half , his essays don’t stale-date…

    Here’s the home page:

    Some years ago, when I first discovered his essays on New English Review, I let go any hope for a ‘moderate’ Islam.

    Further, this past election cycle, which saw Trump elected over elitist Clinton, showed me how cultural pressure can keep people in place, afraid to say anything. If voting were public, few could have stood up to the pressure of voting their choice. The widespread phenomenon of the #ShyTrumpVoterEffect was obvious to everyone outside the leftist bubble.

    • We’re living on borrowed time, though.

      The Trump electoral victory was pretty much based on a low turnout of the low-IQ, low information, racial-identity voter that turned out in such numbers for the black Obama. Trump didn’t do that much better among a white constituency than Romney.

      The Obama administration and the immigration advocates are very obviously trying to spread the welfare-dependent immigrants into flyover country to dilute the white, nationalist vote. This includes the significant, though not large, fraction of black, hispanic and Asian voters who identify with the US rather than racial politics.

      Anyway, it’s going to be difficult to maintain control of a government with a minority of voters. There’s too much internal immigration.

      There’s no problem with the backwardness and brutality of a Muslim culture, as long as they keep it in Muslim countries. It’s not our job to turn every Muslim despotism into a Western democracy, or to rescue every Muslim woman likely to be killed by her family. Often, these women are reacting out of immediate and justified fear, but have no ideological issue with the Islam that mandated or permitted their abuse. The average Muslim woman who survives her upbringing will support the next Muslim generation.

      I think what enrages the left and neocons so much about Trump is that he espouses a rational self-interest for the US. Let the Muslims oppress each other in Muslim countries, don’t threaten a nuclear war with Russia by putting nuclear-capable missiles on the Russian border, and protect American cultural mores and American jobs.

      We’re going to need much, much more for American society and the nation to survive in the future. But, hopefully under Trump, we will have the freedom and the resources to have an open dialog about vital issues, including the eugenics that will be necessary to maintain the population quality in the future.

  9. Nicolai Sennels is excellent.
    A small refinement can be offered.
    Sennels writes of what “the majority of Muslims prefer….”.
    What muslims, majority or no majority, prefer is of no consequence to Islam.
    Islam is not a Trade Union.
    Islam requires submission:

    ” It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision:”
    Koran 33:36, part of Islamic law

  10. Actually this is the sort of person we should be helping, it looks like she wants out of Islam.

    I treat Islam as a totalitarian brain washing and see accept that many are its victims, there are some that cannot be broken out of this brain washing or are so severely damaged by it that they will never be normal rational human beings, but this event looks like a cry for help for someone who wants a normal life.

    Perhaps Pamela could help her.

    • “Actually this is the sort of person we should be helping…”

      Once a Muslim becomes a citizen, he is subject to US laws, including the prevention of child abuse and abuse. Obviously, cutting a girl’s hair as punishment is an a priori case of abuse and should be prosecuted.

      One problem with allowing hoards of Muslims into the US is that normal law enforcement becomes strained. The Muslims form strong group identity political blocs and pressure the local politicians to give Muslims a pass on normal US laws. This is a salient reason for not allowing people into the US with different cultural views. Democratic politics are very susceptible to interest groups.

      We have no idea what an 18 year-old girl will become. Her Islamic upbringing conflicted with her adolescent impulses when she wanted to stay out drinking. We don’t know what she will be like when she is 30. Will she reject Islam, or will she become one of the majority Muslima enablers of Muslim culture?

      It is simply not our job to rescue every potential refugee from Islam. It’s a matter of luck, but let’s maintain our lucky environment in the US. If I were a Muslima who truly hated Islam, and immigration to a Western country were closed to me, I’d play along, develop a skill that paid money, and immigrate to a Muslim country where Islamic law is observed but not strictly enforced: like Dubai or other gulf states.

Comments are closed.