Muslim Woman in Florida Sues to Wear Veil for Driver's License

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

*Originally posted by ammarr: *

ufff yar had ho gayee :p

Let me explain:

A good explanation of the words of the Quran can be found in the actions of the Prophet and by his companions. AND SINCE THE QURAN DOES NOT SINGLE OUT ANY GARMENT, WE LOOK AT HOW THESE PEOPLE IMPLEMENTED THIS ORDER IN THEIR DAILY LIVES!!!! **

yeah and i understand that. would it then also not make sense to look at what the prophet said himself which noted that women dont have to cover their faces? would that suffice?

err why the caps, losing your cool or does shouting usually get the message across better in your view.

*NO SCHOLAR (like i said please pick any scholar) disagrees that the veil is considered better.. *

but not required. praying 20 nafils after a farz namaz is considerd better to but only the farz is required. and there are plenty of scholars who dont consider it better.

No scholar has proven that covering teh face is required..they have made arguments for it and have hadeeth and narrations from diff sources but it has never been proven.

Due to there being SOME (comparitively little) evidence that a few women did just cover their hair, and not their face, doing the head scarf is considered acceptable.

The prophets own words regarding this seem to be of no interest in this regard then?

is it acceptable or is it what is required, see thats the whole word play here. you see it as the minimum as could be done but that doing more is actually asked. I look it as this is whatis required, anything more is upto you.

Ok bhai me out of this thread.. i can not state this in any simpler terms.

Its not that I dont understand you, I disagree. you can make it as simple as humanly possible, but based on what I have read I still disagree.

*btw- the wives of the Prophet did not remarry because certain orders are specific to the Prophet, such as keeping 4+ wives. Once we have the knowledge to distinguish between the khaas (specific) and aam (general) rulings then we can come back to that.. ok?! *

Okay, so there were rules specific to the prophets family. lame statements like "once we have the knowledge to distinguish" make no sense here. I knew teh difference and that is why i brought it up as an example of how the examples set by them are not always applicable to everyone and thus making a blanket statement like that we shoudl follow their example in every way is incorrect.

secondly..it really would nto kill you to educate people. For others here who may nto know and even if i did nto know it would have been far more mature to explain the difference of khaas or aam rulings rather than your last statement there.

42

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
I was responding to the post that said she may be dressing like this because of her fear for Allah. It strikes me as odd when people who claim piety and righteousness do so out of fear of God instead of love and respect. Devoutness from fear is not a spirtual relationship, but rather an obligatory one.
[/QUOTE]

Fear,, hope & love are all important ... one SHOULD fear GOD but also love HIM and keep their hopes up for HIS mercy.

43

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Astronut: *

Ok my bad! :) But the bottom line is she should just wear a hijab and not that ninja outfit. Islam does not tell women to only show their eyes.
[/QUOTE]

The way in which you said that this women was bringing insult to islam, says everything about you. Fact of the matter is a muslimah has stood up and is fighting for her right,with the purpose of pleasing her Lord the One who created everything. So stop insulting muslims fro no reason.

As for the veil, some scholars/school of fiqh have said veil is obliagtion and she follows that opinion.

44

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by &Talhaa: *

Fear,, hope & love are all important ... one SHOULD fear GOD but also love HIM and keep their hopes up for HIS mercy.
[/QUOTE]
Different strokes for different strokes I suppose. If fear is the motivation for people to try and live the proper life then I suppose they are at least trying to live the proper life. My personal thoughts are that we would fear God only if we reject Him. If we embrace Him -- His mercy, love and righteousness will cause us to have no fear of Him. He is a fair and just God whose embodiment is love. Surely He doesn't punish women who show their faces to the world. If He were that kind of micro manager of mankind -

1 He isn't the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being that created the heavens and earth that I worship. He doesn't have time for such pettiness.

2 He would have made this dress code more of a mandate than the interpretation of some Muslim scholars which can't be agreed on some 1400 years later.

45

fraudia buzurgo

EDIT: instead of debating an issue which is centuries old, lets just say that there have been scholars who have debated that the face veil is obligatory, and those which have said its not and the face and the hands can be left uncovered. An individual such as me, you, or the lady in question can look at the proofs, and then decide which view is stronger to them, since in the end we are only responsible for our own sins.

w'salam :)

46

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Faisal: *
...The quranic verse is as follows:[list]024.031 *
YUSUFALI: And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms ...
...
[/QUOTE]

what is "beauty"? Is it just hair?

47

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
what is "beauty"? Is it just hair?
[/QUOTE]
Not really. It can be anything deemed beautiful. Pretty hands, feet, hair, bosom, face, arms etc etc. Read the rest of the ayat. It talks about "except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof" and then the most critical part "they should draw their veils over their bosoms".

Do you see a "draw their veils over their faces" there? I don't.

48

*Originally posted by ammarr: *

**The verses about covering properly, however, apply to everyone. Everyone at the time followed those. When scholars join ahadith they try to put them in chronological order.

The hadith that you talk about shows the permissibility of leaving the face uncovered (Asma was a girl at that time, and not a grown up lady) .. **

The prophet had told her that now that she has grown up she should cover herself except her face and hands. so it was a statement not for her as a child but as an adult.

at the same time we see all the wives of the Prophet followed the full veil (tell me if you doubt this point and want references), and so did the wives of his companions, and the families which followed.

The words of quran and words of the prophet are more important than what his wives or companions did.

... however, you keep saying the words of the Prophet dont hold weight with me.. (and let me state until now you have not provided any words of the Prophet at all.. just something from your memory)

you know which hadeeth I am talking about so what is the prupose of quoting it. I can if you wish.

**Please read:

"Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said “All of a woman is ‘awrah.”

Narrated Um 'Atiya (Radhiallaahu Ánha) We were ordered (by Rasulullaah '(Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) to bring out our menstruating women and veiled women in the religious gatherings and invocation of Muslims on the two 'Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from their Musalla. A woman asked, "O Allaah's Apostle ' What about one who does not have a veil?" He said, "Let her share the veil of her companion." **

is all is 'awrah" the eyes are as well and they should be wearing sunglasses ;)

So you see, here the Prophet specifically says that all of a women is awrah, and asks the woman to share their veils if they dont have one.

Maybe it would ahve been better iof someone back then just asked him a simple question like "do I have to wear a veil"

Now may I ask you if the words of the Prophet hold ground with you?

sure, but these are ambiguous, the other hadeeth plainsly said that face and hands uncovered were allowed.

** Do the actions of all his wives, the actions of the wives of his companions, does that hold ground with you? **

actions of wives and wives of companions mean significantly less than the prophets word or the quran. because surely you will find actions that you may not agree with.

*the evidence for the veil is much more, then isn't that a more preferrable action? *

The evidence is still lacking, there is little direct and plain info to suggest that it is mandatory.

the more correct viewpoint brotha, as far as my limited knowledge goes, is that after that verse, majority of them acted and covered their faces. however at many times the Prophet allowed things so as not to make islam hard on the followers, and to show the permissibility of the actions.... and this is what is indicated by the hadith you are thinking about.

so..according to the prophet, covering the face is not a must. I am glad we agree upon that. so the lady in question will not be goign against the religion if her face was uncovered because that is deemed okay even if we look at it by your point of view.

An example: reciting any surahs in salaah is allowed, however the Prophet told his companion to recite the last two surahs (an-nas and al-falaq)

but imam's recite all surahs, even those who are all for the veil. by that token they should only be reciting those 2 surahs, double standards maybe?

refer to Faisal's post above which quotes the quran and its interpretation as well. that too holds some weight..dont you think

49

fraudia i've edited my post, and that seems to me to be more correct.. i.e. to let the individual look at both sides of the story and decide whichever seems stronger.

50

[quote]

Different strokes for different strokes I suppose. If fear is the motivation for people to try and live the proper life then I suppose they are at least trying to live the proper life. My personal thoughts are that we would fear God only if we reject Him. If we embrace Him -- His mercy, love and righteousness will cause us to have no fear of Him. He is a fair and just God whose embodiment is love. Surely He doesn't punish women who show their faces to the world. If He were that kind of micro manager of mankind -

1 He isn't the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being that created the heavens and earth that I worship. He doesn't have time for such pettiness.

2 He would have made this dress code more of a mandate than the interpretation of some Muslim scholars which can't be agreed on some 1400 years later.

[/quote]

Its not that kind of fear Seminole...it is the fear of displeasure and it is not a fear of punishment it just the fear of displeasing one whom you love your creator...at least that is my understanding of it.

51

fraudia you're playing with words here, anyhow

the hadeeth that you keep talking about.. i was waiting for you to quote it to be sure you meant that one, the hadeeth of asma bint abu bakr is infact considered daeef due to a missing chain. Please do read up on that.

However that viewpoint is strengthened by other ahadith which are again through the actions of the Prophet's companions.

And what about faisal's quotation of the quran? Are you suggesting that covering the chest is the only requirement? or what? Infact it says to hide their beauty and i'd say that includes the face

do note that i never said the face veil is wajib, only that evidence suggests one is stronger than the other

(ofcourse in your opinion the evidence for not covering the face could be stronger)

lets just end it saying both viewpoints are correct (head scarf / face veil)and someone can study them in depth and decide which is better. how's that?

52

i've heard arguments on both sides regarding the wearing of the veil. regardless of where you stand, you must admit that it is something strange to this society and, at face value, looks like something oppressive to women. if she does not identify herself to the people with a photo, no one will know who she is. in today's society, there are laws which require you to identify yourself. asking the society to change its laws (by using fingerprints or something else) is putting a burden on society. yes the lady has guts and yes she is brave but i think being unreasonable will only hurt us in the end. no one is asking her to post her photo id on the internet and they have even offered to do it in a private setting...

anyhow, this was sent by a friend of mine:
three points:

1) The Assistant Attorney General's name is "Vail".
2) The Muslimah's name is "Freeman".
3) The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held only a year ago that people
are not required to identify themselves to police officers, and that Nevada
laws that made failure to provide identification a criminal offense were
unconstitutional. Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board (4), 279 F.2d. 873
(2002) (PDF file). Law professor Eugene Volokh reported last December, the
Nevada Supreme Court has since upheld those same laws, creating a conflict in
the law. Professor Volokh thinks that this issue is headed for the Supreme
Court.

In 1984, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Quaring v. Peterson (2),
728 F.2d 1121 (1984), heard a case in which a Christian woman requested a
non-photo driver's license because she considered the photograph to be a
"graven image" forbidden by her religious beliefs1. The court held:

(1) Nebraska driver's licensing requirement that applicants submit to having
color photograph taken for affixing on the license unconstitutionally burdened
subject applicant's free exercise of her sincerely held religious beliefs,
supported by historical and biblical tradition and implemented in her daily
life, that the taking of her photograph would violate the Second Commandment's
express forbidding of the making of any graven image or likeness of anything
in creation, and (2) requiring that applicant receive her license without
complying with photograph requirement was reasonable accommodation of her
religion and did not violate establishment clause.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this ruling in Jensen v. Quaring, 472 U.S. 478
(1985). Thus, the objections to photo driver's licenses are neither limited to
face-veiling Muslims (or to Muslims in general) nor are they specious: the
right to take a religious exemption from having a photo driver's license has
been recognized by the Supreme Court.

53

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Not really. It can be anything deemed beautiful. Pretty hands, feet, hair, bosom, face, arms etc etc. Read the rest of the ayat. It talks about "except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof" and then the most critical part "they should draw their veils over their bosoms".

Do you see a "draw their veils over their faces" there? I don't.
[/QUOTE]

You don't see "face" explicitly, would that not fall under "beautiful"?

54

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
You don't see "face" explicitly, would that not fall under "beautiful"?
[/QUOTE]
If its not there, its not there. Why is "bosom" there and not "face"?

"Beauty" can be anything, including eyes. So has anyone issued a fatwa that it is "recommended" that women keep their eyes covered too? I don't think so. However, if you want, you can go ahead and interpret it anyway you like. Thats your personal choice. Its not an obligation for other muslims to accept your interpretation.

55

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jal_Pari: *
ninja outfit :D
finally a word that fits perfectly
[/QUOTE]

ignorance..thats teh only way to put it...

when ppl dress naked like, we excuse that..when a woman wants to cover herself out of ignorance we cant stand the thought...may allah open our thinking and our knowledge...

shes got the right to dress how she wants to and no need to be bias or prejudice ppl. i respect her for her efforrts and all our niqabi sisters.

56

I heard there was a similar controversy that occured in the UK during the 70s when crash helmets for motorcyclists became compulsory. I was told that a number of Sikh men were prosecuted for not wearing the helmets because they refused to take off their turbans. How did that get resolved? ... reinforced steel turbans?

57

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *

What's wrong with that? In Britain, it's perfectly legal for Sikhs to carry kirpans. They just have to keep them blunt and concealed. As long as these two conditions are met, even if the police catch a Sikh man with a blunt kirpan hidden in his clothes, he cannot be charged with any crime as he would be merely exercising his freedom of belief.
[/QUOTE]

Just because they allow kirpans in UK doesn't make it right ...particularly in post 9/11 days. What's to prevent a jihadi passing himself of as a Sardar?

Secondly, even if somehow we find justification for allowing kirpan, refusing to show your face for d.l photo (which is also a primary ID) is perfectly idiotic

58

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Someone should inform this woman that driving is a privilege and not a right, follow the rules or don't drive.
[/QUOTE]

What world have you been living in ! ! !
Hey if you are above a certain age limit, and capable of passing a prescribed test over here in States you have a RIGHT to apply for the driver license.......

And as far as religous things are concern... What are the 10 Commandments of US constitution?????

As a citizen of US isn't it your right to enjoy religous freedom?

59

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Insaniyat: *

As a citizen of US isn't it your right to enjoy religous freedom?
[/QUOTE]

What if someone invents a religion which requires cannibalism and human sacrifice. Should the US govt allow that under the guise of religious freedom?

60

Judge: Woman Can’t Wear Veil in ID Photo
Muslim Woman in Florida Cannot Wear Veil in Driver’s License Photo, Judge Rules

The Associated Press
ORLANDO, Fla. June 6 —
A Florida judge ruled Friday that a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in her driver’s license photo.

Prosecutors had argued that allowing people to cover all but their eyes in their ID pictures could allow potential terrorists to hide their identities.

After hearing three days of testimony last week, Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public, and that having photo identification was essential to that interest.

Thorpe also said Sultaana Freeman’s right to free exercise of religion would not be infringed by having to show her face on her license.

Freeman, 35, had obtained a license that showed her veiled with only her eyes visible through a slit. But the state revoked the license in 2001 when she refused to have her photo retaken with her face uncovered, a demand made after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Freeman sued the state of Florida, saying it would violate her Islamic beliefs to show her face publicly.

Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail argued that Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to expose their faces if it serves a public good, and that arrangements could be made to have Freeman photographed with only women present to allay her concerns about modesty.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030606_949.html