on religious exercise issues, it doesn't matter if she's the only one that believes that
According to the majority of Islamic scholars, a woman is required to cover everything but her face and her hands. A minority of Islamic scholars hold that a woman is required to cover everything but her eyes. However, nearly all of these scholars permit a woman to uncover her face so that her identity can be verified. There's a link in the original blog entry about Freeman about this.
I personally do not believe that the face veil is obligatory. I wear it out of choice. Even if I did believe it to be obligatory, the school of thought that I follow would permit me to unveil for identification purposes.
Thus, all my photo ID shows my face and I have no problems with being asked to uncover my face so it can be matched against the ID card.
I think that Sultana Freeman is being stupid to want to wear a face veil for a photo ID.
But I also don't think that she should have her license revoked for that reason and be unable to drive. That's what Florida did. I think that Florida should allow Freeman to take a religious exemption and be able to get a non-photo driver's license. This option is available in Illinois and apparently some other states as well, though I haven't found documentation yet on them. The Supreme Court case that I mentioned in the legal issues entry makes it clear that people are permitted to take a religious exemption and get non-photo driver's licenses.
There's something that I don't know if a lot of people understand. It doesn't matter whether Freeman is the only person in the world who holds that religious belief or if every Muslim does so. The Supreme Court is not, and should not, be in the position of determining what the "correct" positions of a religion are. If it did so, it would be involved in "establishing that religion" by entangling the government in how the religion runs itself.
It simply does not matter whether any other Muslim holds Freeman's beliefs. As long as she can present an argument that her beliefs are based in some way on her religion and that she holds them sincerely (which she clearly does), then that is her "religion" even if it is not the view of any other Muslim. Again, the Court is not going to decide which religious beliefs are valid and which ones are not.
Once Freeman has proved that her ideas are based on her personal religious beliefs, then the court looks at whether the government has a compelling interest that justifies infringing on her exercise of her religion. In 1985, the Supreme Court agreed that the state's interest in photo driver's licenses is not compelling enough to override peoples' religions. The Supreme Court therefore said that the state (in that instance, Nebraska) had to allow the woman (in that instance, a Christian who believed photographs were graven images forbidden by her religion) to get a non-photo driver's license.
As far as I know, that is still good law today. If the precedent from 1985 is still good law, then Florida will probably be required to let Freeman have a non-photo driver's license.
Added: Law professor Eugene Volokh comments on this question.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Comments
good points, and btw this new blog is a fantastic effort! Great idea!
I agreed with most of these religious issues as well - but I think it still doesnt matter. Freeman has to operate within two boundaries - Islam and The Law. If she can convince the court that the drivers' license is just a license and not an ID, she can make a case. But regardless of what the outcome, she has to be willing to forhgo driving entirely if it turns out that in order to legally drive, she must have an uncovered facial ID.
Im plugging your new blog on unmedia...
Posted by: Aziz | May 27, 2003 06:38 AM
Thanks for the plug, Aziz!
I agree with you about what Freeman needs to do if the courts rule against her. I personally think that she should be willing to unveil for identification purposes, as I do.
What I wanted with this series of posts is to take a look at what the law actually is. Quite often people discuss issues without knowing all the basic facts. Once we know the facts (in this case what the law says), we can have a better discussion.
I'm working on a new series of posts for this blog, about the mahr (dower) and Muslim marriage contracts in the American courts.
I hope that this blog can become a resource for Muslims and for those interested in the legal issues that Muslims face, inshallah.
Posted by: Al-Munaqabah | May 27, 2003 04:03 PM
Interesting, most middle class Muslim women in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (muslims here would constitute about 40 percent of all Muslims globally) do not wear the veil and like to keep their hair covered as do most Hindu women here.
I think that driving with a veil on is hazardous to every one around as it might affect the line of sight. However Florida should respect her personal understanding of Islam and not cancel her licence. This I think contravenes the Basic Rights as enshrined in the Us Constituition.
I am an Indian by the way and we have some similar rules which allow for special rights and privileges under the constitutional amendments.
Posted by: Arijit | May 29, 2003 10:27 AM
The face veil doesn't impair the vision as much as a lot of people think. It depends on the width and size of the eye slit. My vision is more impaired by the fact that I wear glasses (and thus have the frames in my peripheral vision) than it is by my face veil.
Remember that Freeman had to take a vision test to get her license. If the veil obstructed her vision so that she couldn't pass the vision test, they would have told her she couldn't drive with it on. She also had to take a drive test. If the person administering the test thought that she was unable to drive safely while veiled, he would not have given her passing marks. Without information to the contrary, we can assume that the state has certified her capable of driving properly and safely while veiled.
Posted by: Al-Munaqabah | May 29, 2003 12:15 PM
If she doesn't want to abide by the rules of the US and take a photo ID for her license then she should go back to her country! Remember, she is a convicted felon too. Ever since 9/11 can you blame us for taking more precautions? If anybody has a problem with these news laws and the enforcement of them then I really have a problem with people like this! Why should the US change our laws for a non-US citizen who is a felon to boot!
Posted by: Holly | May 31, 2003 08:28 AM
Holly, I encourage you to take the time to actually read about this case instead of spouting off.
First, Sultana Freeman was born in the United States. She can't "go back to her country" because she's already living there.
Second, it is ALREADY legal in the United States to get a religious exemption on the driver's license. Freeman is asking that the religious exemption be applied to her as well as to Christians.
Third, I'm sorry that you feel that if a person has ever in their life made a mistake they can never speak up for their rights again.
Holly, this is a democracy. That means that we're all about people having different political views and expressing them freely. In a democracy, the whole point is that people can seek to change the laws themselves.
I'm sick and tired of people calling themselves patriotic Americans while telling others to shut up and never question anything. That's what's unAmerican, not seeking change through legal means.
Posted by: Al-Munaqabah | May 31, 2003 08:54 AM
I'm a 15 yr. old high school student,and I can't believe such a fuss is being made over so simple a thing. Although I do understand that Sultana believes in not removing her veil, and I completely respect that, I also understand why the laws are the way the are. I would have to go with the state on this one, and say she should either remove her veil, or just not drive.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying only her. I think no one should be exempted since terrorist aren't always going to look the same. A terrorist could pass for anyone who doesn't have a photo on their license. Until the government feels its safe again for people to be exempted from having clear photo IDs, then EVERYONE should have clear photo IDs. Regardless of being Muslim, or Christian or any other religion.
Posted by: Michelle | June 5, 2003 07:06 AM