Visitors face a more difficult situation. The major types of visitors are temporary workers and students. A person granted a worker visa or a student visa may bring their spouse along. The first problem for the spouses is that they are not authorized to work in the U.S. unless they can get their own visa. The second problem is that their status depends entirely on the marriage. If they leave the marriage, they automatically become deportable because they are "out of status". The VTVPA was supposed to change that, by creating a new type of visa called the U visa. This allows victims of violence, especially gender-related violent crimes (including domestic violence) to obtain their own independent visa. Once in possession of the U visa, they can work in the U.S. and even apply for permanent resident status after a year.

There's just one problem - the government has not issued regulations yet for the U visa. Without regulations, nobody knows how to apply for this visa. John Ashcroft stonewalled for two years while immigration was handled by the Justice Department and now that immigration has been transferred to the Homeland Security Department, it appears that Tom Ridge is stonewalling too.

Now, three years later, the U visa will finally be available. It's been 7 years altogether since it was first authorized. Better late than never, I guess.

A devout Muslim, she wore a niqab -- a scarf and veil to cover her face and head except for her eyes -- Oct. 11 as she contested a rental car company's charging her $2,750 to repair a vehicle after thieves broke into it.

Judge Paul Paruk said he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave Muhammad, 42, a choice: take off the veil when testifying or the case would be dismissed. She kept the veil on.

What do Islamic scholars say? Conservative Saudi scholar Muhammad al-Munajjid, who believes that niqab is religiously mandatory, quotes the views of a number of historical scholars on this issue:

Al-Dasooqi said: " When testimony is given concerning a woman who wears niqaab (face-veil), she has to remove her niqaab. This applies in the case of marriage and other matters, such as selling, giving gifts, debts, power of attorney, and so on. This is the opinion favoured by our shaykh." (Haashiyat al-Dasooqi 'ala'l-Sharh al-Kabeer, 4/194).

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face when she is giving testimony in court, whether she is a witness in a case or is there to witness a deal, and it is permissible for the qaadi (judge) to look at her in order to know who she is and to protect the rights of all concerned.

Shaykh al-Dardeer said: "It is not permitted to give testimony against a woman in niqaab until she uncovers her face so that it may be known who she is and what she looks like." (Al-Sharh al-Kabeer li'l- Shaykh al-Dardeer, 4/194)

Ibn Qudaamah said: "The witness may look at the face of the woman against whom he is testifying so that his testimony will speak about her in specific terms. Ahmad said: 'He cannot testify against a woman unless he knows who she is.'" (Al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer 'ala Matan al-Muqni', 7/348, bi haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of a qaadi (judge) who is to rule either in her favour or against her, and in this situation he may look at her face in order to know who she is and for the sake of protecting people's rights.

The same rules that apply to giving testimony or bearing witness also apply in court cases, because they serve the same purpose. (See Al-Durar al-Mukhtaar, 5/237; Al-Hadiyah al-'Alaa'iyah, p. 244; Al-Hadiyah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

Thus, like Sultana Freeman, Ginnnah Muhammad was being stricter than is required of her. The judge might have done better to offer a compromise such as allowing her to unveil in private in front of him and a female colleague, or something similar, but he was within his rights to ask her to unveil when giving testimony.

Interestingly, Munajjid also says that the rental car company could have asked her to unveil when having financial dealings with her:

It is permitted for a woman to uncover her face and hands when buying or selling, and it is permitted for the vendor to see her face when he hands over the goods and asks for the money, provided that this will not lead to fitnah - otherwise it is forbidden.

Ibn Qudaamah said: "If a person deals with a woman when selling or renting, he may look at her face so he knows who she is, and may go back to her when the money is due (a guarantee of the price when the deal is finalized). It was reported that Ahmad said this was makrooh in the case of a young woman, but not in the case of an old woman, and in the case where there is fear of fitnah, or where there is no need for this business deal. But in cases where it is necessary, and there is no wrongful desire, then there is no harm in it." (al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer 'ala Matan al-Muqni', 7/348 bi Haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/24).

Update: In an interesting counterpoint to this story, female British lawyers win the right to wear niqab in court.

Originally published by Newsday

American Muslim women assert rights in Islamic marriage contracts
By NAHAL TOOSI
Associated Press Writer

August 24, 2006, 10:31 AM EDT

The Crime of Being a Muslim Charity

By Laila al-Marayati and Basil Abdelkarim
Sunday, March 12, 2006; Page B07

The Mail Tribune reports that the NSA was eavesdropping on privileged communications between Al-Haramain and its attorneys. The Washington Post then admitted that it had known about this since 2004 but agreed not to do anything (and they say we don't have a state-controlled media in this country).

Some useful commentary from Loaded Orygun and Orcinus

U.S. Muslims seek Treasury meeting on charities
01 Mar 2006 02:03:00 GMT

Source: Reuters

"For a growing number of legal scholars and Islamic community leaders concerned about American courts discriminating against Muslims, al-Timimi's case is a harbinger of how Muslim believers are becoming the target of a new emerging kind of civil rights discrimination," says Jess Ghannam, former president of the Arab-American Anti-Defamation League in San Francisco.

This kind of discrimination, Ghannam says, also occurred in the case of Sami Al-Arian, a Florida professor indicted in Tampa, along with three codefendants, on 51 counts of conspiring to finance the Palestinian group Islamic Jihad. Ghannam says the trial, now in the deliberation phase, is based mostly on circumstantial evidence. As with al-Timimi, he says, the defendants' religious beliefs have become a matter of debate.

Julie Howe, a New York-based jury consultant who's been active with the Death Penalty Project, agrees with Ghannam. "I think that there's a religious prejudice out there against Muslims," Howe said in a recent interview with a legal journal. "Some jurors are inclined to believe that Muslims are predisposed to violence."

I recommend you to read the whole thing.

BTW, I really will try to post to this blog more often, inshallah, at least with news stories if not the in-depth legal analysis that I started with.

Originally published by the Washington Post

U.S. Muslim Groups Cleared
Senate Panel Finds Nothing 'Alarming' in Financial Data

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 19, 2005; Page A12

Judge Bars Terror Evidence Against Sheik
By WILLIAM GLABERSON

Published: January 26, 2005

The survey covers the issue of whether people are permitted to wear headgear in driver's license photos, if exemptions are permitted as religious accommodation, if non-photo driver's licenses are available, and how face veils are handled.

As the report notes, and as I've noted previously in this space, this is not a question that solely affects Muslims. Many Jewish men wear yarmulkes; Sikh men wear turbans. Jewish and Christian women may wear religiously-prescribed headcoverings. Additionally, a number of Christian groups (especially the Amish) have religious prohibitions against the taking of photographs. Most of the case law on driver's license photos in fact has to do with Amish or other Christian groups who don't want photos to be taken at all.

On the specific issue of face veils, three states have what I consider the most reasonable policy, allowing face veiled women to get a non-photo driver's license. These states are Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. As the survey notes, these states have large populations of Amish and other groups like the related Mennonites who have religious objections to all photos; that appears to be why they're so accommodating. My own state, Washington, allows photos in which the person has their face veiled, but then a notation is put on the license that it doesn't serve as ID. My position is, and always has been, that a face-veiled woman should be able to obtain a non-photo license as long as she is qualified to drive, and that she should obtain a separate photo ID for times when her identity needs to be verified. In a situation where it's only her authorization to drive that's at issue and not her identity, she doesn't have to display the photo unnecessarily.

Anyway, the survey is a very good overview of the law in the different states and should be a good reference for those interested in this topic.

Added: The survey led to a news story from Kentucky about its driver's license laws.

Groups to appeal

Published: Thursday, December 9, 2004

US family sues 'Hamas-linked' charities
By Catherine Miller
BBC News, Chicago

Friday, November 19, 2004

14 arrested in raids by terror task force
Seattle suspects' links to al-Qaida or other groups are uncertain

By PAUL SHUKOVSKY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Informant who set himself on fire figured in at least three terror probes

By MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN
Associated Press Writer

November 17, 2004, 6:55 PM EST

Soldier Guilty of Trying to Aid al-Qaida
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL Associated Press Writer