The Niqabi Paralegal

Another key victory for victims of domestic violence

Obama Administration Extends Asylum for Domestic Violence Victims:

A Mexican woman with a history of domestic violence at the hands of her common-law husband was granted asylum by the Obama administration in a groundbreaking case that holds promise for future seekers of asylum with similar backgrounds.

The woman, whose identity in the press has been abbreviated to "L.R." due to the confidential nature of asylum cases, had first filed for asylum five years ago, but her case's implications will redefine policies that are nearly two decades in the making. A similar case featuring a woman from Guatemala had been pending for 15 years before receiving approval last December.

"The Department of Homeland Security has recognized that asylum should be available to women who have suffered domestic violence and whose governments won't protect them," Simona Agnolucci, a lawyer with the Howard Rice law firm in San Francisco who represented L.R., tells The New York Times. "Now the day finally came when the department said these are the criteria required to show a case for asylum."

The ruling in L.R.'s favor will likely begin turning the tides for international victims of domestic violence, whose claims have largely been ignored and dismissed by the asylum process. During the initial application, L.R.'s legal team was presented with a list of narrowly defined guidelines that would have to be proved in order for asylum to be granted.

at long last

A little over three years ago, I wrote:

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.

Face veils in court

Some more general issues relating to niqab (the face veil) are discussed here. But this story brings up the question of wearing niqab in court:

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.

American Muslim women assert rights in Islamic marriage contracts

Here's an interesting article about the use of Muslim marriage contracts to safeguard women's rights. Something I strongly endose! 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

Originally published in the Washington Post The Crime of Being a Muslim Charity By Laila al-Marayati and Basil Abdelkarim Sunday, March 12, 2006; Page B07

NSA spying and Islamic charities

In an interesting twist, the NSA spying story intersects with the ongoing saga of Islamic charities. 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

Another story about Islamic charities. Originally published by Reuters U.S. Muslims seek Treasury meeting on charities 01 Mar 2006 02:03:00 GMT Source: Reuters

can Muslims always get a fair trial?

Here's an article that's very pertinent to the theme of this blog: Islam Put on Trial in Terrorism Cases, U.S. Muslims Say. Highlights:

"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.

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

Since the question of Muslim organizations, especially charities, and financing of terrorism is a topic I've covered here before, I thought it would be worthwhile to post this. See also excellent commentary at Undoing A Character Assassination. 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

Following up on Informant who set himself on fire figured in at least three terror probes, a news update from the New York Times: Judge Bars Terror Evidence Against Sheik By WILLIAM GLABERSON Published: January 26, 2005