All Discussions Tagged 'Burqua' - The 4 Freedoms Library2024-03-29T07:43:15Zhttp://4freedoms.com/group/crime/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=Burqua&feed=yes&xn_auth=noUK Law: To Veil or not to Veiltag:4freedoms.com,2018-03-31:3766518:Topic:1950262018-03-31T06:51:09.159ZKinanahttp://4freedoms.com/profile/Kinana
<p>[I am just the poster of this material. All credit goes to <a href="http://4freedoms.com/profile/MagnusNielsen" target="_self">Magnus Nielsen</a>]</p>
<p>Dear fellow Kuffar,</p>
<p>I am happy to share publicly my correspondence with the President of the Supreme Court and the Lord Chief Justice on the question of face veiling while giving evidence. In the replies section to this post are my letters, in chronological order, on that subject.</p>
<p>You may recall that this question arose a…</p>
<p>[I am just the poster of this material. All credit goes to <a href="http://4freedoms.com/profile/MagnusNielsen" target="_self">Magnus Nielsen</a>]</p>
<p>Dear fellow Kuffar,</p>
<p>I am happy to share publicly my correspondence with the President of the Supreme Court and the Lord Chief Justice on the question of face veiling while giving evidence. In the replies section to this post are my letters, in chronological order, on that subject.</p>
<p>You may recall that this question arose a few years ago when a judge was asked to respect the religious sensitivities of a witness who wished to remain fully veiled while giving evidence in court. The judge refused the witness permission to do this but said that the question would be considered by judges more senior than himself for a final ruling on this matter.</p>
<p>Accordingly, on the 7th December 2017, I wrote a letter to Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court to offer my opinions on this matter. My study of the 'Reliance of the Traveller', the authoritative digest of Sharia Law, says quite clearly that women must remove their veils while giving evidence, so that others may fairly appraise the value of their testimony. This letter of mine to Lady Hale is attached/below. [<strong>Appendix 1</strong>]</p>
<p>With this letter, I also enclosed an actual copy of the 'Reliance of the Traveller' (so that it could be clearly seen that I was supporting my point with hard evidence). With the book, I also sent</p>
<p>(1) my comparison of Sharia Law with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to show that Sharia Law is entirely incompatible with western values, [<strong>Appendix 2</strong>] and</p>
<p>(2) a note on the Reliance of the Traveller, explaining what the book was about and offering a small selection of its contents. [<strong>Appendix 3</strong>] Both these are attached.</p>
<p>After posting this package, I waited for a few weeks.</p>
<p>On the 19th February, I received a reply from Lady Hale, thanking me for the letter and the book. She apologised for not having written sooner, but said that she was due to speak on this very subject at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies on the 25th January. Her letter to me included a copy of that very speech, on page 16 of which she said,</p>
<p><em>'My attention has also been drawn to two sources which state that it is not contrary to Sharia Law for a woman to uncover her face while she is giving testimony in court, or for a male Magistrate or Judge to look at her or identify who she is, to make assessment of her credibility where this is an issue and to protect the rights of all concerned. One is the Australian National Imams Council's 'Explanatory Note on the Judicial Process and Participation of Muslims' citing several texts in support. The other is the Reliance of the Traveller, by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misry, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Beltsville Maryland, USA, 1994) which is to the same effect'. </em></p>
<p>She asked if she might retain the book in the Library of the Supreme Court 'where it may be of interest to others who work here'. </p>
<p>My reply to Lady Hale is attached. [<strong>Appendix 4</strong>]</p>
<p>On Wednesday 7th March, an article appeared in 'The Times' which stated that 'guidance is awaited from senior judges in court'. [Also reported in the Daily Mail] [<strong>Appendix 5</strong>] Accordingly, the same day, I wrote a letter to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, (attached) enclosing another copy of the Reliance of the Traveller for his perusal. [<strong>Appendix 6</strong>] I took this down to the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand in person.</p>
<p>Since that time, I have not received a reply. If I get one, I shall let you know what it says.</p>
<p>Magnus<br/> March 2018</p>
<p>See below for</p>
<p>Appendix 1 <a href="http://4freedoms.com/group/crime/forum/topics/uk-law-to-veil-or-not-to-veil?commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A194928&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A41405" target="_self">Initial letter to Lady Hale</a></p>
<p>Appendix 2 <a href="http://4freedoms.com/group/crime/forum/topics/uk-law-to-veil-or-not-to-veil?commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A194864&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A41405" target="_self">Universal Declaration of Human Rights vs Sharia Law</a></p>
<p>Appendix 3 <a href="http://4freedoms.com/group/crime/forum/topics/uk-law-to-veil-or-not-to-veil?commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A194931&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A41405" target="_self">Reliance of the Traveller</a></p>
<p>Appendix 4 <a href="http://4freedoms.com/group/crime/forum/topics/uk-law-to-veil-or-not-to-veil?commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A194796&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A41405" target="_self">Reply to Lady Hale</a></p>
<p>Appendix 5 <a href="http://4freedoms.com/group/crime/forum/topics/uk-law-to-veil-or-not-to-veil?commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A194797&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A41405" target="_self">'Daily Mail' article</a></p>
<p>Appendix 6 <a href="http://4freedoms.com/group/crime/forum/topics/uk-law-to-veil-or-not-to-veil?commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A195030&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A41405" target="_self">Letter to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon</a></p>
<p> </p>