JOIN THE DEBATE: Religious Freedom Or Safety Risk?

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Religious freedom or security? The argument continues in an Orange County courtroom. Now, we have learned more about a woman who wants to wear a veil in her driver's license photo.

A judge threw out one of the arguments made by the Muslim woman today. Sultaana Freeman, who is a convicted child abuser (exposed mug shot at left), says her religion prevents her from showing her face in public.

Sultaana and Mark Freeman might give the impression that they are holier than thou, following their religion to the letter, refusing to lift her veil in public because it would tempt men into sin. But new information shows the Freemans violate other tenets of their religion, regarding lying and violence and that they might have yet another reason for insisting she wear her veil in public.

Sultaana Freeman, only her two eyes peeking from behind her veil, accused her husband (photo at right), who shows up in court wearing his Muslim garb, of pointing a gun twelve inches from her head while telling her she better not leave him.

On that same day last September, a pregnant Sultaana Freeman told Winter Park Police her husband had thrown a sewing machine at her while she was holding their daughter, injuring her feet. She also told police her husband had threatened her unborn because he was not happy about the pregnancy, that he had choked her twice and hit her and pushed her while she was pregnant.

She told police he is verbally abusive and physically threatening, particularly about her leaving him and taking their daughter. Records show Sultaana Freeman changed her mind about prosecuting and recanted her accusations through an attorney.

She explained apparent injuries to her feet by saying her husband accidentally dropped it on her feet and that she was to blame and later said her husband doesn't own a gun.

Late Wednesday afternoon, an Islamic law expert from UCLA's school of law was asked whether Sultaana Freeman's Islamic sect, which is hard-line fundamentalist, would allow the removal of her veil under some circumstances. He replied that it would be permissable.

The judge is not going to consider the Freemans' criminal records or accusations in this case. She's focusing on their right to religious freedom and whether taking off her veil is a great burden in practicing her religion.

The Freemans' attorney pointed out during questioning of the director of the state's Driver's License Division that people can cover parts of their faces in license photos with bangs, beards, and eyeglasses and that exceptions are made to the full-face photo rule and should be made in this case.