Judge orders Muslim women to remove burka in Court

As a Muslim girl who covers herself from head to toe, I have had just enough of hearing Muslim women saying that the Burkha is part of their religion.
This is so stupid... There is literally no Islamic teaching telling women to cover their face. They're simply making excuses.
The burkha is not an Islamic requirement. It's simply a piece of cloth which Arabs have traditionally worn throughout history and if it's going to interfere with the security of the court system in 21 CENTURY UK, then this women needs to come up with a better excuse than ''oh it's part of my religion'' because it simply isn't.

no that pseudoscience can lead to incorrect sentencing and jury bias

As a Muslim girl who covers herself from head to toe, I have had just enough of hearing Muslim women saying that the Burkha is part of their religion.
This is so stupid... There is literally no Islamic teaching telling women to cover their face. They're simply making excuses.
The burkha is not an Islamic requirement. It's simply a piece of cloth which Arabs have traditionally worn throughout history and if it's going to interfere with the security of the court system in 21 CENTURY UK, then this women needs to come up with a better excuse than ''oh it's part of my religion'' because it simply isn't.

The court considers evidence; if the information to the questions given is consistent that she can 'hide' is irrelevant because if she's lieing and we have substantial evidence to convict her then it doesn't matter anyway, we can't just speculate on the basis of body language which is often wildy inaccurate and leads to bias.

I have no opinion or knowledge of whether face covering is a proper part of Islam or not, but I also think all religious beliefs are valid. If they believe it to be part of their religion, it is, even if that is in contradiction to mainstream Islam.

That said, just because it's a valid religious belief, it doesn't mean it's always reasonable to be allowed to practice it. I'm against calls to ban burkas, niqabs, etc. in general, but I also don't think the rest of society should have to bend over backwards so people can wear them in all circumstances. I think this is a clear case of that.

Sorry, but the whole process of cross-examination and questioning in court is about assessing both the precise words used and the demeanour of the witness in order to establish credibility. Again, it would be farcical to allow someone the option of having their testimony and responses to questions by counsel read by another, which is where your logic leads us.

New Zealand judgment '...there are types of situations in which the demeanour of a witness undergoes a quite dramatic change in the course of his evidence. The look which says “I hoped not to be asked that question”, sometimes even a look of downright hatred at counsel by a witness who obviously senses he is getting trapped, can be expressive. So too can abrupt changes in mode of speaking, facial expression or body language. The witness who moves from expressing himself calmly to an excited gabble; the witness who from speaking clearly with good eye contact becomes hesitant and starts looking at his feet; the witness who at a particular point becomes flustered and sweaty, all provide examples of circumstances which, despite cultural and language barriers, convey, at least in part by his facial expression, a message touching credibility.'

Everyone should be permitted their own interpretation of their own "religion". If she sincerely believes it is part of her religion, then should be allowed to believe that.

I think the problem comes down to how British law courts should work - should a jury rely only on facts, or should they be allowed to make decisions coloured by their own perceptions of a person's appearance?

As a Muslim girl who covers herself from head to toe, I have had just enough of hearing Muslim women saying that the Burkha is part of their religion.
This is so stupid... There is literally no Islamic teaching telling women to cover their face. They're simply making excuses.
The burkha is not an Islamic requirement. It's simply a piece of cloth which Arabs have traditionally worn throughout history and if it's going to interfere with the security of the court system in 21 CENTURY UK, then this women needs to come up with a better excuse than ''oh it's part of my religion'' because it simply isn't.

In Shariah she would have to remove it anyway (in the case of giving a testimony etc.), so not sure why this is making headlines? Daily Mail I guess...



Don't take this personally, but I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

There is Ikhtilaf on the issue, some scholars believe it's obligatory, some don't [there's evidence within Islam for both sides of the argument]. Just because you follow the scholars who say it's not an obligation, doesn't mean you can talk down on women who choose to follow the scholars that say it is an obligation.

Honestly is sad when I see Muslims insult/belittle women just because they wear the burka (99% of the time, them having done little research on the issue).

Credibility is a vital part of English law and as my quote from the New Zealand case shows - demeanour can inform (but not necessarily conclude) someone's credibility.

Just for arguments sake. What if someone's demeanour is incorrectly interpreted? That can lead to an incorrect outcome.

Sorry. It was just because I have never seen a part in the Quran where it tells women to cover their faces. Sorry again.