A Florida woman took her fight to remain veiled in a driver's license photograph to the witness stand Tuesday, testifying that she refused to remove her headdress because it would defy the demands of her religion.

"It just was not an option. I firmly believe that Islam demands that I wear a niqab in situations such as this," said Sultaana Freeman from behind her black veil.

Freeman, 35, sued the highway department in 2002 after her driver's license was revoked when she refused to take an unveiled photograph to replace the veiled picture on her 2001 license.

She claims the suspension violated the state's Free Exercise of Religion Statue, which bars the government from interfering with a person's religious practice, and wants her license reinstated.

But lawyers for the State of Florida say the events of Sept. 11 made driver's license photos more important than ever. After the attacks, the state made photo licenses mandatory for most drivers. They will attempt to show that there is a "compelling interest" for Freeman, and other motorists with veiled photos, to submit to full-face photographs.

Freeman's civil hearing may be, on the surface, about a driver's license. But Tuesday's proceedings showed that it could help define the balance between state security and religious expression in post-Sept. 11 America.

After the attacks, Freeman testified, she received notice from the Florida Highway Department that she had to submit to an unveiled photograph. 

She faced a difficult decision, she told the court. She needed the car to take care of her children, a 2-year old and a 6-month old, but her interpretation of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, forbade doffing the veil.

Freeman refused, and her license was revoked. 

It wasn't the first time Freeman had stood on religious principle.  She converted to Islam in late 1997 and changed her name. To explain why she wore the traditional headdress, she told the court, she created a trifold brochure citing verses from the Quran, "so people would have the words of Allah."

Freeman outlined other measures her family uses to maintain their adherence to Islamic law. Her daughter's dolls, she testified, have no faces as images of the face are considered taboo.  Even the faces on cereal boxes are forbidden, said Freeman, so Freeman — and her daughter — black each one out carefully using black magic marker.

"She says, 'These images are yucky yucky,'" said Freeman, chuckling.

In his opening statement, Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail referred both directly and indirectly to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Any ruling in favor of the plaintiff will open up the possibility of people coming in and claiming [exemption from a picture license] on religious grounds," said the lawyer.  "You can only imagine what might happen as a result of that."

Vail has argued that Freeman's rigid interpretation of Islamic law is only one of a "multiplicity of opinions," and set a confrontational tone for his case when cross-examining her husband, Abdul-Malik Freeman, the first witness on his wife's behalf.  Calling Freeman by his given name, Mike Freeman, the attorney used his final question to ask about one of the more assailed elements of the strict belief.

Sultaana Freeman's husband, Abdul-Malik Freeman, testifies Tuesday.

"Do you believe that in Islam a wife is to be obedient to her husband?" he asked.

"Yes," said Freeman.

Freeman's lawyer said in his opening statement that the interpretation of Islamic law was beside the point.  "I guarantee you, your honor, if my client Sultaana Freeman was a member of a majority religion in the state of Florida then I would not be here today and she would not be here today," Howard Marks said.  "We do not want to get in a position of interpreting Islamic law ... obviously you're going to have scholars that disagree on certain passages as well as any religious text."

But Marks, anticipating a battle over religious interpretation, nonetheless called religious scholar Safil Islam Abdul Ahad, an adjunct professor of history at the University of Central Florida, to discuss the role of the veil in Islam.

Religious scholar Safil Islam Abdul Ahad testifies.

"My opinion is that it is mandatory for a woman to wear a veil," said Ahad, reciting a passage from the religion's holy book, the Quran.

Ahad, whose beard appeared to be partially dyed red, said only a life and death circumstance could justify the lifting of a Muslim woman's veil.

"It's your opinion that if Sultaana Freeman were required to remove her veil ... that would be a violation of her religious beliefs?"  asked Marks.

"Yes," said Ahad.

On his cross-examination of Freeman, Vail pointed out at least one instance in which Freeman had been photographed without her veil after her conversion to Islam — for a mugshot.

In 1999, Freeman pleaded guilty to aggravated battery of one of two foster children, and the twin girls were subsequently removed from her care.  

Sultaana Freeman in a 1998 Illinois mugshot

Holding an enlarged, mounted copy of the mugshot, Vail approached the witness box to ask Freeman about the arrest but was rebuffed. 

"This is absolutely outrageous conduct on behalf of the state," called out Freeman's lawyer.

Judge Janet Thorpe, who will decide the case, denied Vail the opportunity to cross-examine Freeman on her legal history, but allowed the attorney one question.

"Ms. Freeman, have you ever been convicted of a felony?"

"Yes, I have," she answered firmly.

Tuesday afternoon, four employees of the Florida Highway Department testified about different facets of the state's license program, from what types of facial adornment are acceptable for license pictures (large glasses, long hair, thick makeup, and long bangs are OK — as long as a "full face" shot is obtained) to how many temporary permits have been issued in the past five years without photos (more than 800,000).

Court TV is airing Freeman's trial live.