As an American citizen, Sultaana Freeman, 35, has accomplished what no other American except the president of the United States has by appearing on the front page of two Saudi newspapers.

What did she do? She refused to submit a photo that showed her face on her driver’s license. She sued the state of Florida for revoking her license because it had a photo of her wearing a niqab (a veil that covers the entire face except the eyes), saying that she could not submit a photo uncovering her face because, as she claimed, it would violate her beliefs as a Muslim. Freeman lost the case.

The judge said that a photo that only revealed her eyes would not be acceptable because such a ruling would help terrorists conceal their identities.

Ironically, major US newspapers did not give her story much attention. Instead, she found fame halfway across the globe. Asharq Al-Awsat, Okaz and Al-Riyadh newspapers believed that she deserved to have a place in the limelight.

Not only did they make her famous, they used her story to stir the emotions of the Saudi public against the United States.

“America is waging a war against Islam,” is the message they wanted to convey to the Saudi public. “US Court Rejects Sultaana’s Hijab” said Okaz newspaper on Sunday on its front page next to her photo wearing the niqab with her eyes only showing.

Asharq Al-Awsat published her photo with this headline: “Hijab Causes Election Problems in Jordan and Makes Muslim Woman Lose in US Court.” Al- Riyadh newspaper went further. On page 3, showing a photo of Mrs. Freeman testifying in the Orlando court, the first paragraph said: “A female judge in the state of Florida ruled that a Muslim woman must take off her hijab to take a photo for her drivers’ license!”

All three newspapers twisted the facts to serve their purpose of stirring emotions against the US. It reminded me of what Fox News was doing after Sept. 11 when it was stirring public opinion in the US against Saudi Arabia.

The truth of the matter is that the American woman was not wearing a hijab that covered her hair only. She was wearing a niqab that concealed her entire face except her eyes. In addition, the American court did not tell Sultaana that she should take off what she was wearing to conceal her face. No one can ask her to take that off, not even the Supreme Court: As an American citizen she enjoys the freedom to keep it on.

The American court’s ruling was that if she chose to have a driver’s license, a photo that only revealed her eyes would not be acceptable for security reasons, as anyone could impersonate her and terrorists could use that method to conceal their identities. Americans do not have a national identity card. The driver’s license is often the only legal identification they use. Not only do citizens and residents use it to drive, they use it to book hotel rooms, prove that they are over the age of 21, open a bank account, and so on. What logic would there be if a person’s photo on that legal identity card only showed the person’s eyes? How would an officer of the law be able to verify that the person presenting the license is indeed the same person whose name is on it?

The matter has nothing to do with her being a Muslim woman. Had Freeman been a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, or atheist, the ruling would have been the same.

Freeman’s right to free exercise of religion would not be infringed by having to show her face on her license.

Over half the women in my country cover their faces in public for religious or traditional reasons. But when applying for a passport, every Saudi female must submit a photo that shows her face uncovered. And the reason for that is that immigration officers abroad can identify the bearer of the passport and allow her passage.

There is one remaining aspect that needs to be addressed.

Was Freeman serving Islam by bringing the case? I believe she wasn’t. She was doing the exact opposite. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States today not because it is as strict as Freeman wants Americans to believe, but rather because of its simplicity and logic, forgiveness and flexible teachings that can be adhered to by anyone of any heritage at any time.