double post

Assalaam alaikum, Alhamdullilah, I have found online audio of a previous halaqa by the same sheikh that I have referred to in my previous posts. I will provide notes (they're short-form, so you'll have to form your own complete sentences! ) below of a question and answer session in regards to pictures, and also provide the website where you can listen to this halaqa, inshallah. Photography is not haram except based on old opinion of Hanafi, rarely taken today---photography is “catching of shadow”—falling into trap of definitions: “sawwar” = take a picture assumed to be what Rasullulah (saws) spoke of; but it was painting that wareferred to---hand painted to compare to the creation of Allah (swt) or even claims to do better---with the intention. On the Day of Judgement “Blow in it soul if you can” will be commanded of the painters, and they will not be able to create life as Allah (swt) although they imitate Him. Paintings lack soul---without soul they are nothing. Those who try to overdo the creation of Allah (swt) will be gravely punished. Anything that is painted perfectly to resemble creation is haram. But if it is humiliated (broken nose, torn ear, etc) becomes “mubah” or “makrooh.” Those that are painted complete are prohibited; plants and nature are fine, perhaps even recommended. Market scenes of non-distinguishable peoples are fine, b/c not trying to compete with the creations of Allah (swt). Statues should not be used. If it is, it must be humiliated in a similar fashion as paintings. Photos are not haram unless they uncover awrah. Do not hang photos in front of qiblah. If a photo is developed by sisters, strictly, does not come across the hands of man, it is fine for a sister not to wear the hijab in the photo. Beyond this, we delve into details. And you can find the online halaqa audio at MSA McGill Halaqas Inshallah, this will suffice for my side of the discussion.

Assalaam alaikum, Advocate, to my knowledge, the awrah is comprised of those parts on a peron's body that must be covered by hijab in front of non-mahrem. There are also parts of the awrah that must be covered in front of mahrem as well. Just wondering, sweet_gal, but was this an unsolicited post or did someone on SOL actually make this claim? :eek:

Assalaam alaikum, Here's a really easy one that, inshallah, will be just as effective for you as it was for me. Last summer, I got into this spontaneous discussion about spirituality with some "reguler ole' Canadians." There were two guys that really shocked me when they said they didn't believe in God at all, they were just raised without spirituality or religion. One was very confrontational, and he demanded that I give him proof of the existence of God. I just shrugged my shoulders and replied, "give me proof that he does not exist? If you can't disprove something then you must accept the possibility of its existence, right?" Alhamdullilah, he gave me a blank stare for a minute and stormed out of the room. Don't feel obliged to exhaust yourself when the person who initiates the debate does not bring forth any palpable arguments him/herself. One thing I do suggest though is not to instigate the debate. People with fragile beliefs will fight ferociously to maintain what they perceive to be some kind of high moral ground.

Thought Control, I did not make the distinction between paintings and drawings. The sheikh that I was referring to throughout my post did. I personally would not be so quick to paint such broad strokes either (ha, no pun intended!) in analyzing the two. I respect judgements based on analogy, but I think we should all be cautious in calling something haram that may otherwise be permitted to us. If you have questions, Thought Control, I advise that you take this to a knowledgeable person on matters of fiqh. So if you have a differing opinion then find a sheikh who will corroborate with it. I did make a disclaimer that what I had posted was what I had heard from a sheikh at a fiqh halaqa. So please, on a future post, don't respond so hastily and imply that anyone posts with ill intentions. Inshallah, I will ask the sheikh to elaborate on this next halaqa, which will be next week. If you will be patient with me, we may all come out of this stronger.

Assalaam alaikum, Firstly I'd like to say jazakallahu khairan to sweet_gal for posting this thread with all best intentions, but I must seriously advise the greatest caution in providing a general fatwa on such a complicated issue such as this. Coincidentally, I attended a fiqh halaqa this past week where the sheikh spent a good amount of time explaining the question of pictures. Inshallah, I will summarize what I remember, but again I warn that this is from my memory and I am susceptible to mistakes, as are we all. We must first make the distinctin between paintings and photos taken by a camera. I apologize for not providing clear evidence, but again this is from my opinion firstly and inshallah I will provide stronger proof if there is interest. From my understanding, the difference between a painting and a photo is that the former is created by man, while the latter is but a reflection on lens and paper in reality. The sheikh nevertheless stated that a painting depicting a person in their whole and detailed self is haraam, but the painting may be permissible if the figure is distorted in some manner---eg. it is not in focus or it is mutilated in some way that is unnatural, or the painting does not depict the entire person (just a head-bust). I believe the idea behind this is to not create a true caricature of the person. The sheikh mentioned that on the Day of Judgement, Allah (swt) will command all those painters who insisted on painting live things in a prohibited way to breathe souls into their paintings. The point is that only Allah (swt) can create beings; a painter cannot with his paintbrush. But if it is only a painting of a partial caricature, that is obviously not an entirely whole being that is only lacking in a soul. The sheikh also cautioned that photos (by camera) may also be manipulated by some people, believers and non-believers, as they may resort to idolizing the image. Pictures as memoribilia, such as of parents and family, are fine so long as what they are showing are halal otherwise (obviously a pornographic picture is haram!). And when praying, these images (whether paintings or photos) should not obstruct the direction to the qibla. The Muslim should accept what the Sharee'ah says, without arguing. :confused: Ahhh, with the humble knowledge I do have, I don't recall ever being discouraged from questioning the Shari'ah. The Shari'ah is not set in stone. It is a body of many units, one section falling under the Words of Allah (swt) and the ahadeeth---which clearly are undoubtable---but the other section falls under the interpretation of humans, and this always demands constant ijtihaad, questioning and sometimes argument. Well, that's my lengthy two-cents. Inshallah I hope that this is of benefit to anyone. If I have said anything improper, please excuse me and indeed correct me, since disagreements almost always lead to greater knowledge, inshallah.

Assalaam alaikum, Firstly I'd like to say jazakallahu khairan to brother Nur for posting this up. Living in Canada and seeing how the Somali community here is progressing, I think discussion on this topic is LONG overdue. Raxmah, Athena, and Kynda, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Probably the sole responsibility for the role of parenting is to raise your children properly and to the best of your abilities, and for Muslim parents it is instilling proper adhab and deen. However, I really advise against laying blame on anyone, the mother or the father. From my reading of the story, I didn't see anywhere that the mother ennforces the hijab on her daughter. For all we know, allahu allam, the mother has taught her daughter properly and yet she is still not aware. And I'm a bit surprised that the father has been mentioned, because I myself did not take note of the absence of the father in the story. But I think it's unfair that only he is given blame. He may be the head of the household but that surely does not mean the mother is stripped of any duties. To my understanding, father and mothers are equals and each will be held responsible for the upbringing of their child---so one cannot be to blame without the other's help (except obviously for extreme circumstances such as death). I think we have to realize that when parents do coerce their children into behaving in a certain manner, it may just be poor parenting skills, but hardly is anything done without the assumption that it's socially acceptable. For example, a truly knowledgeable parent won't just enforce the hijab on their daughter. Most likely, these habits were forced upon them also, and they're just repeating it mindlessly. What we have to see here is that there's a greater dilemma in our communities. Realize these same problems existed in Somalia, and being in the West only intensifies things more, they just aren't appearing all of a sudden. I believe we have to realize that we may be Muslims, but we have to decide whether we want to follow Somali culture or Islam as the guidelines of our lives. There's really not much compromising the two. And I would argue enforcing a certain dress-code (which technically the hijab is) for the sake of just controlling the girl and not giving her any understanding why is a cultural renovation of Islam. Subhanallah, we see this all over the Muslim world too, so obviously it's not just a Somali problem. There is no justifying things by miscontruing Islamic edict. It will only result in greater fitnah, and subanallah I truly fear the punishment for those who attribute false words to Allah (swt). This may have gone on a tangent, but in this case I would argue that education is required on both sides of the relationship: the parents and the child. It may be that the parents need greater knowledge on their deen, the situation of peer-pressure at schools (parents so forget they once were kids!, or both. And for the child, realizing that Islamic duties don't all of a sudden become mandatory after a certain age, say when she's "an adult," and that Allah (swt) is All-Forgiving and All-Merciful. The path to knowledge never stops, and one should never be satisfied with what they know so far.

Assalaam alaikum, Sister, don't feel stressed becasue acne happens to everyone (and those few who aren't bothered by it are truly blessed). First let me just say that I've had my issues with acne, as any other young woman, as a result of high stress, hormonal shifts, neglecting my skin-cleaning regiment, etc. I've also tried a couple of prescriptive acne products, as well as proactiv. But I'll tell you, honestly, these topical solutions are really just Band-Aid solutions to your acne woes. As x_quisite mentioned, it's true that it's not always about the food you eat, but diet is EXTREMELY significant and will determine whether or not a high-stress period, such as exam-times or even your monthly period, will bring about just one pimple or an entire entourage! I truly believe nature (by the will of Allah swt) provides sufficient means to combat acne. There is a hadith of the Prophet (saw) that goes "Hold on to (the essential use of) the 'black seed', for certainly in it is a cure for every sickness except (the sickness which Allah has decreed for one's) death". Blackseed has been known through the ages to effectively combat many illnesses, particularly skin problems such as eczema and pimples, so inshallah there shouldn't be any reason that it doesn't work for you. I would also suggest that you visit a doctor and get an allergy test. If you don't know already, such diet staples as milk, other dairy products, and wheat have proven to cause serious skin reactons for women. Furthermore, it is suggested that you refrain from eating too much acidic foods (eg. cola (a BIG no no for skin!), meat products, etc.) in general and trying to maintain a balanced pH body level. That last part is a bit more complicated, but it's not that hard to get a hang of once you know which foods are alkaline-based or acidic-based, inshallah. A trip to your local organic foods/homeotherapy store will set you straight. They'll also be able to provide you with herbal teas that combat acne, as well as caplets of omega-3 essential fatty acids, iron or multivitamin caplets that all promote healthy skin. I realize this is a long list, but I bear testimony to the effectiveness of this diet. If you'd like more information, feel free to PM me inshallah. Keep in mind that the majority of the diseases and illnesses humans experience are a result of food or drink.

without Dhiker protective gear against Satan, you are an easy prey Manshallah, br.Nur! Are you planning to come out with a new line of fashions to add to your portfolio?

Is this the path of deterioration that ALL threads in SOL are taking now? Subhanallah, I've been away from reading SOL for a couple of weeks and sense such a repelling wave of hostility upon my return! :confused: I've hesitated on posting, but in my opinion, recent postings on this thread, originally posted by somealien, do not share the spirit and good intentions of her original post. I would suggest starting another thread elsewhere, where this debate can be fostered more appropriately. Otherwise, let's help this sister out with preparing for the impending season change. Somealien, I'm a recent hijabi myself (let's call me a winter baby ), so I'm just as interested in getting some pointers for preparing for the summer. I've been told that differing types of hijab don't really matter between seasons; polyester doesn't breath, cotton may be thick, but the utmost concern should be that the hijab is not transparent. As for wearing sandals, I believe 3 out of 4 schools consider the bare feet of a woman to be part of her awra, and thus should be covered. I'm taking this into consideration myself, but how does one feel about stockings (much more breathable) or mules (so long as the heel is covered by a skirt or pants) or sneakers with perforated leather? I wouldn't despair just yet about summer fashions too---all things linen have been the rage lately, and they naturally come in loose-fitting styles, especially in tunics. I guess abayas are a good idea too, but you'll probably have to wear something underneath as well, so it may not be as cooling as first thought. I hope this is of some benefit Assalaam alaikum.

Assalaam alaikum, Hibo, I can't help but ask, how do you expect someone who disagrees with your view to provide a proof from the Quran or hadith, when you yourself don't support your arguement with hadith or Quran? :eek:

Wow, jazakallahu khairan for sharing your story with us, Sade. It's absolutely integral to bring up the situation in Turkey, especially as so many of us within the Muslim ummah in the West fight against the passing of the hijab ban in France. Out of curiousity, do you think people are right to be focusing this battle on France and not equally on Turkey, itself a predominantly Muslim country? Or are they two different cases? Are there any private universities in Turkey, or are they also restricted by the state? I've read recently of female parliament ministers who have been admonished for wearing the hijab within Parliament, and also of the Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers' veiled wives being pressured not to attend official state events. If you are still in Turkey, have you any news of these brave Muslimahs? It's absolutely devastating to hear of the plight of our Turkish sisters in faith, and inshallah their faith will conquer these short-term obstacles.

I'm a bit late to the convo, but nothing is every too late on Somali time, eh? Alhamdullilah, I speak English, French and Somali. And inshallah, within the next ten years, I hope to pick up Arabic and Spanish---who knows, maybe even to the point of equal fluency amongst them all? That's a lot to ask, I know---but inshallah!

Jazakallahu khairan for that lovely post, Shaabella, but it's missing one! I've searched far and wide for my name in dozens of these Arabic name directories, and still to no avail! :confused: My name is spelled Siraad in Somali, Sirat in Arabic. My parents explained the name to me as a child, meaning "the guide to the right path." But from my own analysis, Sirat in Arabic means "the straight path, or way"--eg. Siraatal Mustaqim. Similarly, in the Quran al-Sirat is the sword-thin path that all souls must pass that bridges over hell, in order to reach paradise. Manshallah, that's quite something to bear the name of, but I know it's not a very common name amongst Somalis and even less amongst Arabs and other Muslims. Wa salaam alaikum.

Salaam alaikum, everyone! Since it's Black History Month, I thought it would be refreshing to read not just about the horrible legacy of Africans and slavery in the Americas, but also of African ties to this continent predating the slave trade. I hope you all enjoy the read, Inshallah. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Muslim Africans: A Past of which to speak by Shoilee S. Khan (Tuesday 24 February 2004) "The tribulations and triumphs of Muslim Africans translates into a rich and vibrant history, a past of honour and a future of hope. From their exploratory voyages in early centuries, their cultural assimilation under the scourge of slavery in the United States and the Caribbean, to their triumphs as re-defined citizens in today’s world, Muslim Africans — today African Americans, African Canadians, and Caribbeans — have a past of which to speak." Christopher Columbus, the infamous Spanish explorer, is credited with “discovering” North America. Of course, “discover” implies that the territory Columbus landed on in 1492 had never been explored before, was devoid of any civilization, and the people devoid of any sophistication. This is simply not true. Before Columbus even stepped onto his boat, Native Americans had 2000 separate languages, a distinctive array of religions, a system of interaction with nature and other human beings. By 1492, the entire northern third of North America was already occupied, and hence already “discovered” by these hunting-gathering societies. The notion that Columbus, if not the first person to discover America, was the first person to make contact with Native peoples, is another common myth. There is extensive and irrefutable evidence that points to ancient North American cultures having been in contact with voyagers from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean before Columbus. They exchanged knowledge, influenced each other, and traded products. Although more research is needed, evidence such as sculptures, oral history, eye-witness accounts, Arabic documents, coins and inscriptions serve as undeniable claims to North African Muslim contact with Natives in the Americas as early as the 7th century CE. This remains a hidden and often neglected part of history that needs further research and clarification, but definitely suggests undeniable possibilities. Mandinka voyages — by Muslim explorers and merchants from the West African Islamic Empire of Mali — were significant and extravagant. Dr. Abdullah Hakim Quick in his book, Deeper Roots, relates that “examination of inscriptions found in Brazil, Peru, and the United States, as well as linguistic, cultural and archaeological finds offer documentary evidence of the presence of these Mandinka Muslims in the early Americas.” There is even extensive evidence of Mandinka cities of stone and mortar that were seen by early Spanish explorers and pirates. A document written by a land-pirate from Minas Gerais in 1754 relates that the remains of a city near a river there had remarkable buildings, obelisks and statues. Columbus, quite obviously, arrived in the Americas a little late, but just in time to rake in the credit. Slavery and Exploitation: When the Spanish crown granted the right to buy slaves in Africa early in the 6th century, the stage was set for centuries of exploitation. Millions of Africans were taken from the shores of West and Central Africa and transported to the Americas and the Caribbean, where they were forced to spend their lives working for others. Early in the 17th Century there was a rapid growth of sugar plantations, which resulted in an increased demand for slaves, which in turn transformed Africa into what Quick calls the “chief victim of exploitation.” What many Muslims, whether they have an African heritage or not, and what many African-Americans and African-Canadians, whether or not they’re Muslim, fail to realize is that seven to thirty per cent of slaves taken from Africa and brought to the Americas, were Muslim. Islam had flourished and developed in Africa before and during the Atlantic slave trade. Muslims in Africa were literate, having been educated in the Arabic language, and were culturally connected with other literate nations within Africa as well as around the Mediterranean and in the Middle East. When slave traders began transporting African people to the Americas and the Caribbean, a culturally diverse group of Muslim Africans -- including members of the Mandinka, Fula, Susu, Ashanti and Hausa tribes -- lay side by side in the dark holds of English, Spanish, French and Dutch ships. One of the most popular symbols of the Muslim slave is Kunta Kinte, immortalized in Alex Haley’s saga, Roots. Kinte’s struggle to maintain his culture and religion as a Muslim reflects the struggle of numerous Muslim slaves in the Americas. The fact that Haley embarked upon a journey to discover his roots, reflects perhaps the success of millions of Africans like Kinte, who would not give up their own roots. Despite the extremely restrictive policies — among them, The Code Noir of 1685 — designed to destroy the will of slaves, control every meaningful aspect of their lives, and convert them to Christianity, Muslim slaves in the Americas and the Caribbean fought both external and internal battles to keep their culture alive. A clear example of Muslims maintaining their faith lies in Bryan Edward’s work "The History, Civil and Commercial of the British Colonies in the West Indies," written in 1794. He describes the practices of “an old and faithful Mandingo servant” in these words: "…he has not forgot the morning and evening prayer which his father taught him. In proof of this assertion, he chants, in an audible and shrill tone, a sentence that I conceive to be part of the al-Koran. La illa, ill illa…" La ilaha illah Allah — there is no god but Allah — an assertion of faith, and proof that African slaves in the Americas and the Caribbean did continue to carry on their religious practices. There are numerous other examples of white masters recording the peculiar practices of their slaves, among them the ability of many to read and write in Arabic. Although Muslim Africans tried to maintain their faith, the suppressive and debilitating laws of slavery forced most to conform to the wills of their masters, and assimilate themselves into the cultural norms of the society in which they lived. Islam, after generations, became a distant memory and in most cases it ceased to exist at all. The tribulations and triumphs of Muslim Africans translates into a rich and vibrant history, a past of honour and a future of hope. From their exploratory voyages in early centuries, their cultural assimilation under the scourge of slavery in the United States and the Caribbean, to their triumphs as re-defined citizens in today’s world, Muslim Africans — today African Americans, African Canadians, and Caribbeans — have a past of which to speak. Source: Media Monitors Network

Opinionated, Jazakallahu khairan for responding. but I must admit I am a bit disappointed with your definition. It is a political symbol when you start wearing the Hijab for the main purpose of showing non-muslim your status (especially with the recent anti-islamic sentiments) You are absolutely right that wearing the hijab ought to be spiritually motivated, but I fail to see how, from your explanation, it can be a political symbol. Granted, it's a method of identification---which by no means at all is used only by Muslims. Would someone wearing a cross pendant, a kippa (Jewish head cap), a turban, or a nun's headdress be considered to be politicizing themselves? If a political symbol is something that shows one's association with a political movement, then verily all these individual displays of faith are political symbols. Therefore it's not fair to say that one religious symbol, the hijab, is more politically charged than any other. And since one can never be certain about a sister's objectives for wearing the hijab, it's best that we all assume it is for spiritual reasons and leave it as it should be, a matter exclusively between her and Allah subhanatallah. Wa salaam alaikum.

It was my pleasure, Modesty. But on a more serious note, perhaps you posted this topic on a quite inopportune time. Please read below, and I urge all other readers to seriously consider what is happening with the Haram al-Sharif. How many more warning calls do we Muslims need before we finally snap out of our pacifism? Allahu allum. ------------------------------------------------- Jerusalem's Haram Al Sharif Wall Collapses Last Saturday night, the collapse of an 800-year-old wall in Jerusalem's Haram al Sharif sent people running from tumbling rocks. Less than a year ago, the wall of the Museum of Islam also collapsed. The head of the Islamic Endowment (Waqf), Adnan al-Husseini, said the collapse was the result of "Israeli intervention in our work and preventing us from maintaining it." The Wall of the Islamic museum fell after the Waqf repeatedly warned Israel that the wall urgently needed maintenance to prevent its deterioration. Israel prohibited the Waqf from repairing the wall – and it crumbled. Weakening the Foundations of Haram Al Sharif For years, Jerusalem experts have warned that Israel's excavations under and around the magnificent structure of the 1300 year-old Al Aqsa Mosque are seriously weakening its foundations. Israel then prevents the Waqf from maintaining and repairing the structures. Archaeologists and Jerusalem experts have warned that any natural disaster, such as a mild earthquake, could cause Al Aqsa to crumble. Within the last week, Jerusalem has seen both an earthquake and heavy snowfall. And part of a Wall did come tumbling down. Al Aqsa Mosque survived, but one wonders for how long? Israel's far-reaching excavations in the Haram al Sharif began in 1967, immediately after it occupied East Jerusalem. For decades, Israelis have been digging in the four corners of, and directly underneath, Al Aqsa Mosque. Some of the digging was so deep that the south wall of al Aqsa began to crack and its foundations have been significantly compromised. Rather than using a bulldozer to demolish Al Aqsa and incurring the wrath of the Muslim world and the international community, Israel is trying to destroy Al Aqsa indirectly. It has deliberately undermined the very foundations of Al Aqsa mosque, and continues to allow dozens of fundamentalist groups who call explicitly for the destruction of Al Aqsa Mosque to flourish. In Israel, Working for Destruction of Al Aqsa is Legal Israeli organizations dedicated to the destruction of Al Aqsa Mosque, with multi-million dollar budgets as a result of fundraising in the U.S. and around the world, are legal in Israel. Their extremist agenda is deadly. There have been hundreds of attempts to destroy the holy site by Zionist fundamentalists. Israel's treatment of the fanatics speaks volumes about its intentions. Israel repeatedly releases those found guilty of attempts to destroy the holy site. In 1969, an Australian Zionist set fire to Al Aqsa Mosque. He received psychological counseling and was set free. It took over two decades to repair the damage and restore the mosque. Other Israeli extremists dedicated to the destruction of Al Aqsa, even when caught with arms and explosives on the site, have been routinely released by Israel. They are still trying to destroy Al Aqsa, openly mobilizing fanatics on their websites and in demonstrations in Jerusalem. Israel Snubs UN Calls for Respect of Muslim Holy Sites UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, was so concerned about Israel's illegal excavations of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem that it passed a resolution "considering the Old City of Jerusalem a part of the Endangered International Heritage." After years of calling on Israel to stop excavating in East Jerusalem and repeatedly being snubbed, UNESCO then called on member states to cooperate closely to safeguard the Muslim and Christian monuments in Jerusalem. (Nov. 13, 1993, Res. 27C/3.8) URGENT ACTIONS REQUESTED: We need to act now to make sure that Al Aqsa Mosque, the oldest surviving Islamic structure in the world today, does not come tumbling down. So far Al Aqsa Mosque has survived, but Israel's deliberate undermining of this religious structure may doom it to destruction! If Israel continues to undermine the 1300 year-old mosque's foundations, it could be too late to act! Action alert start date was February 19, 2004. End date is February 25, 2004. 1) Contact UNESCO and the State Department immediately and demand that Israel immediately stop digging under and around the foundations of Islam's holy sites in Jerusalem, provide unfettered access by international experts to assess the extent of damages to Al Aqsa, and ensure the protection of all holy sites in occupied Jerusalem. Contact information: UNESCO: New York office at: Tel: (212) 963-5995 Fax: (212) 963-8014 or write to UNESCO's Paris headquarters at: 7, place de Fontenoy 75352 Paris 07 SP France Secretary of State Powell Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520 Phone: (202) 647-6575 Fax: (202) 647-6040 TALKING POINTS: 1) Israeli excavations in the Haram al Sharif are seriously undermining the foundations of religious and historical Islamic structures in the Old City of Jerusalem 2) International organizations, particularly UNESCO, must immediately demand that Israel stop digging under and around the foundations of Al Aqsa 3) There must be unfettered access by international experts to immediately assess the extent of damages to the Haram al Sharif and the holy sites in Jerusalem 4) Israel's continuous digging underneath and around Al Aqsa Mosque proves that Israel cannot be trusted to guard Islamic holy sites because it is unconcerned about the preservation of some of the most significant religious and historical structures in the world 5) Al Aqsa Mosque is not only an Islamic holy site, but a historical part of the human heritage, making it a concern for mankind.

Geel-Jire, Very good point, manshallah! From my understanding, I believe the most fundamental things made fard upon men is to cover the 'aurah (private area) and the thighs---basically the region from below the navel to the knee. Also, I'm not too sure, but I think men are also obligated not to have their lower garments passing their ankles (dragging the floor). Everything else may be sunnah, but it has been emphasized that these are strong sunnahs that should not be disregarded. For example, the covering of the head while in prayer. I've found another site that has also been very helpful to me. Inshallah, it might clarify some things further. Men's Dress in Islam

For some people it has become a political symbol almost Interesting how the French government uses that same by-line as their core arguement for the implementation of a law banning hijabs in state-schools. Personally, I find it hard to see the reasoning in that arguement. Could you elaborate on how you've come to that conclusion, Opinionated? Jazakallahu khairan.

Jazakallahu khairan Modesty, There is indeed so much media propaganda surrounding the Haram al-Sharif---the sanctuary upon which the al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock (al-Sakhrah mosque) are found---that it is really beginning to affect Muslims themselves, subhanallah! I recently saw a photo of a Palestinian boy at a protest in the Occupied Territories, wrapped in a keffiyeh and holding a picture of the Dome of the Rock---and I had to pause. The Dome of the Rock is often mistaken as the al-Aqsa mosque, indeed the 3rd holiest site in Islam. I know it has confused me in the past as well, but inshallah this picture will clear the misunderstanding to others on this forum

After 9/11, I saw Muslims being antagonized and persecuted. I realized that if I didn't make my status as a Muslim known to the world, I would always feel like a coward for taking the easy way out and just blending in with gaalos. Ameen! I still remember 9/11 vividly---I was living in university residence at the time, and while watching the news in the common room with the other students, I remember feeling a sense of relief of not wearing the hijab, for fear of their reaction. Now that I do wear the hijab (alhamdullilah a hundred times!), it's an embarrassing memory, but I think is the best reflection of what kept myself, as well as other sisters perhaps, from wearing it. The bottom line is that a sister really has to want it. I know of several sisters who wear the hijab and act completely against the values of Islam, as well as those who are still unable to pray regularly, mostly due to the hijab being forced upon her without her appreciation or just acting too hastily. The end result in both cases is that sisters often take the hijab off. Personally, I think it's more important that a sister covers her foundations first---five daily prayers, fasting, involvement in the Muslim community, etc. And inshallah, by the time she decides to put the hijab on, it will feel more natural than anything else.

Salaam alaikum, I came across this site by chance, and it shall answer your question adequately, inshallah: The Male Hijab.

Interesting article. Just wondering Libaax, but is there something implicit in taking this article from a Jewish paper/organization? Ah, it might be the overanalytical bug again... I wonder why they don't mention the hesitation on Kerry's part about disclosing his Jewish heritage, and the subsequent commotion in the media that followed? In doing that, I think Kerry understood the nuances of American politics, especially when it comes to the office of the President. I think it's commonly accepted that racism remains deeply entrenched in America, and that translates into the improbability of having a minority as President of the United States. Add women to that roster, too. I don't know if there's a hierarchy on who has less chances than the others---but it's probable that a black, Christian African-American has equal, if not better, prospectives than a white, Jeish candidate---now that's a whopper to debate! Actually, I'd put my bets on a latino, Christian candidate, considering Latinos are the largest minority in the US! Discuss people, discuss!

I got blundered by this question while preparing my perspective in a class discussion of the reformation of the political system in Iraq. Hopefully, y'all will be able to help me out a bit. Granted, I don't expect Islamic scholars to be perusing SOL (are they?), but I'll give it a shot anyways There's a lot of commotion lately surrounding the prospect of installing democracy in Iraq, as if it will be a end-all cure-all tactic to all of Iraq's ailments. Yet, I'm more than a bit skeptical. Considering that Iraq has never experienced or developed a democratic culture---after independence, there was a short trist of a monarchy, then one authoritarian/military regime after another until, of course, the graceless demise of Saddam Hussein. And despite all of that, the Iraqi people are a remarkably educated and resilient people. So my question is, if there was an alternative to democratic rule---even if there is a democratic system installed, I highly doubt it will be secular---and an Islamic state was such an option, how would sectarian cleavages be addressed? As you all may well know, Iraq is approximately 60% Shi'a and 40% Sunni (around 25% being Arab and 15% Kurdish). If it was a matter of numbers, then this would translate into a Shi'a Islamic Republic. But 40% is a huge minority, and the prime fear being that one group will ban the Islamic practices of smaller groups and impose their own values in their place. Are there any historical provisions in Islamic jurisprudence regarding this problem? By proposing this idea, I don't mean to impose this on the Iraqi people. It seems to me that an Islamic republic is more demanding of a society than a democracy---I don't think any other political system is dependent on the piety of its leaders (the present "Islamic" states in the Middle East should be proof enough of that). Nevertheless, Iraq doesn't seem to have any shortage of clerics, even those of high regard such as Ayatollah Sistani, but the same obviously can't be said for political leaders, particularly in the transitional government. Before I start to get off-topic, I'll stop here, and wait patiently for input

I always knew that such accusations on Islam being oppressive to women were unfounded, especially in comparison that what the author brings forward! But, I'm sure a Jewish or Christian person would argue that they live in secular countries (including Israel), so these norms no longer apply. Even that's not true, though, considering that a bride in a Western, secular marriage still has to pay for her wedding. And talk about the notion of Eve the Seductress still in pratice---I'm sure that's the justification for portraying women in the West as some kind of lusty beast that can/will/does use her sexuality to get anything she wants, including selling toothpaste on t.v.!