This has been a big year for Islam and Islamic law in American media. As politicians vied for local and national office, anti-sharia messages -- and sometimes overtly anti-Islam messages -- were broadcast across the media, at times functioning to normalize anti-Islam discourse. Turmoil in places like Egypt and Mali ensured that there were plenty of stories with "sharia" in the forefront, but little contextualization for the average reader to give a sense of what Islamic law means in those places. As we look back at media coverage in 2012, a number of trends emerge, ranging from regional and national hotspots like Tennessee and Egypt; in specific areas, such as gender and Islamophobia; and in wider issues of how Islamic law was covered and who was cited by the media as an authority.
Anti-Islam Messages Dominate Media
A December study published by the American Sociological Review from sociologist Christopher Bail shows that over the last decade, conversations about Islam in American media have been largely dominated by organizations with anti-Islam agendas. The American Sociological Association quotes Bail:
I found that organizations with negative messages about Muslims captivated the mass media after the Sept. 11 attacks, even though the vast majority of civil society organizations depict Muslims as peaceful, contributing members of American society ... As a result, public condemnations of terrorism by Muslims have received little media attention, but organizations spreading negative messages continue to stoke public fears that Muslims are secretly plotting to overthrow the U.S. government ... They are now so much a part of the mainstream that they have been able to recast genuinely mainstream Muslim organizations as radicals.
On that note, David Edwards at The Raw Story quotes Toledo, Ohio mosque arsonist Randolph Linn. When asked whether he knew "any Muslims or ... what Islam is," Linn responded
No, I only know what I hear on Fox News and what I hear on radio ... Muslims are killing Americans and trying to blow stuff up ... Most Muslims are terrorists and don't believe in Jesus Christ.
Hate Crimes Against Muslims Remain High
Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, highlights a December FBI hate-crime report showing practically no decrease in anti-Muslim crimes in 2011, according to an article published in Salon. Sadly, 2012 is shaping up to be worse. Crimes this year included an arson attack against a mosque in Ohio, a mosque in Missouri and a Muslim home in Florida; a bomb threat against a Washington State mosque; vandalization of a Virginia mosque, a Rhode Island mosque and Muslim graves in a Chicago cemetery; shots fired and a bottle of acid thrown at two Illinois mosques; and pig parts thrown at a California mosque and at a New York outdoor prayer space, among other incidents. Potok attributes hate crimes against perceived Muslims to "anti-Muslim propagandizing," while others point to specific remarks made by politicians. Hate crimes are the ugliest, worst manifestation of the fear and tension that can result from misinformation, but messaging around Muslims and Islam has had other effects as well.
Anti-sharia Legislation in the United States
Kansas lawmakers passed a ban on foreign laws in May, seemingly without much discussion. Elsewhere in America, legislation to address "sharia creep" -- and creep would accurately describe the speed of some of these proposed laws -- continues to be put forth. A bill proposed by Rep. Dave Agema of Michigan in January of 2011 popped up again in December, but after outcry and opposition from local Muslim, Catholic and other organizations, the bill ended up dying in the Michigan House of Representatives, despite being on the schedule. Rep. Kim King pre-filed a bill for 2013 in Kentucky. Sen. Alan Hayes re-filed a 2011 Florida bill that drew outcry from various religious and secular groups. And New Hampshire bill HB1422 was killed for 2012. See Gavel to Gavel for a comprehensive list of anti-shari'a bills.
In related news, Hamed Aleziz at Think Progress profiled a Muslim libertarian activist who reaches out to Tea Party groups in Tennessee, and has changed some groups' positions on anti-sharia legislation.
Big Trouble in Little Tennessee, or, I Always Rely on the Kindness of Strangers, Unless They're Muslim
More than any other state, Tennessee dominated news coverage of anti-sharia activism. Asifa Quraishi-Landes, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, commented that Tennessee's anti-sharia legislation was "[t]he most aggressive version" of such legislation to date, though public opposition led to the removal of specific references to Islamic law. (Also, read her explanation of why these laws don't make sense). David Waters at the Memphis Commercial Appeal looked at anti-sharia activism in Memphis, thoughtfully probing the question from multiple angles and offering perspectives from individuals on both sides of the debate.
The Murfreesboro, Tenn., Islamic Center officially opened its doors in November after two years of lawsuits and anti-mosque activism. Opponents to the mosque made claims that local Muslims were promoting Islamic law, that the mosque would breed terrorism, and even asserted that Islam isn't actually a religion and therefore doesn't receive constitutional protection (incidentally, a Tennessee judge did determine in 2011 that Islam is indeed a religion). Opposition attorney Joe Brandon was quoted by Blake Farmer in NPR:
Shariah law is not religion, and I'm unaware of any situation where you can separate Shariah law out from under Islam. Quite frankly, I see that as a problem.
Other Tennessee politicians running for office took great pains to show that they were concerned, very concerned, about Islamic law, and especially that they were more concerned than their opponents. NPR's Blake Farmer looked at the State House race between Lou Ann Zelenik and Diane Black. The race found Black "on the defensive after being called soft on Shariah law," after which point she commented, "I understand the devastation that Shariah law could mean here in our country, and I'm a sponsor of a bill that will once again say that the United States Constitution is our law and that it is the supreme law."
As Dr. Quraishi-Landes reminds us:
Muslims in the United States are decidedly uninterested in sharia criminal law. Contrary to insinuations from the anti-sharia campaign, Muslims in the United States show no interest in having American law criminalize actions such as extramarital sex or alcohol consumption, or punishing theft with hand amputation. Although some point to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to suggest that Muslims desire state punishment of these crimes, these references are inappropriate for the context of Muslims living under a secular government like the United States. Simply put, the criminal laws of foreign Muslim countries say nothing about what laws American Muslims would like to enact in the United States, any more than the laws of the Jewish state of Israel tell us anything about what laws American Jews want enacted in America.
Constitutional Debates Leave Egypt in Turmoil
As the year drew to a close, protests in Egypt became increasingly violent as different factions battled in the streets, paralleling intellectual battles among members of Egypt's constitutional committee over the extent to which the new constitution will draw on Islamic law. Commentary from experts on Islamic law ranged from Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School in Bloomberg situating President Muhammad Morsi's power grab as a means of restoring democracy, whereas University of Utah School of Law Professor Chibli Mallat called it "outrageous" and "unconstitutional" in JURIST. Clark Lombardi of the University of Washington School of Law broke down Egyptian constitutional Article 219 -- the one that all the fuss is about -- in a piece co-authored with Nathan Brown for Foreign Policy. Asifa Quraishi-Landes of the University of Wisconsin Law School examined religious pluralism and Egyptian politics in a piece for The Immanent Frame in April, while University of Toronto Associate Professor of Law Mohammed Fadel regularly blogged about the constitutional process on his website.
Western media was particularly interested in the impact of the new Egyptian constitution on women, and featured a variety of stories about how Egyptian women's lives were impacted by post-Arab Spring changes. These included stories on Naglaa Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi, the Muslim Sisterhood, manifestations of religiosity in public and mediated spaces such as news anchors donning headscarves and television stations run by niqab-wearing women, to questions over how the new Egyptian government will (or will not) discourage female circumcision. Gallup Muslim Studies Director Dalia Mogahed reminded journalists to look at the data -- citing a Gallup report showing that the majority of Egyptian women favor greater inclusion of Islamic law in Egypt's legislation -- and that they need to represent a wide array of voices in their articles.
Islamic Law Around the World
The world watched as a coup in northern Mali propelled the Ansar Dine, a radical Islamist group, to power. There was considerable coverage of the Ansar Dine's ongoing efforts to impose their interpretation of Islamic law, including stories on banning music, keeping tabs on women having children out of wedlock, publicly executing accused murderers, amputating the hands of accused thieves and other punishments, which has seen pushback and outrage from local Malians. University of Michigan History Professor Rudolph Ware reminded readers that the Ansar Dine has no formal training in Islamic law, asking them to critically assess messages about sharia in coverage of Mali. Rarely do journalists point out that practicing Muslims in Mali already follow Islamic law, though this looks quite different from Islamic law as interpreted by the Ansar Dine.
Many of the international stories this year focused on gender and sexuality: A French Muslim opened an LGBTQ-friendly mosque in Paris; transgender Muslims in Malaysia fought for expanded rights; Muslim clerics made it easier for women to obtain divorces in the Palestinian territories; UCLA law professor Khaled Abou El-Fadl commented on the tradition of female imams and women-led mosques in China; and there was considerable coverage of the experience of female athletes in the 2012 Olympics, as well as those pushing boundaries in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
Blasphemy and Free Speech
Questions around Islamic law and blasphemy made it to the headlines in a big way this year. The trailer for an amateurish anti-Muslim film titled "The Innocence of Muslims" (the background for which in itself might win the award for the year's most convoluted and bizarre story) prompted widespread protest across the Muslim world for its intentionally offensive depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. Outcry in the Muslim world was primarily peaceful despite heavy media attention on violent protests in Egypt, Pakistan and Libya -- where they were confused with a deadly al Qaeda attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. University of Colorado assistant professor Megan Reif noted the difference in coverage between the Arab Spring and this year's protests (problematically exemplified by Newsweek's "Muslim Rage" cover):
While media reports on the Arab uprisings discussed the difficulty of estimating crowd size and pondered what percentage of the population they represented, much of the current media coverage of the recent riots that erupted throughout the Muslim world on September 11, 2012 in response to the anti-Islam film, "Innocence of Muslim," [sic] has described the events as "days of rage" and violence "sweeping" the entirety of almost a quarter of the world's population.
A second major story centered on Rimsha Masih, a Christian Pakistani girl arrested for allegedly burning pages of Quranic text, though it was later shown that the accusations were false. The story laid bare the complicated issues behind Pakistan's blasphemy law, which originated under the British as a means to preserve the peace. Since then, the law has been used for personal vendettas and sectarian attacks and many have called for changes to the Pakistani legal system. Despite outcry following Masih's arrest, reform remains unlikely.
In one of the most interesting articles of the year, reporter Daniel Denvir did a comprehensive profile of the city of Dearborn, Mich., for The Atlantic, calling it "a must-visit location on 21st-century America's newly established anti-Muslim protest circuit." He notes that activists frequently portray Dearborn, which is home to the largest concentration of Arab Americans in the United States, as being controlled by Islamic law. Notably, several activists have brought cases claiming that their speech rights were violated in Dearborn, including Terry Jones and a group of Christian activists from California who, most colorfully, paraded through an Arab-American festival with a pig's head on a pole.
Oh, a Little Thing Called THE ELECTIONS
Bringing to a close two years of apocalyptic grandstanding on the subject of Islamic law on the part of some Republican presidential candidates, Barack Obama was re-elected in November. Jillian Rayfield and Alex Seitz-Wald at Salon summarized the top 10 "most hateful examples of bigotry against Muslims" during the campaign. Newt Gingrich, whom Justin Elliott at Salon refers to "one of the most vocal Muslim-baiting Republicans in the country," was this year's winner in the "he said WHAT?" category. He elevated us/them rhetoric to an art form, repeatedly implying that President Obama was in cahoots with radical Islamists bent on imposing Islamic law abroad and, of course, in the United States. Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic asked last February how Gingrich manages to get away with it, explaining that "anti-Muslim bigotry in America is treated differently than every other kind." Not surprisingly, there are far fewer Muslim Republicans around these days, reversing the pre-Obama trend.
Numerous state and national Republican candidates ran with a strong anti-sharia message, which the Republican Party ultimately adopted at its National Convention. But in the end, how was that message received? Spencer Ackerman at Wired suggests that election results -- citing Allen West's loss in Florida, Rep. Michele Bachmann's slight win over her Minnesota challenger and Rep. Sue Myrick's decision not to run in North Carolina -- point to the "emerging political costs to embracing irrationality."
Though at times it seemed as though the issue of Islamic law and anti-shari'a legislation was itself an election issue, University of Toronto Law School Associate Professor Mohammed Fadel commented on what Islamic law might contribute to discussion of bigger questions of economics, immigration, reproductive rights and more.
From the Local to the Personal
Finally, some of the most compelling stories this year were those about Muslims discursively figuring out Islamic law for themselves. These stories challenged monolithic portrayals of Islam, giving readers a sense of what it actually looks like to follow Islamic law in the contemporary world. Coverage of the Olympics, for example, highlighted the plight of athletes who had to determine whether to fast during the holy month of Ramadan while also going for the gold. Stories about marriage and divorce, halal vaccinations, facial hair, Muslim burial plots, and negotiating piety on Wall Street and in yoga studios gave a wide variety of examples of what it means to be Muslim today. The diversity of voices and opinions in these stories give us a sense that Islamic law is enacted in the everyday lives of Muslims, much more so than the stereotypical view that Islamic law as enacted top-down by the state, or by religious leaders.
As stories that cast doubt on anti-sharia hyperbole as well as on the spurious claims of politicians and pundits who seek to portray American Muslims as some sort of fifth column in the war on terrorism, these are tales worth telling.
Follow Krystina Friedlander on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@yallayagirl
Rabbi Marc Schneier and Russell Simmons: Remember Dr. King's Dream by Supporting American Muslims
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
As Steven Pinker points out in his book "The Better Angles of our Nature", hate crime against Muslims in the West did not shoot up after 9/11. In 2002, anti-Muslim hate crimes constituted 1.9% of all single-bias offenses (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2002).
Quite simply, the media needs to make a distinction between Muslims and Islam. Fortunately, like most religious people, many self-identified Muslims largely disregard the teachings of their scripture, which is hateful and obsolete. Islam is a set of ideas that needs to be refuted by better ideas, just as secular humanists have successfully argued against other religions and destructive ideologies.
When the critiques speak about Sharia law they mostly talk about stoning to death, death for apostasy, chopping hand for stealing and lashing for consuming alcohol which are all disputed by many Muslim scholars.
Stoning to death is in fact the law of Deuteronomy not Quranic , nowhere in the Quran says about death for apostasy, chopping hand was rarely implemented during the time of Prophet and his rightly guided Caliphs- rather rule of pardon and forgiveness prevailed during their times.
Rarely the critiques talk about the simple life of the rightly guided Caliphs who took lesson from Islam, and their benevolence to the people - while all agree that a ruler like Omar can solve poverty and many other problems of current world.
They talk about subjugation of women in Islam but rarely they talk about Ayesha (R) who was a teacher of the companions of Prophet and a army commander as well.
Historically, all religions have strayed from its original teachings;Islam bears the same blame on its shoulder as well.
Some of these people have fled because they were persecuted for not having enough religion or the wrong sort, others fled for having too much.
They now live in a country with a stable economy, free health care, best education in the world, women have absolute parity with men in the work place.
All of this in the morally debased west, a culture where women are not the property of their fathers or brothers. Most of them can now see that society does not fall because women show a bit of leg.
It will be of great interest to see how they allow their daughters to develop in the coming years.
One can not make some laws or rules or statments and attach that to God's words ( scripture) when those are not part of the scripture.
its forbidden (haram - for moslem people) and great sin in religion of Islam
There are lots of other types of non-religious foreign laws that are also causes of oppression, so the challenges also go beyond religion.
However, globally condemning "Sharia" condemns not only stoning, etc. --- but also the religious practice of Muslims, because that's part of Sharia, too (prayer, fasting, charity, etc.).
Saying "no Sharia, period" is the same as telling Jews they can't keep kosher, or telling Catholics that they can't abide by the precepts of Canon law.
People with anti-Islam attitudes have spread a lot of misinformation about Sharia, and so, a lot of non-Muslims feel an inherent sense of opposition to something that doesn't actually exist.
The "Sharia law" of the Taliban, or of Saudi Arabia, or of Iran are terrible things, as are other extremist interpretations of Sharia.
Most interpretations of Sharia are not like that, and for American Muslims, Sharia refers solely to the regulations surrounding their personal religious practice, and some family law items (identical to Jewish Halakha and Catholic Canon law, in that respect).
Every person who becomes complicit in attempts to silence the criticism of Islamic Sharia which it so richly deserves becomes complicit in its cruelties.
No ideology in recorded history has deprived so many human beings of so much human potential and happiness. It is a great moral duty of all people to do whatever we can to bring an end to this.
--------------------
Do you have a factual basis for such a statement? How do you measure the "human potential and happiness" lost under the various Marxist regimes or under Christianity (especially during the middle ages) or under nationalism?
No, wait...
It was actually devout Islamists.
Turbaned fighters now control all the major towns in the north, carrying out amputations in public squares like the Taliban did. Just as in Afghanistan, they are flogging women for not covering up. Since taking control of Timbuktu, they have destroyed seven of the 16 mausoleums listed as world heritage sites.
The area under their rule is mostly desert and sparsely populated, but analysts say that due to its size and the hostile nature of the terrain, rooting out the extremists here could prove even more difficult than it did in Afghanistan. Mali’s former president has acknowledged, diplomatic cables show, that the country cannot patrol a frontier twice the length of the border between the United States and Mexico.
Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, known as AQIM, operates not just in Mali, but in a corridor along much of the northern Sahel. This 4,300-mile-long ribbon of land runs across the widest part of Africa, and includes sections of Mauritania, Niger, Algeria, Libya, Burkina Faso and Chad.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55552967-68/mali-fighters-qaida-military.html.csp
What people fail to realize is that this is not about being against Islam, per se. It is against atrocities such as those you listed, the unimaginable suffering of the people subjected to it (example: which is worse, being flogged for immodest dress, or living in fear for the rest of your life that some other horrific torture will befall you if you make a misstep?) Thank you also for pointing out that Islam does have a history of destroying archaeological artifacts of countries they conquer so as to pretend nothing was there before they were (hatred of the Jews, Temple denial, etc.), and the land has always been theirs (see the shiny mosque?). I love new archaeological discoveries because it is the history of Man on earth & incredibly amazing to see where we've come from, & what we've accomplished & done (Lucy; the pyramids; Machu Picchu; Chaco, NM; Rome's remnants throughout Europe; etc.). When I heard the Taliban had destroyed the huge Buddhas in Afghanistan, I was heartbroken (as if I ever would have been able to go see them, but still . . . what a loss to Mankind). They were destroyed for being idols, rather than being preserved as a cultural statement and wonder of building & art.
Atrocities? I don't know any Musslims who thought 9/11 was anything but wanton destruction and murder. I apply the same standard to the terrorists in Afghanistan and the Drone strikes that have killed hundreds of civilians.
People who inflate the conflicts between groups and ignore the bridge-building are part of the problem. I like archeology, too. But saying things like 'Islam does have a history of destroying archaeological artifacts of countries they conquer so as to pretend nothing was there before they were' displays a thousand year gap in your repertoire. The Renaissance was actually a Translationaissance. Try reading Lost History by Michael Hamilton Morgan, published by National Geographic. http://www.losthistoryonline.com/book.html
1. Islamophobes are diseased.
2. Islamophobia is dangerous.
3. Islamophobia is irrational.
Moghul writes: "Islamophobes often argue they’re just criticizing Islam." and that's the last we hear of criticism of Islam. From that point on, every critic's every statement is driven by Islamophobia and thus unworthy of debate.
“What’s Islamophobia, and Do I Have It?
By Haroon Moghul
[…]
“You’d think recent events only further prove Islamophobia’s dangerousness. But on the night of Erica’s arrest, the usual cohort of anti-Muslim voices persisted in their denial of Islamophobia, considering it a “neologism” used by the left to silence their fair criticisms of Islam. Reality, as always, begs to disagree.
Islamophobia is anything but rational, fair, or grounded. Like climate change denial, it masks real threats and makes it harder for us to deal with them. America deserves a better conversation on Islam. One that has the room to acknowledge real threats and challenges, but also enables us to make smarter choices, and deal with Muslims as we are: Human beings."
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6729/what_s_islamophobia__and_do_i_have_it/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/12/salon-muslim-brotherhood-tied-writer-uses-murder-by-insane-woman-to-defame-counter-jihadists.html
Maybe the conversation about the propriety of criticizing Islam is finally getting some balance.
That's the necessary precursor to actual conversations about doctrinal reforms.
A phobia is an irrational fear which results from believing things that are not true, specifically in a globalized manner.
Examples which come to mind are:
Arachnophobes -- afraid of all spiders -- "All spiders are poisonous" being one possible mistaken basis for that fear.
Claustrophobes -- afraid of all enclosed spaces -- "I feel anxiety in enclosed spaces, therefore enclosed spaces can hurt me" being one possible mistaken basis for that fear.
Triskadekophobes (who, by the way, are in for one heck of a rough year .....) -- afraid of all instances of the number thirteen -- "Every thirteen is unlucky, and that could hurt me" being one possible mistaken basis for that fear.
&
Islamophobes -- Afraid of everything related to Islam -- "Islam is a totalitarian ideology and Muslims want to kill me" being one possible mistaken basis for that fear.
Contrary to the deflection of some people with resistance to the idea that blatant prejudice against Islam and Muslims does exist, Islamophobia is very real, and it is not true that "any criticism of Islam" is labeled Islamophobia.
For most of us, only criticism of Islam or Muslims based on information that is not true is labeled as Islamophobic -- because, as a projection of irrational fear, that's exactly what it is.
I've never seen anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, take issue with criticism of Islam or Muslims that is factual; Muslims often engage in that practice, themselves.
I've never seen anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, take issue with criticism of Islam or Muslims that is factual; Muslims often engage in that practice, themselves.
========
You award yourself the position of judge and jury--without earning either.
By simply saying that a criticism is untrue, you accuse the author of the criticism of base motives. You say it is not true and presto--it's Islamophobia.
That's not how debate works.
"Sharia versus Freedom exposes in incontrovertible detail the truth about Sharia, a draconian and authoritarian set of Muslim laws that was created following the death of Mohammed by his followers as Islam began to massively expand its domain throughout the world. The true nature of Sharia’s authoritarianism (which allows amputation of limbs, the stoning of women, and the execution of Muslims who convert to another religion) is explained and detailed (with abundant proof) like no other book before. This book is a ‘must-read’ for American policymakers, Congress, local and regional authorities from coast to coast, as well as for any member of the public who truly seeks the truth behind Sharia. It makes for fascinating reading for anyone interested in expanding their knowledge of the history and unfolding of the Islamic legal system. Once you pick up this book, you won’t put it down.”
–Steven Emerson, journalist, and author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US
http://www.andrewbostom.org/book3/
It's standard anti-Islamic practice to confuse, purposely, it would seem --- extremist interpretations of Sharia with all Sharia.
When those mainstream organizations actually start doing something about international Islamic terrorism, terrorism that follows the mandates in their scriptures, then the public may perceive them differently.
“Condemning” terror, while polls show that Muslims worldwide actually support and approve, is worth nothing!
This is not just about Muslims in the U. S. but about Muslims internationally and their support for Islamic supremacy worldwide by force or by stealth.
The biggest problem is the body count. Tens of thousands killed each year in the name of religion, most of whom are Muslims. There are also the issues of the oppression of women, nonMuslims and lesser Islamic sects.
People take note of this and do not want such carnage and failed, undemocratic, misanthropic, misogynistic societies in the free world!
The Prophet said: “Woman is ‘awrah, and if she goes out, the shaytaan raises his hopes (of misguiding her). She is never closer to Allaah than when she stays in her house.” Narrated by Ibn Hibbaan and Ibn Khuzaymah; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Shaheehah, no. 2688.
And he said concerning a woman’s prayer in the mosque: “Their houses are better for them.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (567) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.
And he said concerning a woman’s
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/106815
"I am a 20-year-old girl studying engineering. I work during the summer in a stationary store; in order to pay my college fees, am I sinful? I wear niqab, and sometimes feel that no religious man proposes to me for this reason."
"The work should be in a place that is only for women, and there should be no mixing with non-mahram men.
- Whilst at work she should observe complete shar’i hijab.
- Her work should not lead to her travelling without a mahram.
- Her going out to work should not involve committing any haraam action, such as being alone with the driver..."