Tuesday, 17 July 2012

Islamic Books - Reviews of Recent Bestsellers

?expert=Sohail_Khan

What You Must Know About Islamic Clothing

So you've seen Islamic clothing before-and you have a few problems with it. Maybe you've heard a few misconceptions about this or perhaps you just don't know that much about this type of clothing. But here are a few things that you must know.

First of all, contrary to popular belief, women are not forced to wear Islamic clothing that covers their whole body. This was a decision made by Muslim women back in the seventies and in many countries if the woman doesn't want to wear Muslim clothing, she doesn't have to. There are a few subcultures that are more restrictive on what a woman wears, but that is a different matter entirely.

Second, the reason that women wear these types of clothes in the Islam religion is because they consider the body to be a secret vessel that only a woman's husband or family should see. Kind of like when Americans run around in their pajamas-chances are that you aren't allowed to do so around guests or if you answer the door in your pajamas, you get in trouble. The same goes for some Muslim women.

Thirdly, Islamic clothing isn't nearly as uncomfortable as you might think. Sure it might get a little hot during the winter months, but there are certain pieces of clothing that are created intentionally to be lighter so that the woman can stay comfortable.

First of all, there is the hijab. This is a head covering. A woman's hair is considered to be very sacred to her and her husband/family. This is why it is covered. It was also why jewish women kept their hair covered in olden times. This is optional dependent on where you live. Some women may use their hijab along with other Islamic clothing or they will use it with more modern clothing. it's up to the woman and what she personally prefers.

Then there are the abayas, which are long black dresses/robes that can be worn over regular clothing. They may have a bit of embroidery to add to their decorativeness, but they usually only come in that color. However, the embroidery can come in a few different colors.

There are several other garments, but these are the two main ones for women. You also have the kufi for men which are a tiny little hat that is shaped like an upside-down bowl, without being rounded. Think of a miniature casserole pot.

You can buy your Islamic clothing from a variety of retailers-and you can even make your own if you are particularly talented in sewing, but one of the easiest ways in order for you to get your own Islam clothing is to order online. Ordering your clothing online is ten times easier than making it yourself. Not to mention that in most cases it doesn't cost all that much, making it way cheaper than what you would find if you went to a store or something of that nature. These are just a few facts about Islam clothing.

Islamic Clothing - We offer a variety of traditional Muslim Clothing for you and your whole family. Low prices everyday, without sacrificing quality.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ahmed_Al_Omari

What is Islamic Behavior? Generally, How Islamic People Behave

We're going to attempt what, until now, seems undoable for an infidel: write about Islamic behavior in a way that doesn't upset Muslims or anybody else. Is that a challenge or isn't it? Not really. All it takes, we think with persistent resistance to despair, is unwavering fairness, inarguable logic, and adherence to the truth as best as we can know and endorse it.

So here goes.

These days, we hear a great deal about what Islamic and un-Islamic behavior is. While it's an understandable topic of discussion, the truth is, Islamic behavior pretty much comes down to how Islamic people behave - just as any other group's behavior pretty much comes down to how the members of the group behave.

Let's look at two extreme examples.

First, an Islamic person says, "Kill all the infidels and, while you're at it, kill all the other Muslims who don't agree with me 100%!" Then he or she goes out and sets off a bomb that kills an indiscriminate group of infidels and Muslims who aren't behaving exactly according to his or her vision of Muslim behavior.Those tragically awful words and deeds become part of Islamic behavior.

On the other hand, if an Islamic person says, "Hi, there, friend. I often think about how much all human beings have in common and how all of us who believe in one God know we're each a precious living representative of the same God, so we wouldn't want to hurt or kill each other. We might even want to help each other along." Then, if he or she lives in mutually considerate harmony with all other human beings, infidel or not, his or her wonderfully commendable behavior becomes part of Islamic behavior.

There's just no escape for Muslims or anybody else from the inflexible bar of natural justice. At this point, we'll dare to mention one of the infidel Plato's least bandied about but most consequential statements: "We become what we do." The entirely inescapable principle of natural justice has never been stated more exactly. And knowing it exists is a real consolation to people who sometimes wonder if there is any justice in the world.

Like all justice, it grinds very fine. For instance, if you decide to be a terrorist and murder somebody, you become a terrorist who murdered somebody. If you decide to be a mutually caring person who makes a considerate place for others and even helps them when you think you should, you become a mutually caring and helpful person.

You can see evidence of how inescapable this principle is wherever you look. The 911 hijackers decided to become suicidal terrorists and they became dead terrorists. Osama Bin Laden decided to instigate deeds that would bring the wrath of the world down on him, and now he has the life of a man who has brought the wrath of the world down on him. Same goes for his second in mayhem and murder, Ayman al-Zawahiri, except he still gets to sneak in somewhere and make detestable amateur videos.

The principle of natural justice is also, for example, the reason Alexander the Great, who set out to be a world conqueror, met death in a remote desert as a would-be world conqueror. He would have been much better off to hang around his dad's palace in Macedonia and take the reins of power in his time. It's also why Hitler took what might have been a perfectly ordinary or enjoyable life and turned it into one where he ended up locked in a bunker with no choice but to shoot his girlfriend, Eva, and then to turn the gun on himself.

Now, since we inescapably define our behavior by how we behave, it becomes especially important for influential people in the Muslim world, as well as in the non-Muslim world, to decide how they want Islamic behavior to be defined - and to know that the only way to influence how it is defined is to influence how Muslims, one and all, behave.

For instance, do Muslims want Islamic behavior to be defined by fellow Muslims becoming furious and murderous over comments about Islam or cartoons about Mohammed, at the same time Muslims kills non-Muslims and Muslims alike while an enormously troublesome silence prevails? Do Muslims want Islamic behavior to be defined by strict observance of how Muslims wear their beards but tolerance for vitriolic words and murderous behavior? Should it be defined by encouraging Muslim women to cover themselves up like medieval nuns, instead of to display proudly their physical beings, which represent, inarguably to a believer, the handiwork of Allah himself?

We would like to explore one more and especially touchy issue, since the article would be incomplete without doing so. Should Muslim behavior be defined by rigid adherence to every word in the Koran? Or should it to be defined by the recognition that the Koran, as well as the Bible or any other lasting document, is not only made up of its timeless content but of material that relates more or entirely to the time and place in which it was inspired.

Then what is the holiest Islamic behavior toward the Koran? To take the timeless inspirations and encumber them forever with the more earthly material that is an inevitable artifact of the time in which the verses were composed? Or to take the timeless inspirations and liberate them from the more earthbound contents - and thereby make the inspirations forever timely?

We think the latter. It enables the timeless values to become, if you'll permit intensification of an absolute, more timeless. Then they can be as at home in the modern world as they were at the time of their creation, and its adherents can participate in the modern world as intelligently and comfortably as anybody else.

As a closing note about Islamic behavior, we also think it would be commendable if Muslims ceased referring to non-Muslims as infidels. We do, after all, have our own faiths, and fair reference does tend to encourage fair reference.

Have we offended anybody? We hope not. If by some chance we have, then please indulge us and go back and read what we said again.

We did our best to please everybody. And we can't apologize, because it's wrong to apologize for the truth, which invites us all to recognize it and know it is the surest foundation for our beliefs.

Tom Attea, humorist and creator of NewsLaugh.com, has had six shows produced Off-Broadway. Critics have called his writing "delightfully funny," "witty," with "good, genuine laughs" and "great humor and ebullience."

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Tom_Attea

Reflections on The Islamic Legitimacy of the Muslim Uprisings

As revolutions and uprisings sweep the Middle East from Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere most Muslims everywhere are energized by a wave of hopeful change in a region that has suffered far too long under the stultifying rule of "presidents for life." However, some Muslims are more hesitant and view the waves of protests as unsanctioned rebellions against legitimate rulers.

To begin to analyze the current situation in the Middle East and North Africa, each of the movements in the various affected countries would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. Conditions in each country are unique and therefore any blanket statement would likely not only be inaccurate, but also irresponsible. What follows are some considerations that would have to be part of any meaningful discussion of the Islamic legitimacy of the various movements that can potentially reshape the political map of the Middle East.

First of all, we have to bear in mind that classical treatises and writings dealing with Muslim political theory will not give us the entire answer to the question of the Islamic legitimacy of the ongoing uprisings in the Muslim world. This is so because those writings occurred in a sociopolitical environment that differs totally from the current one. Especially significant in this regard is the advent of the modern nation-state and its associated concepts of state sovereignty, legitimacy, allegiance, citizenship, the social contract and the national interest. Each of these concepts, in the modern setting, differs from its premodern conceptual counterpart, or was unknown in the premodern world. Hence, the writings of premodern Muslim scholars, no matter how brilliant, cannot give us full insight into the social, political and cultural issues that Muslims are currently dealing with.

Secondly, the nature of the neocolonial arrangements that prevail in many Muslim nation-states, where a "comprador bourgeoisie" "manages" the indigenous masses on behalf of a foreign power renders the entire question of the legitimacy of the state a controversial point. In other words, if the state is merely a front for foreign control, and the policies it pursues are oriented to serve the interests of a foreign elite, first and foremost, it is meaningless to discuss the allegiance people owe to the state without asking a deeper question. Namely, if in reality allegiance to the state is a sort of de facto allegiance to a foreign non-Muslim power, how can questions of allegiance to the state have any definitive meaning or relevance from an Islamic perspective?

A third issue of significance is the hegemonic nature of the modern state and its ability to exert control over the lives of its citizens in ways that were inconceivable at the time medieval Muslim political theorists were writing. Generally speaking, the modern state controls the economic life chances of its citizens, it defines the parameters of political participation, it controls the scope and nature of education, it can intrude almost at will into the private lives of its citizens, it can determine the conditions of mass incarceration (i.e. the Japanese Internment Act, or the current Drug War in the United States) and, if it chooses, it can tyrannize the citizenry with impunity, as by definition the state monopolizes the legitimate use of force in the society it presides over.

The upshot of the preceding passage is that the expanded reach of the modern Muslim state demands an expanded basis for defining allegiance and legitimacy. In earlier times, when the lack of information and security technology limited the scope of state power, it was natural to limit the scope of state legitimacy to questions revolving around primarily religious issues. However, the deepened reach of the state demands that examinations of legitimacy and allegiance begin considering questions such as economic security, political participation, and basic human dignity along with related matters. If these issues are motivating Muslims who are challenging the legitimacy and efficacy of their states, they have to be considered by the religious scholars and authorities who are assessing the appropriateness of those challenges.

Furthermore, by accepting the legitimacy of the sovereign state, we accept, implicitly, that all of the citizens share an inherent equality. That being the case, the state is not the property of an individual, or an oligarchy or any other elite. Rather, it is the property of the people. That being such, if the people rise up in response to the abuses of the state, that uprising by definition cannot be considered illegitimate. An example given by the noted political theorist Hannah Arendt can be mentioned here to clarify this idea. We cannot consider an angry mob occupying a bank to be similar to an angry group of students occupying a building on the campus of a public university. The first group is encroaching on private property, while the second "own" the university as much as the faculty and administration who may oppose their actions own it, by right of their enrollment.

Considering this understanding of legitimacy, as it relates to the modern state, those who dogmatically adhere to the traditional Muslim view of legitimacy are confronted with a conundrum when arguing against the right of Muslims to engage in even peaceful protest against oppressive regimes. Either they must reject the legitimacy of the modern nation-state for their Islamic critique of Muslim popular revolutions to be meaningful, or they must abandon their Islamic critique in favor of the critiques of legitimacy that have arisen with the advent of the modern state. It is theoretically difficult to have it both ways.

When we do consider existing Muslim writing on these issues there are caveats that normally escape discussion. Let us consider, by way of example, the issue of the legitimacy of revolt against an established "Muslim" ruler. There are those who claim that any rebellion against a Muslim ruler is unsanctioned. However, we do not find this opinion in the writings of the traditional scholars. This opinion is close to the conservative Sunni view. However, even the Sunni view is conditional, and rebellion is sanctioned in the case of the ruler openly rejecting Islam or sanctioning laws or practices that violate accepted Islamic laws or principles, and it is not feared that a greater tribulation will befall the believers should they rise up.

This Sunni position, which gives priority to stability over justice, evolved over time and is informed by well-known historical realities. However, it is not universally accepted among the Muslims. The Shi'ah and the Mu'tazila, both hold that a rebellion in the pursuit of justice is lawful and even encouraged in some instances. This is particularly the case when the injustices being challenged are clearly unsanctioned by the laws or principles of Islam. Hence, the scholarly consensus needed to declare as absolutely forbidden the current protests is lacking.

Similarly, a simplistic application of the verse, "If two parties of the believers fight each other make peace between them..." (49:9), to challenge the protests would be difficult in places like Egypt, because two parties amongst the believers were not fighting each other. The protesters were nonviolent in their actions and intent. Any violence was initiated by the supporters of the government, or the state security forces, while during the periods the protesters resorted to violence it was clearly in self-defense. As soon as the violence being used against them abated they returned to their nonviolent protests. Their peaceful protest was guaranteed by Article 54 of the Egyptian constitution, while Article 57 clearly condemned as unconstitutional the violence the pro-Mubarak goons were employing against them. Hence, to declare their movement as illegitimate would be difficult from either an Islamic or a constitutional basis.

This brings up a related point. In that the protesters were speaking out against the excesses of tyrannical, authoritarian powers, they are engaging in the best Jihad. The Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, mentioned, "The best Jihad is a just word in the face of a tyrannical ruler." In light of this Hadith, what Islamic argument can validly be made to deny the people their right to speak out against the tyranny of their rulers?

Others argue that these rebellions are sowing the seeds of instability in the region. It should be borne in mind that the seeds of instability are being sown by the governments themselves and the rapacious elites and foreign powers that benefit from their rule. The political repression of the people and their economic exploitation is the source of any instability, not the action of those protesting against those abuses. The protesters are themselves the fruit of the seeds being sown by the ruling elites. Hence, any efforts to identify the source of any instability must go to the source of that instability and not focus on its effects.

Finally, we can add, that as Muslims we should not see ourselves as being eternally trapped in a world where we are the helpless objects of the actions of others who have constructed institutions that are antithetical to our values and interests. The nation-state system in the Muslim world is less than one hundred years old. As an institution it has debatable legitimacy and authenticity according to Muslim political thought. The way its sociopolitical role in Muslim societies has evolved has been shaped by un-Islamic realities such as colonization and the Cold War, and by un-Islamic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and now the World Trade Organization. To declare this arrangement beyond question, criticism or challenge is not only unjust, it is a betrayal of Muslim history.

This issue is one that requires an analysis that goes far beyond what we have been able to articulate in the limited space available here. Hopefully, we will be able to engage in a fuller analysis elsewhere. In the meantime, we pray that God blesses the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere to fulfill their aspirations to enjoy a dignified existence in lands where the nobility and honor conferred upon them by God is celebrated and cherished.

Imam Zaid Shakir is a co-founder and faculty member of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, CA. As a gifted author and lecturer, he was ranked as one of the world's most influential Scholars by "The 500 Most Influential Muslims", edited by John Esposito and Ibrahim Kalin, (2009).

He has also authored numerous articles. His groundbreaking books are "Heirs of the Prophets" in 2002, "Scattered Pictures: Reflections of An American Muslim" in 2005, an award-winning text "Treatise for the Seekers of Guidance" in 2008, and Where I'm Coming From: The Year In Review, in 2010.

For more articles, please visit New Islamic Directions website or subscribe to the blog.

Website: http://www.newislamicdirections.com

Blog: http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/notes/ C2011, Imam Zaid Shakir

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Zaid_Shakir