I’ve heard a lot that Muslim countries, Muslim governments, are oppressive because they mandate (or; encourage, or want to mandate or encourage) that women wear the hijab. Or; that they wear concealing clothing. And I think that a lot of people believe that this is oppression. (i.e., a lot of people truly believe this).

But…hold on one sec. This claim needs to be analyzed. Because after thinking about it for a little while, I (personally) don’t think it’s that good of a point. ..

The reason why is b/c;

Even Western governments—Western governments which stand for freedom, and freedom of dress—will arrest a person if s/he is naked, in public. Even they* have a standard of modesty and decency.

So, to say that Muslim governments are oppressive because they want women who live in their countries to wear concealing clothing is kind of ridic.

In essence, American laws (for example) have a modesty/decency standard of 2.5 (for example. I actually think this figure is about right), and Muslim governments have a modesty/decency standard of 10 (out of 10). What is wrong with that? i.e., what is wrong with that statistic? #Muslim governments win in this case, actually.

Also; there are many people (e.g., modern-day feminists) who are desiring that women and men be allowed to expose their bodies—i.e., not wear clothing that covers what has traditionally been considered as private parts. (E.g., ‘free the breasts/nipples’ etc. that has been popular, these days). Perhaps one day soon such feminists (not all* feminists want this, I’m pretty sure—there are different subgroups of feminism) will also want the right to not cover their genitals, in public.

But. The law of the land (e.g., America, England, Australia) doesn’t allow that.

So…such people will just have to deal, with it. Or maybe go to a country that does allow that one exposes his/her breasts or genitals, if s/he so chooses. (I think a lot of the feminists’ reasoning on wanting to not wear clothes springs from ‘it’s my choice, after all.’)

So, like I was saying; such people just have to deal with the fact that in the U.S. and Canada, and Europe, etc., the laws don’t allow that. Just like how people living in Muslim lands just have to deal with the clothing laws in those countries.

So, in a nutshell…why the double-standard? Why do some people say that Muslim governments are oppressive because they mandate concealing clothing…and yet they don’t say that Western governments are oppressive because they mandate clothing?

Such people can’t have their cake, and eat it, too.

They have to say; both Western governments and Muslim governments are oppressive to women (and men), because they (both) have laws saying that their residents have to wear clothing, and cover their bodies.

*It is true that the Muslim governments’ laws concerning clothing are stricter/more conservative that Western governments’…but, so what? –if your modesty and decency level is a 2.5, and mine is a 9.5 (or a 10)…what is so wrong, with that? In fact, it sounds to me that the problem is with you (and not me).* Like, the problem is that you need to catch up with my modesty and decency, not that I need to downgrade to your lack of modesty and decency.

*(hypothetically, of course. Like, if you were the supporter of Western government, in terms of clothing laws, and I was a supporter of Muslim governments, in terms of clothing laws).

~

Final points/thoughts:

 

-All countries have different laws. If you don’t like a few particular laws of particular countries…well, I’m pretty sure they don’t like your laws, either. (Which is why they have different laws, to yours.)

I think a lot of people are ethnocentric, if that’s the right word, for it. They think and believe that America and other Western countries’ laws and rules are the best, in the world (in most aspects, too)…so, any country with laws completely different than Western countries’ laws must (almost by necessity) be wrong, crazy, or bad.

But, no. That is not true, at all. Or fair-minded.

 

And 2. (this (second) final point is not at all related to the aforementioned first one);

Men and women should wear concealing clothing, in Islamic law. i.e., there is no double-standard, in that respect.

-It is true that men are allowed to expose their arms (not really their legs…Islamically, men are supposed to cover their legs as much as women are. I’m pretty sure. (so, if you see a Muslim man exposing his legs, he’s not really supposed to do that). And; they are also allowed to expose their hair.

Anyways, it is true that in Islam, men are allowed the luxury to expose their arms and their hair, and women are not.

But, this has its roots in the Islamic belief that; men are the ones (the sex) that usually have the more troublesome sexual drive (like; more uncontrollable).

In Islam, everyone (men and women) have to ‘lower their gaze’ (a verse from the Noble Qur’an) if they see someone’s uncovered body.

But, men usually have more troublesome urges. I think even modern-day, secular, Western science acknowledges this (that the male sex is the one that has the more troublesome sex drive, above the females).

So, men and women are not the same, in terms of how their sexual urges manifest…which is why women are not allowed much flexibility in their hijab (which they wear around men), and men are (allowed some flexibility in their hijab, around women).

(*men have a hijab, by the way. (in Islam).

~

I wrap up this essay with (another) essay that I wrote about how clothing—concealing clothing—is a component of women’s liberation: https://themuslimvibe.com/muslim-lifestyle-matters/women/clothing-a-component-of-womens-liberation

~

And lastly; I’d like to mention that all of the points that I’ve talked about above are points that have of course been discussed and examined by others. As in; it’s nothing new (of course…I think that many ideas that one may have had been established and analyzed by others, long before him, or her..).

jAk / thank you for reading this! I really appreciate it,

may allah swt bless you and me,

-sr. Ethar 🙂

 

 

A Hereafter, Judgment, and Allah s.w.t. Must Exist

I was inspired to write this essay after watching the following video, featuring Dr. Zakir Naik (on Peace TV). And I drew my main points from his talk. (So, please consider the main ideas of this essay to be taken from this video…but just put in my own words.) May Allah s.w.t. bless our brother (Dr. Naik) for all he does for the deen, and bless his family, and give them Jannah. Ameen.

~
If we (as a society) don’t believe in a God and in a Hereafter, then we (by necessity) also believe that there will be no justice done to a robber, a murderer, or a rapist who goes unpunished, in this world. In other words, no God = no justice for the innumerable wrongs and evils done by people–great or “small.” This life would have absolutely no justice, and therefore, no meaning, without a Hereafter (without a God).
We know that many criminals of this world get caught, and get punished…but many do not. (We even know of cases in which criminals get caught, but don’t get punished…which is worse than the criminals going uncaught. (If no one knew about a crime, they can’t be held accountable for not punishing the person. But knowing about a crime and not punishing the criminal is much worse, of course. It is lack of justice, rather than ignorance.) E.g., I think there were a few cases recently of rapists who only got a bit of prison time for their crime…As in; that’s it. We also know of racists who lynched blacks in the pre-civil rights era of the United States, and who never got a punishment. And we know of Zionists who believe that they have superior blood to Palestinians, and partake in genocide of that people, accordingly (and who don’t get punished.) And we know of elements of the rich and super-rich exploiting the poor and middle class, again without punishment. And we know that heinous crimes on earth will probably continue on for a very long time (i.e., evil people will always exist.)
So…doesn’t there kind of have to be a penalty for evil people? Isn’t that, like, the most basic law of justice? Atheists and agnostics talk about how they don’t believe in God (or are doubtful or on the fence about it…), and they talk about how we all just have to be good people, and implement justice, on this earth. But those same people know that injustice will always plague the earth–that we can only try our best to create justice.
Why don’t atheists and agnostics apply the same law of justice that they do on this Earth (that criminals should get punished) to the criminals who die, without punishment? I mean, I know that they have kind of already denied the idea of a Hereafter, and of a Judgment Day, and of a just God (rather; any God, at all). But that doesn’t make any sense/there is a hole in their atheistic-agnostic reasoning; you can’t say that justice is of utmost importance, and strive for justice on earth, yet say that there will be zero justice for criminals who die without penalty here, on earth. You already started with the belief/claim that justice is vital to everything, on earth–that justice must be implemented. But what about the unpunished criminals–the criminals who will never receive justice, here on earth? (And that is a really large chunk of humanity, by the way. In fact, with research and analysis–or rather, a bit of rational thinking–one might well come to the conclusion that most criminals who have lived on this earth have not received any form of punishment.) It must logically follow (once one has established the belief that justice must be done (and justice is a unique quality, by the way. It is one of those qualities that must, must be there. Like gravity, or, quite similarly to the concept of justice, “every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” It is a law, pretty much…the law of justice. It’s just a weird law in that it hardly gets implemented, in our world. But it is, to me, one of those things that is essential to everything.) Anyways; it must logically follow that criminals—evil people (the Nazi party during WWII, for example)—will get unbearable punishments, in a concrete hereafter; “Therefore, give admonition in case the admonition profits (the hearer). The admonition will be received by those who fear (Allah). But the wretched one will avoid it – [He] who will [enter and] burn in the greatest Fire, in which he will then neither die, nor live.” (Qur’an. 87:9-13).
~
I don’t think that atheists and agnostics are that blind to this reality. I think that many of them are quite intelligent…they know that (logically) there must be some sort of justice done to everyone. And, no; this isn’t necessarily just a religious viewpoint. It is natural human reasoning and natural human emotion (i.e., aggrievedness and intense indignation) at the idea that the worst and vilest criminals on earth will go off scott-free, after they die.
~
You know what? I suspect that much of atheists’ and agnostics’ denial or dubiousness on the concept of God and a hereafter has much to do with their belief that it is too good to be true. And I almost agree with them, actually. Look at it, this way (a very accurate summary of the meaning of life/what life is about, according to many of the world’s religions): Live a sad/miserable life (at most 100 years, or so…most people’s fate), die, go to Heaven for all of eternity…and the people who made life miserable for you (in one form or another) will go to Hell, for all of eternity. The righteous people will get to have their cake, and eat it, too, eventually. And the evil ones will have to pay for their actions. The whole thing sounds like a fairy tale. One big fairy tale (in which there is much suffering in the beginning, but a happiness one cannot even begin to imagine, in the end). And you know what? It kind of is. We are all living in a fairy tale. (Except; none of it is not true.)
~
Here’s a real question, though (the “question” of “is there an afterlife? Is there a God?” is not even a very good question, to me. There obviously is. You just have to think a little bit to come to the answer. An actual question to me would be something like; why even set up a situation in which there would need to be justice? And; why set up a situation in which many, many people will suffer to an intolerable extent? Why? Why does there have to be good and evil (in the first place)? Why does there have to be a Heaven and a Hell? Why couldn’t God just create a species that are all good…whom the idea of injustice in foreign to?
Answer: First of all, in Islam, we do believe that Allah s.w.t. created evil–created people who would become evil, and created Satan, who became evil. (Satan at one point was very good and pious–but he turned evil. In Christianity, this phenomenon is referred to as “the fallen angel.” In Islam, we believe this was because of his feeling of superiority over Adam…his racism, if you will–his feeling of supremacy because of his origins, compared to Adam (I’m not quite sure of the story, in Christianity):
“It is We Who created you (mankind) and gave you shape; then We bade the angels prostrate to Adam, and they prostrated; not so Iblis (Satan); He refused to be of those who prostrate.
(Allah) said: “What prevented thee from prostrating when I commanded thee?” He said: “I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay.”
[ Allah ] said, “Descend from Paradise, for it is not for you to be arrogant therein. So get out; indeed, you are of the debased.
He said: “Give me respite till the day they are raised up.”
(Allah) said: “Be thou among those who have respite.”
He said: “Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way:
Then I will come to them from before them and from behind them and on their right and on their left, and You will not find most of them grateful [to You].”
(Allah) said: “Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee,- Hell will I fill with you all.
(Qur’an. 7:1-18. https://quran.com ).
~
Although Allah s.w.t. allowed evil to happen on earth, it does not mean that He is pleased with any of the evil that human beings do.
Here is a (really amazing) video that goes into some detail about this: (I think this video explains it better than I can*);

We as Muslims also believe that Allah s.w.t. did previously create a creation that are all good, and perfect–who never oppress, who never harm anyone or anything, who worship Him with great reverence. These are called the angels (al-mala’ika, in Arabic). (*I think this {creation} can be taken as a hint that Allah s.w.t. knows what He’s doing–that there is great wisdom to His workings. (By the way; one might wonder, reading the verses above, how Satan could even disobey God, seeing as he was an angel…Angels never commit any wrong, or sin. The answer is; we in Islam believe that Satan was not an angel–but a jinni. A creation with free will, just like human beings.)
~
May Allah s.w.t. let us be in constant remembrance of His supreme Justice that will soon be apportioned upon the oppressors and the criminals. (And may He grant us patience in awaiting His Heaven—His Jannah.) Ameen.
~
Anything that I have written/said in this essay that is correct is only by the grace of Allah s.w.t. (that I got it right), and any mistakes that I have made are from my own shortcomings. I ask Allah s.w.t. to increase me in knowledge. (ameen.)

If I was a Christian, I don’t think I would like it/it would sit well, with me that my Lord and Savior is white. If my God has to be a human (which, in Islam, is completely blasphemous—to say that God is a man is not only a fallacy (the definition of God is “a being that is supernatural…not of this world, and far, far above His creation), but it is highly offensive, in Islam. It’s like trying to mix dirty and contaminated oil with pure and fresh water (us faulty and flawed and messed-up-in-many-regards human beings with God–the “pure water.”). But if my God has to (for some strange reason) be a human, I would much rather prefer Him to be “no race”—not belonging to any race.

Because; how can God have a race? I know that people/most practicing Christians already believe that God is a human (the second aspect of the holy Trinity), and that, therefor, he must logically have a race (since most humans belong to certain race(s), I take it….

But; the original idea was wrong. God cannot be a human.

And if he was;

Is it really fair to women that He was a man?

And; is it really fair to blacks (and Asians, and Arabs, and Latinos, and everyone else) that he is white?

I know it probably sounds really crazy to picture God (or; an aspect of God, in the case of Christians/the Trinity) as being black, or brown, or a lady….but that’s only because everyone is conditioned to believe that God is/was a white man. >.<

(By the way; Blacks and Latinos and other races have sensed this dissonance, I think…and that’s why they created images (e.g., paintings, etc.) of God/Jesus as black, as Latino, and etc:

(https://www.pinterest.com/pin/296252481708866658/ )

And; they have the most valid point, in the world; Why not? Why can’t God be black? Why not Latino? (The fact/answer that; “because he was white” doesn’t sit well with many people. Why did He choose to be white? Why couldn’t He choose to be a human, but race-less? The fact that He “just chose” white is kinda slighting to non-whites.)

~

In islam, things are completely different.

In islam, we don’t believe Allah, s.w.t. (God) is masculine, at all. He is not a man. Nor is he a woman. He is genderless. (Completely! Feminists—male and female—you can breathe easy).

I heard that the pronoun “he” in Arabic (huwa, in Arabic) does not denote masculinity, every time. It can mean “genderless.”

So, basically (as I understand it); it would be rude to refer to Allah s.w.t. as “It.”

And; the only one left is “She.” I think* (this is just my theory) that since Allah s.w.t. created Adam first (and then Eve…Hawaa, in Arabic), His preferred pronoun follows his sequence of creation. He could have created Eve, first…but then again, He (Allah, s.w.t.) wanted Adam to be the leader of the couple (not superior, in any way….but just having more responsibility than Eve does.)

So, Allah s.w.t. wanted his preferred pronoun to be similar to His first (human) creation. And since we use “he” to refer to Adam (his being a man), we use “He” to refer Allah s.w.t. (but this “he” is genderless, of course….since Allah s.w.t. does not have a gender. He is not a human. He is far above having any “male” body parts, thoughts, or emotions….or having any “female” organs, thoughts, or emotions.

How high (and removed) is Allah above what they ascribe to Him! (verse from the noble Qur’an.) (this, by the way, is the first time I deeply appreciate this verse. I’ve heard it forever (“subhan Allah,” in Arabic), but I never really realized how deep and powerful and crucial it is to understanding who Allah swt is. 😮

“How High is Allah above what they (the humans) ascribe to Him” is so…great, in a way. 😮

One of the 99 names of Allah; “al-fardd” (meaning; the Unique One.) “unique” meaning not like anything He has created.

“there is none like unto Him” (last verse of the 112th chapter of the noble Qur’an).

prostrating flower
An Islamic belief is that everyone and everything on this earth is a Muslim (the sun, the moon, vegetation, animals, etc.), because Muslim means “one who submits herself (or; itself, in the case of non-sentient or non-living creation) to the will of Allah.” (I think the more accurate definition is actually; one who peacefully submits itself to the will of Allah.*) E.g.; the planet we all live in is in a state of submission, carrying out the will of its Creator. It is in harmony with what Allah decreed for it. (E.g., it cannot stop turning on its axis, or rotating around the sun. If it did so, I think even modern science recognizes that life would be in danger.) I drew this flower as prostrating to Allah, s.w.t. (glorified and exalted). The story behind it is; The owner of it placed it in a vase, but the flower wanted to prostrate to Allah. So it burrowed its way out, and prostrated. (It couldn’t reach the ground, from its place in the cup). 😊 ~ Alhamdulillahi (all praise be to Allah) that we have a religion that is so in tune with every living thing, and every non-living thing. Allahu Akbar (God is the Greatest). #Islam.

jazak/i Allahu kheir for viewing!

To see more of my visual artwork, please visit;

https://findingaperfectplace.wordpress.com/visual-art/

 

The late Brother Malcolm X, may Allah s.w.t. have mercy on him

“And I pray that all of the fear that has ever been in your heart will be taken out. And when you look at that man, and you know that he’s nothing but a coward, you won’t fear him. If he wasn’t a coward, he wouldn’t gang up on you…

This is how they function—they function in mobs. That’s a coward. They put on a sheet, so you won’t know who they are. That’s a coward. The time will come when that sheet will be ripped off. If the federal government doesn’t take it off, we’ll take it off.”

-Malcolm X

Words that should be written in gold ink. ❤ ❤

I love this hero…Simply revere him. May Allah (glorified and exalted be He) place him in the highest of Heavenly ranks (al-firdaws). Ameen.

 

To speak out against the Ku Klux Klan, and to speak out against the U.S. government, which was a segregationist government…and a cruel one, for not caring/doing much for its black citizens while they were tormented by those around them–to speak out so plainly and directly, takes an  astounding amount of courage. Again; May the Most Merciful give our brother the highest station in Jannah. Ameen.

~ courage is not the absence of fear–it is action in the face of fear.

~

I hope people who don’t know much about Malcolm X take the time to learn about him—learn about his life and values, and such.

I think that many people (like; historians, or people who like to read about events, in history (though Malcolm X isn’t “ancient history,” of course. It was 1950s/60s…) are laser-focused on his life before embracing orthodox Islam…e.g., before his pilgrimage to Mecca (the Hajj pilgrimage).

And unfortunately, that (earlier) part of his life is all that some people know about him. But if one researches the late civil rights leader (by, for example, reading his autobiography (The Autobiography of Malcolm X—an amazing book…I actually read it, being the weird kid I was, at like 11 years old), they will come to realize that after learning about true Islam (and embracing it), Malcolm x’s hard feelings (if you will) towards whites evaporated.

For example; after Malcolm X went on his pilgrimage to Makkah (and after he saw “the whitest/palest people, with the bluest of eyes, walking, praying, eating, hugging, worshipping, etc. with the darkest-skinned people…and vice versa”), his views regarding race and the importance of race completely changed. I.e., he learned that race is not a factor, in anything. It is like hair color. (or; nose shape, or something.) It is not a big deal at all, like some people make it out to be.

It’s kind of funny that he had to travel half-way around the world to realize this truth (he couldn’t find this truth in America. He had to learn it in Mecca.)

America, back then (and right now, even) was so messed up. It was a terrible place to live in. I know that there is hardly any country or region in the world in which race/ethnic relations (like; between people of neighboring countries, different ethnic/racial groups within the same country, or another situation) were/are not tense, harsh…even extremely heated and violent. But America has one of the bloodiest histories of racial relations, in the world. People’s houses were burned down, people were physically abused, and people were murdered, because of the racist ideas of some.

~

May Allah s.w.t. have mercy on the souls who lost their lives in the struggle for civil rights (like brother Malcolm)…

~

May Allah s.w.t. also have mercy on bro. Muhammad Ali, who passed away a few days ago. 😢 May Allah grant him the highest of Paradise. Ameen.

~

One note before the start of the essay (below):

I really like this article: article

I think it is quite accurate on the Islamic beliefs on same-sex relationships and marriage. I kinda wish I had found this article before I had written my essay, below; I could have included some of its paragraphs and ideas into my essay. But then again, having read this article, I realized that its main points are in sync with what i have already covered in my own essay. (so, there was no need for me to re-work my essay on a major level.) (I had written my essay in April, 2016, and i found this particular article in January, 2017).

But, I think I should give some parts of the article that i think are especially good. So, here they are;

“Under this public policy guise, homosexuality — as well as extra and pre-marital sex — are all outlawed ostensibly because they threaten the narrowly defined institution of family. Indeed, even the sexual space within marriage is further restricted through prohibitions against bestiality, anal intercourse (liwaat), masturbation, necrophilia and other such conduct considered unnatural.

The prohibition of the homosexual act is traced back to the biblical teachings against sodomy.”

“Like the punishment for adultery and fornication, there is strong basis to argue, as many scholars have done, that the punishments are really for public indecency within the context of Muslim society. In fact, this is reinforced by the fact that even in the classical Muslim era, evidence of homosexuals in Muslim lands abounded but with minimal instances of prosecution. This may have been partly due to the combined effect of Islamic law’s strict evidentiary requirements and the prioritization and pre-eminence of privacy rights.”

-another point of the article that I think should be mentioned: “Islamic law did not seek to regulate feelings, emotions and urges, but only its translation into action that authorities had declared unlawful. Indeed, many scholars — including prominent 11th century jurist Abu Muhammad Ali Ibn Hazm — even argued that homosexual tendencies themselves were not haram but had to be suppressed for the public good.”

“Though not what the LGBTQ community wants to hear, it reveals that even classical Islamic jurists struggled with this issue and had a more sophisticated attitude than many contemporary Muslims. Moreover, such fiqh works offer Muslims some lessons on how to live with differences.

A case in point is a ruling by Shaikh Ibn al Qayim al Jawziya, a prominent Hanbali jurist of the 14th century, who was asked whether the Muslim state should ban the Zoroastrian institution of self-marriage whereby men were encouraged to marry their mothers and sisters. While affirming that this was unlawful and morally repugnant under Islamic law, Ibn al Qayim (a student of the puritanical Ibn Taymiyaa) ruled that the state could not ban this practice and that in fact the institution ought to be recognized under two conditions:

1) the matter is not brought to a Muslim court; and

2) the Zoroastrian community recognized self-marriage as a valid tradition.

Given the dynamism and sophistication inherent even in classical Islamic jurisprudence, it can be argued that there is plenty of room to accommodate differences within, particularly in a secular liberal democratic context. To make it workable though, both sides of this debate need to understand the other.”

“The question is not about legalizing sex outside of traditional marriage. That ship sailed long ago. It left the port with the sexual revolution, and sailed off with the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas; which effectively legalized consensual sex among adults. Moreover, considering that most Muslims have no problem extending full human rights to those – even Muslims – who live together “in sin” (both homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is referred to as indecent – fahisha in Islamic law), it seems hypocritical to deny fundamental rights to same-sex couples. Moreover, as Mohamed Fadel points out, this is not about changing Islamic marriage (nikah), but about making “sure that all citizens have access to the same kinds of public benefits.”

Similarly, same-sex advocates must accept that others cannot be forced to approve of what they sincerely believe is wrong. They can demand full constitutional entitlements, but not the right to dictate or interfere in the religious dogma of others. The essence of religious freedom is that individuals and communities must have freedom to determine their core doctrinal beliefs and they must be tolerated in the public sphere. As Ronald Dworkin says:

“We can’t ask people to set aside their most profound convictions about the truth of deep moral and ethical issues when we are also asking them to make…the most basic and fundamental moral and ethical decisions…”

Faisal Kutty is an assistant professor of law at Valparaiso University Law School and an adjunct professor of law Osgoode Hall Law of York University in Toronto. Follow him at Twitter@FaisalKutty.

~

my (own) essay (I wrote this back in April, 2016):

Some say that Islam is discriminatory (or at least backward) in that it doesn’t allow same-sex relationships. (I.e., two people in a relationship who are of the same sex are committing a sin, in the eyes of Allah, s.w.t. (subhanahu wa ta’ala–meaning glorified and exalted be He.) But such people (like; the people who say that Islam is discriminatory because it says this) must remember that it is not only Islam which says this. This stance is also part of Christianity. But I don’t hear Christianity being criticized as much as Islam because of its prohibition of same-sex relationships. This is probably because many might think Christianity is neutral on (or approves of) the idea of same-sex relationships. But the fact is; most (or; at least “many”) Christian churches (even “today.” I say “today” with quotation marks because the time-frame of a people shouldn’t be a factor in asserting what is ok, or moral, in that religion) do not condone same-sex relationships.

According to this Wikipedia article; “Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that prohibit “lying with mankind as with womankind” and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have traditionally been interpreted by Christian churches as condemning and prohibiting homosexual acts, along with several Pauline passages. Today, there is more debate than in previous centuries as to whether such passages should still be interpreted in that light. Most Christian churches continue to maintain the long-standing understanding of these passages, while other interpreters maintain that they either have been misunderstood and do not condemn homosexuality, or that the historical context needs to be taken into account.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality (very first paragraph).

~

Side note: ↓

I think ‘the deeper debate than in previous centuries’ (‘as to whether such passages should still be interpreted in that light’) might have been influenced to a significant extent by the LGBT+ rights movements. So, though debate on the interpretation of the Biblical passages is based on scholarly research and analysis (and so forth), I think a pressure to incorporate legality of same-sex relationships into Christianity influenced the debate. (i.e..; proponents of the legality of same-sex relationships in Christianity were influenced by the equal rights movement campaigned by the LGBTQ+ communities.) In other words, I heard that the LGBT+ rights movements shook (or; changed the perspective of) Christian churches to a significant extent, concerning their previously-held views on same-sex relationships.

But; what is moral or right in a religion is (or should be) fixed firm. What other people think, or the pressure that may come from others concerning those principles, by definition should not (or; cannot) change those principles. (Because a principle is a position that is timeless—not subject to change under any circumstance. E.g.: God is One.)

~

But at the same time; one can sympathize with the Christian churches that eventually changed their perspective on same-sex relationships. Because, on the surface, it really seems that the issue of prohibiting/allowing same-sex relationships is one of fairness and equality. (In which; if you don’t support the idea of same-sex relationships, you don’t support freedom and equality. And if you do, then you do support freedom and equality.)

But, upon research, one will find that the Christian (and Islamic, and Jewish) position on same-sex relationships does not go against fairness and equality. The Judeo/Christian and Islamic position is that same-sex sexual relations carry harm. And that children have the best chance of doing well in life with a mother and a father…that a same-sex relationship that includes raising children will always–by definition, not by a “maybe”–deprive the child of either a mom or a dad. Which is something that goes against what Allah s.w.t. wanted for His creation’s family units.)

(And this particular Will of Allah s.w.t. actually makes a lot of sense to me–me, a person who has next to no knowledge of family science or human development. I can still make sense of this law, though–this law of a committed marriage between a man and a woman being the only way to have or raise children.

This law makes sense to me because of quite a simple (and perhaps even cliche) reason…(a lot of cliches are so, so very true, though. Like “the grass is always greener on the other side”; there will always be situations where we want what we don’t have. So, I don’t dismiss this reason simply because it is an old one, that has been around forever):

the reason why this particular law in terms of marriage and family makes sense to me is because of the fact (it’s a fact to me, anyway) that “no one can replace a mother,” and, conversely, “no one can replace a father”. Even a same-sex couple who are the best  parents possible will not be the optimal environment for a kid. S/he will always be excluded from having either a mom or a dad.

A third reason why same-sex marriage is prohibited in Islam is that Allah s.w.t. wanted a couple to be composed of a man and woman–that a man and woman complement one another best (in terms of spiritual and emotional bond…as well as physical).

~

All in all, a desire to protect people (and therefore, prohibiting that which is harmful, or not best for them—in this case, same-sex relationships) is not discrimination against people.

For example; smoking and drinking (and all drugs) are strictly prohibited, in Islam. It’s silly to say that Islam therefore discriminates against people who want to smoke (or drink, or do drugs). Discrimination, or fairness/equality has nothing to do with it. The issue is one of protecting human beings from what is harmful, and showing them the beneficial way (in that particular situation).

~

Another note: All premarital and extramarital relationships are absolutely forbidden by Islam, whether done by two people of the opposite sex, or two people of the same sex. So, the only way (in Islam) for two people to be in a romantic/sexual relationship is by getting married. So, in terms of homosexuality, what Islam forbids (by definition) is marriage between two people of the same sex. (Since premarital relations are out, anyway).

This may seem surprising to a person who isn’t familiar with Islamic law, considering that many Muslims don’t seem to be following said laws (e.g., that one shouldn’t have premarital relationships (“date,” as it is put). But, what some Muslims do—their actions—shouldn’t be the spokespersons for the religion of Islam. Islam is what Allah s.w.t. (the Most Wise, the all-Compassionate, the Creator, etc.) said and explained.

~

In the above paragraphs, i mentioned that the prohibition of same-sex relationships is part of islam and Christianity. But it is part of Judaism, as well: 

“While a variety of views regarding homosexuality as an inclination or status exist within the Orthodox Jewish community, Orthodox Judaism generally prohibits homosexual conduct. While there is some disagreement about which male homosexual acts come under core prohibitions, all of Orthodox Judaism puts male-male anal sex in the category of yehareg ve’al ya’avor, “die rather than transgress”, the small category of Biblically-prohibited acts (also including murder, idolatry, adultery, and incest) which an Orthodox Jew is obligated under the laws of Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law to die rather than do.”(first paragraph under heading “Orthodox Jewish views” of below link)

“The issue has been a subject of contention within modern Jewish denominations and has led to debate and division. Traditionally, Judaism has understood homosexual male intercourse as contrary to Judaism, and this opinion is still maintained by Orthodox Judaism. On the other hand, Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism do not hold this view and allow homosexual intercourse and same-sex marriage. Conservative Judaism‘s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which until December 2006 held the same position as Orthodoxy, recently issued multiple opinions under its philosophy of pluralism, with one opinion continuing to follow the Orthodox position and another opinion substantially liberalizing its view of homosexual sex and relationships while continuing to regard certain sexual acts as prohibited.” (second paragraph of below link)

– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Judaism

~

The prohibition of same-sex relationships/marriage is a view in all three monotheistic faiths. Though there are people of each of those faiths who hold that same-sex relationships are allowable in their religions, or that it’s time for the rules of those religions to be changed to incorporate same-sex relationships (or another approach) as is mentioned, above, everyone must acknowledge that many followers of the three monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) hold that same-sex relationships are not allowed, in their religions.

And this lends great weight to that particular Abrahamic-faith stance (on same-sex relationships), I think. The (mere) fact that the prohibition of same-same relationships is a legitimate view (based on scripture) in each of those Abrahamic faiths would let others know that there is great religious stance (and hopefully, wisdom) on the topic.

Side note: ↓

And this unity between Jews, Christians, and Muslims is a good thing/blessing, in terms of interacting with others. I.e., imagine if it was only one of those religions that said that same-sex relationships are prohibited. The “modern world” would have been cruel to them, calling them discriminatory/bigots/what have you. I mean, that has already happened, in reality. To each of those religions, and to all three religions, as a whole. But if it was only one religion that said that, then the modern world would have really went to work on it (I think).

But, there’s no need for cruelty towards people of religious persuasion. Saying this (the following) is probably unpopular…but oh well; some gay rights advocates are pretty cruel to religious people. They call them discriminatory, hateful, backward, and bigoted for not agreeing with same-sex marriage or relationships. Instead of trying to understand the religious positions on same-sex relationships (for example), they are quick to leave courtesy and human decency behind. (*And of course, that goes both ways. Religious communities (or anyone else) should not be cruel to sexual minorities, or people in the LGBTQ community. Both groups of people should remember that having differences of opinion when it comes to how humans should practice sexual/romantic relationships is ok. No one should be cruel to anyone else, concerning that difference. “Agree to disagree” might be a good method, in the end, here, I think.

~

And, having sexual/romantic attraction to someone of the same gender, or being gay, isn’t sinful. (In itself). I mean; the person didn’t do much. S/he’s just feeling what s/he’s feeling. But it is same-sex relationships (marriage, in Islam) that is not allowed, in the three Abrahamic faiths. Or, at least, that is how it is, in Islam (as I understand it. Allah s.w.t. only holds a person to account based on her actions, once she understands the ruling that Allah swt laid out–not based on what she thinks or feels, or based on actions that were carried out in ignorance/without knowing the prohibition behind it. (and other situations.)

Everyone understands—nobody denies—that being attracted to people of the same sex and it being sinful to have relationships with people of the same sex is a very difficult situation to be in. But, it is not impossible. (Just like how having, let’s say; paranoid schizophrenia and clinical depression (and let’s just toss in OCD. I myself have bad psychotic depression and OCD and anxiety (as per my current diagnoses), so I can speak a little on this) and yet never being allowed to commit suicide (like; suicide being a major, major sin. God is very displeased with such an act. It will not make it easier for you to get to Heaven.) will be a very hard test. But it is not impossible.

If God gave you an impossible test, and you failed…that’s on God. But alhamdulillah, “God only tests a soul in accordance to what that soul can bear.” (verse from the noble Qu’ran).

Question. Question. Question:

Why do we have so many difficulties, in life? Why is it so hard?

The answer is actually given in the noble Qur’an: It is I (Allah, s.w.t.) who created death and life to test you, (to see) which of you is best in deed.” – “Verily, I have created mankind into toil and struggle…”

So, everyone has their own unique test. (And no one is immune from being tested.) Everyone will suffer a lot, throughout her life. Everyone will think that her life is not fair (at least at some point).

But you know; very shortly, we will leave this world. Science will never come up with the elixir for eternal life. (It is God’s promise. We will very soon die, and we will leave this painful and difficult world, and we will go to Heaven. Jannah. We will not have any problems, difficulties, or stressors in Jannah.

I won’t have to be mentally ill in Jannah. I won’t have to deal with anything that I’m dealing with, right now. Alhamdulillahi. And that is very soon. What more could I ask for? 😢😢 Allah s.w.t. is good to me.

~

The article https://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality is very logical, to me, and firm (as in; the author doesn’t back down or waver in his Christian beliefs regarding what his religion says about same-sex relationships. (And to defend your religious standpoints regarding same-sex relationships (whether that standpoint is Jewish, Christian, or Islamic, or any other religion…as I think there are other religions that say homosexual relationships are not allowed) is getting increasingly unpopular. People call you a hate preacher, a bigot, and all the rest. But; we (I, at least. I can’t speak for everyone, I know) won’t change my beliefs. I believe in the Qur’an, I believe in my beloved Messenger (s.a.w.). I believe in them. Alhamdulillah. I ask Allah s.w.t. in this blessed month of Sh’aban (the month preceding the holy month of Ramadan) to guide me to a T on the religion. I admit, I am not a good Muslim. I mess up so many times. But alhamduillah, I think that at least my heart is open to receiving the truth.

https://bible.org/article/homosexuality-biblical-christian-view#IV *This article is also very good—it is another article that talks about how (and why) homosexual relationships are not allowed, in Christianity. It is written in a very loving and kind way…which is always the right approach in discussing sensitive (and/or controversial) topics (like this one).

~

Update on May 9, 2016:

Also* (very important point):

In regards to same-sex marriage/relationships, and its view in Christianity;

It is my understanding that there is the belief out there (or perhaps very close to my vicinity, indeed) that Christ never explicitly said that same-sex relationships are not allowed. And that, therefor, the religion that he is for (which is indeed a religion of love, of brotherhood, of belief in God…I personally am not going to say that that is called “Christianity.” I mean, what is commonly understood to be Christianity, today—to believe that Jesus is God incarnate…divine…co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father—is not compatible with what Jesus actually taught. It is not, to many people. (Like to Muslims, since that is stated in the Qur’an–

“And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.

If You should punish them – indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them – indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

Allah will say, “This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from their truthfulness.” For them are gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever, Allah being pleased with them, and they with Him. That is the great attainment.

To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is within them. And He is over all things competent.”

 *That was from verses 116 – 120 of chapter 5 of the noble Qur’an. (Qur’an, 5:116-120). Sahih International Translation.

And also, there are scholars of the Bible (very high-up scholars, by the way. Insha Allah I will research a few names and provide them in an updated post) who also hold that Christ didn’t (himself) teach that he is God incarnate, divine, or co-equal with God the father. I think the idea of Christ being divine can only be found from other peoples (like Saint Paul). But the problem is; I want to know what Jesus said, not what people after him (or even; around him) think he meant. How can someone else know his teachings better than himself? I like fairness in learning from Jesus, and from Muhammad, and from everyone else, please (and thank you*, of course:)

But anyways (back to the topic); there is the belief that since Christ never explicitly said that same-sex relationships are not allowed, that that means it is permissible, according to him.

According to this Wikipedia article/page (titled “Homophobia,” which I actually comment on (like, on the topic of homophobia/religious homophobia, later in this blog post), there are people who think that “the Bible has no condemnation for “loving, committed, gay and lesbian relationships” and that Jesus was silent on the subject.” People like Ms. Candace Chellew-Hodge, who stated that belief in Religious Dispatches magazine. (The above quote, that is—and according to this Wikipedia article, that is.). But, to my logic, Christ (peace be upon him) was not in support of same-sex relationships. (The above article that I refer to can be found at: [(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Christianity_and_the_Bible ).

To deal with the belief that Christ was silent on the subject of homosexuality/same-sex relationships, and that that silence indicates approval:

  1. Though it is true that it is not recorded in the Bible that Christ said same-sex relationships are not permissible (I think…I’m actually just going along with the above Wikipedia page, and with what I have heard, in my life—that Christ never mentioned anything about homosexuality. But I (also) would not be surprised if there were scholars of the Bible (Old and New Testament) who have determined that Christ was not in approval of homosexual relationships. Like; i read that in the New Testament, Jesus defined marriage as a man and woman entering into a covonent (or something to that effect.) So like, He defined it as that….)

Anyways, though:

-Though it is true (according to many) that Christ never said anything about homosexuality, it is also true that it is recorded in the Bible that Christ said; “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mathew, 5:17-19. King James Bible).

What “laws of the prophets?” What “jots and tittles?” The laws given to Moses. “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.” (Mathew, 5:17. New Living Translation.)

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

(*There is the complication that Paul said that the law is nailed to the cross…but even Christians themselves say that Paul was a “self-appointed apostle.” And the reality is; his ideas are opposite, in many cases, to what Christ actually said. (I don’t know much about Paul the apostle (I wonder why no one ever says “Paul, the self-appointed apostle,” by the way? Maybe because they don’t want anyone to think that his views are not weighty), but Christ (who never met Paul) is my guide. He is my prophet (along with Muhammad, and Moses, and Abraham, and Jacob, and Solomon, and everyone else—may Allah’s peace be upon them, all). “I want to know what Christ said,” (as our dear sheikh Ahmed deedat stressed)…not what Paul said. And by the way, if Paul’s words were the same as what Christ said, I would go along with it. But it is not, unfortunately. I think the red-letter Bibles make this point clear. (In which Christ’s actual words are marked in red. To my understanding, the red-letter Bibles don’t have Christ saying that he is God, or that he is equal with God).

Basically, Jesus said (like, in the above verses, for example) that we must fulfill the laws and the commandments given to Moses. And that (by default) includes the laws and commandments regarding homosexuality and same-sex relationships.

  1. There are a lot of things that Christ didn’t say/share with His people (and according to Him, in fact. I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.(John, 16:12). http://biblehub.com/john/16-12.htm

So, the fact that He didn’t say anything about it doesn’t necessarily mean that He is neutral on it, or that He approves.

Rather, Christ did say to follow the laws given to His brother, Moses. (And the revelation given to Moses includes the divine commandment concerning homosexuality.) And, Christ did say that He did not tell his people (the Jews) everything there is to know about the religion.. That he “had much to tell his followers, but they couldn’t bear to hear them.. that the spirit of truth would come later and address those issues.” (*By the way, we Muslims believe that Christ was talking about the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.  ↓

https://jannahandme.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/muhammad-pbuh-is-the-spirit-of-truth-mentioned-in-the-bible/ ).

***

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights :

What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

No specific sermon or story that Jesus may have given about specific homosexual behavior is found in Scripture. But an argument from silence would be incorrect. The Bible does not record that Jesus ever mentioned rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or other blatant sins by name either. But just because Jesus does not mention them, does not imply that we should commit these offenses against God and each other. Jesus is very clear on the proper marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:7). There can be no mistaking what Jesus taught in this regard. In this passage, Jesus is reiterating what Moses taught (Genesis 2:24) about marriage and family. Anything contrary to this—any sexual relationship outside of a committed marriage relationship between one man and one woman—demeans the institution of marriage and is unbiblical.

Further, Jesus specifically said that he did not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17). Jewish law was quite clear on homosexual behavior. To suggest that Jesus would have condoned homosexual behavior is twisting Scripture for political correctness.

The God of the Bible is not merely a God of love and forgiveness. God has characteristics of love AND justice (among others). Jesus, for example, warns about hell more than any other biblical figure! We must not underestimate the holiness of God, who demands right conduct—in fact, perfection (Matthew 5:48). For examples of the wrath and judgment of God, read: Genesis 2:17; 2 Kings 17:18; Psalm 74:1, 79:5, 90:11; Proverbs 10:16; Micah 7:9; Zephaniah 3:8; Matthew 5:29, 7:13, 23:25-28, 25:46; Romans 1:32, 2:8, 6:23; Acts 3:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 6:7-8; Philippians 3:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; James 1:15; and Revelation 20:12-15.

There are those who suggest that God is merely a God of love and accepts people just as they are. Certainly that is incorrect. God does not accept us as we are. He demands repentance. We must not create a God to suit ourself. This is idolatry which is a violation of the First and Second Commandments.

Is the Bible out of date and out of step with society? Absolutely not, as we will see below. The scientific realities of homosexual behavior validate the Bible.

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights
~

On the subject of homophobia:

The idea of someone who believes God said same-sex relationships are not permissible equaling homophobia (on the part of that person) is wrong, to me. From what I understand, homophobia means “a dislike or prejudice towards the idea of homosexuality, or homosexual people.” This definition doesn’t fit religious communities’ feelings on homosexuality or the LGBTQ community. Religious communities don’t condone same-sex relationships because they believe that they are ultimately harmful to the individual, the family, and the community (as a whole). Not because they think homosexuals are bad, or something. (The saying “hate the sin/act—don’t hate the person” comes into play, here. No one should dislike a person who practices homosexual activity—they only dislike what s/he is doing. And they dislike what s/he is doing because Allah s.w.t. dislikes it. (As is mentioned in the noble Qur’an, and the holy Bible.)

So, the stigma that many people think religious communities have towards the LGBTQ+ community is not even there. (Which is good, of course). If I don’t agree with your view (in this case, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality), that doesn’t mean that I have any stigma towards you. I love you, as a brother or a sister, in humanity. How can that go hand-in-hand with having stigmatic beliefs towards you?

~

By the way; Religious communities say same-sex relationships are not allowed not because they are a minority sexual orientation (along with bisexuality, for example…Right? Heterosexual activity is the majority of sexual activity…even in the animal kingdom), or because of something else. That is silly. Sometimes, the minority is right. In fact, often, the minority is right. So, the fact that homosexuality is the minority in humanity (in terms of sexual orientation) has nothing to do with religious people’s opposition to it. If one person in a sea of one billion people is right, then s/he is right. The fact that s/he is the minority is extremely irrelevant…and shouldn’t even be brought up by anyone (that’s how irrelevant it is).

~

a (big) reason why same-sex marriage is not allowed, in Islam (as I understand it):
Rectum intercourse is strictly forbidden in Islam, “even” (I say “even” with quotation marks, here) between a man and a woman (a man and his wife)…because the Islamic stance is that it carries harm. So, that type of intercourse even between a man and his wife is a great sin that should be avoided.
So (as aforementioned, at the beginning of this essay), Islam is not discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community, or gay/bisexual people (as some people think). On the contrary, it wants to protect them by preventing harmful sexual activity. And I think there is already some science indicating that the aforementioned sexual act carries some harm, to it? (So, the Islamic position has scientific backing.) Alhamdulillah, Islam is from God, and so every aspect of it is divinely inspired, and is the truth. Allahu akbaru kabeera. (Allah swt truly is the greatest.)
I wanted to add some links here to detail the science behind the harm (that can come with the sexual activity), but…you know. :/

I don’t know the detailed wisdom behind the prohibition of same-sex relationships as well as some Muslims may (e.g., some muslims know the ins and outs of it, as opposed to the brief bullet point, above), but I know that, without a doubt, it is not halal (permissible). I actually don’t really like it when someone says that Islam (or Christianity or Judaism) approves of same-sex relationships. (Perhaps this is because I’m becoming a better Muslim?? :0 Maybe I’m subconsciously reacting to the verse “And who is worse than he who utters lie about God?”). …Saying that God approves of same-sex relationships is not the truth, unfortunately. At least; it’s not the truth, as I see it (and; at least, not the truth said by the Lord of Muslims, Jews, and Christians.)

~

So—religious homophobia. It is an oxymoron, to me. True religious people do not abuse, mock, or show cruelty towards homosexual people. Because (thankfully), all religions order their adherents to be merciful and loving. So, you can’t really be religious and homophobic, at the same time. (Oxymoron.)

I was surprised to learn that people (scholars/learned people, no doubt), in their description of institutionalized homophobia, have included something called “religious homophobia” in the definition. (I never heard of it, before the aforementioned Wikipedia article.) And it is a funny argument. A funny term. To me, anyways. Like; I’m happy to say that I am not homophobic. I just believe that homosexuality can never be acceptable, to Allah. And consequently, I of course do not condone same-sex relationships or marriage. If people say that is homophobic….masha Allah (that is how God willed the situation to go down), I suppose.

But, as aforementioned; homophobic, to me, is; insulting homosexual people, abusing them (physically, emotionally, etc.), being cruel to them, etc. Alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah), I’m not like that. Because; that is cruelty. What I’m saying is; I don’t agree with the idea of homosexual activity. (Or relationships).

~

wa akhir da’wana ana alhamdulillah rab al ‘alameen. (And my last words are; praise be to Allah, the Cherisher, Sustainer, and Lord of all the worlds).

~

Some vids I like on the topic: (may allah s.w.t. bless all of our sheikhs for being so brave and firm in their Islamic faith to clarify this issue to people. I know that our beloved sheikh Dr. Bilal Philips has gotten a lot of flack for “his” stance on homosexual activities (which is really the correct Islamic stance, of course. How is it only “his” view?) May allah s.w.t. bless all of our sheikhs and give them Jannah (ameen).

sketch.

road to jannah
Muslimah travelling to Jannah.

~

As salam alaikum:)

This is a new sketch I drew. It’s of a Muslim lady travelling to Jannah. Though the road and every footstep she should take is paved right in front of her, it’s really hard to travel down the road! As it is for everybody who is making this journey. It’s not an easy journey…but Allah s.w.t. is there to help (and what a best Helper; “hasbee Allahu wa n’im al Wakeel…n’im al mawla wa n’im al Naseer*”). 🙂 ❤

When seeing all the easier routes at her disposal, the Muslima thinks “Ya Hadi, ahdinee…” (“O Guider, guide me…”).

~

If you wanna see more artwork, please see the “Visual Art” page….

Jazak/i Allahu kheira for viewing!

-Ethar

*Allah is enough for me, and what an excellent Disposer of Affairs…what an excellent Patron, and what an excellent Protector.”