Fatwa Issued Against Women Running Beauty Salons

It appears that even running a beauty shop can be an offense to the faith, according to leading Islamic experts. The latest such move came from the Islamic seminary Darul Ulum Deoband in India has issued a fatwa against women running beauty parlors as unIslamic and a violation of Sharia law. This follows a fatwa last November against birthday parties as unIslamic.

The Darul Ulum Deoband is a highly influential Islamic seminary both inside and outside of India. The clerics at the seminary issued the fatwa last week — barring women from operating such businesses as “against the norms of parda.” Parda refers to the Islamic veil for women

Yet, we have also seen that in other area there is a recent ban on men working in such businesses under Sharia law.

There is an obvious effort to prevent Muslim women from adopting habits or styles of “Kaafir” women, as shown in this flier that was recently placed on Reddit.

Source: One India as first seen on Reddit.

29 thoughts on “Fatwa Issued Against Women Running Beauty Salons”

  1. RAH,
    A check with Google brings up a NC Supreme Court ruling in 1979.
    A travesty on justice, a chiller to all women (where does consent begin? accepting a date for example?) and simply terrible to all who have daughters they cherish.
    But again, why now? Has nothing been achieved since the ruling in ’79?

  2. Keith,
    thank you for saying that. I got tired of being the lone voice in the wilderness of islam haters here. Even JT dabbles in it, as today illustrates.
    When I asked in effect if this mullah’s fatwa was more important than a Floriday preacher burning Korans, I got no answer. All my personal tales of contacts also have given naught.
    If we need scapegoats they are far closer, even than the nearest mosque, and far more important for our future. Just look at your evening news program, regardless of the source.

  3. One has to admit that the world is becoming more globalized, with more temptations to be judging others as if we were the norm. It’s too bad. Because this wonderful blog is turning into muslimwatch.com.
    Any little opinion of some Muslim cleric somewhere on this earth is brought up, regardless of its context (never mind that. WE are the context now), as if it concerned our daily lives. We are getting more and more full of ourselves. I remind you that we have the world on its knees at gunpoint(our military equals the rest of the world combined). Why can’t we grow corn and play fiddle and mind our own business? It would be much more gracious and noble that way.
    That sort of judging leads ultimately to correcting people like in Vietnam, where you kill a huge slice of a country’s population just because you think they’re wrong about what they do (to themselves). Iraq had never had anything to do with America, Christians lived there just fine, women did fine in that society as well. But America has to JUDGE people. So it kills a big slice, displaces a bigger one, and leaves it on fire.
    If China did did this to us one day, “to bring about racial equality”, we will stop judging Muslims on our blogs, I guarantee you that.

  4. RAH,
    That was the Republican legislature of course. Hopefully a veto from the Democratic Governor will save the day.
    Got a link with more details from the law?
    And have you heard if it was ALEC which provided the model?
    I left Raleigh in ’59. Are you in NC now?

  5. @bettykath you left out the law that was enacted in n.c. that says a woman can not SAY NO TO SEX. if a man is trying to forcefully make the woman have sex against her will then she is the one wrong. and please dont take my word for it. research it. there are about to be a whole lot of laws against humanity period ex, the ndaa bill that was passed on march 12th, then the bill that says we can no longer protest against the government, and most recently the laws that say doctors are now banned from telling us what it is in chemicals, products or such things that makes us sick, and let’s not leave out the one that says we no longer own our homes,cars, businesses or very lives. again do not take my word for it. the bills are open to read at the white house website.. oops i almost forgot 1 the supreme has recently ruled we can now be stripped searched in public for such misdemeanors such as jay walking….

  6. Does anyone know? Khomeini’s fatwas sent people around the world on assassination trips. Does every little mullah, or whatever he calls himself have this worldwide power?

  7. Seems as though places other than Republican dominated states are producing laws restricting women; and as recently happened in AZ, forbidding free speech for all on the Internet.

    Can all this be attributed to education of women and anti-contraception on women’s initiative??

    What science and women hath wrought. God made them both so it can’t be evil. The old theodice problem again.

  8. The partial liberation of women in the West has frightened the patriarchal mysogynists of Islam. The key is male dominace and always has been. At present it is crazier by far among Muslim Fundamentalists, but Christian and Jewish fundamentalists are rushing to catch up. The fact that a man like Rick Santorum, who holds views of women that are medieval, is thought of as a legitimate Preseidential candidate bespeaks this. Given credibility, fear to offend by opponents and oodles of cash and our own fundamentalists would be every bit as crazy.. However, for the present the right wing of Islam certainly leads the pack.

  9. They ran many muslims out of India, mostly to Pakistan, at the time of their separation. Perhaps they knew what they were doing. One can not have a pluralistic society composed of bigots without beauty.

  10. I don’t really care what these religious fanatics or religious leaders say; I just don’t want to support it with my tax dollars or at some point our troops. No more money to countries like this or to the churches in this country who are grasping power and using it against women when ever they can.

  11. bigfatmike,

    “You asked the question ‘how does that differ from some Christians?’ The difference is that when a fundamentalist Christian tells you that you should not do something, it is unlikely that he will send a religious policeman to you door to enforce his opinion regarding scripture.”
    If I may offer a furinstnce: the attack on women in this country is also being codified. Laws are being enacted to restrict abortion. If abortion falls within the narrow scope allowed other means are required that are especially humiliating for women. There are new laws restricting the use of contraceptives and restrictions on the use of federal and/or state funds for women’s health care. Most of these are instigated by so-called Christians.

    1. I think you point is well taken.

      But a key difference is that these attacks, to which you refer, take place through the ballot box.

      So our future is in our own hands

  12. “OK, and how does this vary from some forms of so called Christianity…..” Anonymouly Yours

    You seem to imply a kind of equivalence between Christian and Muslim groups. A possible inference from that equivalence is that if we do not object to Christians we should not object to Muslims.

    I realize that I have put some words in you mouth and for that I apologize to you. But I have fleshed out a position, perhaps unfairly to you, in order to discuss a position that seems to come up too often from some individuals who seem want to be even handed. In overly simplified form the argument seems to be ‘you can’t criticize one if there are others taking similar actions’.

    I disagree. For many of us, it is the attempt to restrict the actions of others that is objectionable. We don’t care if it is Muslims or Christians or atheists doing the restricting. We find it objectionable.

    There is a difference though. If a fundamentalist Christian tell you that dancing is the work of the devil, or that women should not wear make-up it is unlikely that they will follow up with actions analogous to the police powers of the state to force you to stop.

    If we are to believe news reports, some Muslim groups will take strong actions to enforce their standards.

    Muslims can announce what ever standards seem reasonable to them. Speech is, of course, their right. But we object when they attempt to force those standards on others. And when it comes to the forcing others to adhere to standards it doesn’t matter if the standards come from Pastors, Bishops, Rabbis or Imams.

    You asked the question ‘how does that differ from some Christians?’ The difference is that when a fundamentalist Christian tells you that you should not do something, it is unlikely that he will send a religious policeman to you door to enforce his opinion regarding scripture.

    That is a very important difference.

  13. On thing is for sure, if Herman Cain was a muslim from one of those countries he would have really long arms.

  14. AY,

    What forms of Christianiy do not allow women to run beauty salons because it goes against their faith? I’m curious.


  15. OK, and how does this vary from some forms of so called Christianity…..

  16. Have you noticed that it is never one of these idiots that are the suicide bombers. No Virgins for them or maybe they just don’t like women.

Comments are closed.