Friday, 5 October 2007

The Register: Kiwi boffins prove that booze makes you clever

Two or three a day for a healthy brain, like it or not
By Lewis Page → Published Wednesday 3rd October 2007 11:44 GMT


At last, scientists have delivered conclusive proof of what many people instinctively knew - booze makes you clever.

Top boffins at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, by studying the mental performance of specially-created transgenic rats well supplied with drink, have found that moderate daily alcohol intake conferred "heightened cognition".
(etc...)

That, of course, is excellent health advice; now backed up by cutting edge Kiwi genetically modified alco-rat research. But in fact it doesn't have to be beer, and Kalev says the brain-enhancement effects kick in at "approximately one to two drinks per day for some people or two to three for others, depending upon their size, metabolism, or genetic background" - based on the equivalent blood alcohol levels to those found in her thirsty mutant rats, anyway.

It seems the rats were separated into three groups. One was put on a fairly hefty booze intake equivalent to five or six beers a day; another lot got a ration "equivalent to a level of consumption that does not exceed [the] legal driving limit" - though disappointingly they still were not allowed to drive cars. The third, luckless group of rodents were put on a temperance regime.

After four weeks of heavy, moderate, or no drinking, the rats were tested to see how their brains had been affected. Unsurprisingly, the most alcoholic rats showed signs of impairment, seeming unable to recognise familiar ratty toys. According to SciAm, the booziest murines also exhibited the symptoms of the lachrymose drunk. They "performed better than their normal brethren on the emotional memory task", suggesting that they had started to ramble on tiresomely to the other rats about their ex-wives or similar.
(etc...)

The greatest revelations, however, came with the moderately-thirsty group who had the equivalent of two of three cheery ales a day. These upstanding correctly-lifestyled rats trounced the teetotallers in every area.

One test in particular involved the small furry Kiwis being given an electric shock whenever they walked on a black-coloured area inside a cage. Faculties unhinged by a steady regimen of tea and fruit juice, the third group were unable to remember that the black area was painful, paying a grisly electric price for their abstinence.

Regrettably, however, it appeared that in the case of alcohol brain therapy more is not better. Boffins were agreed that drinking a lot is - couterintuitively, perhaps - actually worse for you than having no booze at all. But having no booze is bad too; which means that po-faced killjoys who want to put up the already outrageous grog taxes are effectively saying that only the rich can be clever.

So the best thing is to have a couple of beers each and every day without fail, even if you don't want them. Or you could have wine instead, and so benefit your heart as well as your brain. Skipping days is bad for you; especially if you then try to catch up later and drink several days' dose of brain-booster in a oner. ®


Thank god. Scientific validation to drink everyday. And not just one drink, but up to four drinks a day. Best early birthday present ever!

Now, I know we've never (or at least I've never) heard of The Register before, so I've checked it out, and it is, indeed, legit. Google doesn't lie. And it's also reported in Scientific American, so there. My drinking is healthy for me. Now all I have to do is wait until next Friday to get started.

BBC: Nude images shown in school talk

Last Updated: Thursday, 4 October 2007, 17:54 GMT 18:54 UK


Schoolchildren in the US state of Ohio were left bemused after images of nude women were shown in a politician's lecture on the legislative process.


State representative Matthew Barrett was giving a computerised presentation at Norwalk High School when the images flashed up on the screen.


He said he had no idea where the images came from, adding that he took them down after a few seconds.

(etc...)

He inserted a memory chip into his computer which he thought contained graphics showing how legislative bills became law.


Instead, a series of pictures of topless women appeared on the screen, although Mr Barrett said he shut down the computer within seconds.


He said several students chuckled when the images went up.


"It took me probably a second or so to look at it and say: 'That's not the Power Point,'" Ohio's Morning Journal newspaper quoted Mr Barrett as saying.


"It was extremely embarrassing and we had no clue that anything like that was on there."


School staff and police later examined the chip, which was found to contain a directory of nude images as well as the presentation.

(etc...)


It is not clear how or when the images were added.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuure it isn't. We believe you. Whatever you say, man. You have "no idea" how the photos got on there. I bet "you've never seen those photos before" either. Right. Wink wink nudge nudge eh?

At leasty you aren't secretly gay, and those weren't pictures of naked men.

Road Rage

What happened this morning?
Well, you see... this red Honda Civic decided that it didn't matter that I was right next to him on the road. He decided it would be a good idea to try and occupy my space anyway.

Was that ridiculously stupid?
Yes, yes it was.

Did I honk at home?
Like you would not believe. Plus the look for extra points. I think I scared his passenger. As she should be.

Did he give a shit?
No, he just went on trying to change lanes. I don't understand why he didn't just go and do it. His first method worked so well.

Why was he changing so many lanes?
Because the fucker was on the faster moving leftmost lane to cut other people and only decided at the absolute last minute to change lanes so he wouldn't go up to Jln Semantan. As you do.

Did he deserve a baseball bat to the windshield?
Yes.

Did I do it?
No, but I should start carrying a baseball bat around.

Thursday, 4 October 2007

On Children

Just to keep up my daily average of 4 posts, I've decided to write an entry about how kids aren't always just kids. Yes, I know I'm not a kid anymore, but really. Sometimes there are more to kids than you know.

Par example:

This little Peruvian girl gave birth to a bouncing baby boy at age 5. He's still alive. His brother is younger than him by 33 years. She had been menstruating by age 3, and at age 5 had the fully developed uteresus of a fully grown woman.


She gave birth through a Caesarian section. No, they don't know who the father is. No, it's not her dad. Yes, it means that a paedophile was involved.

Reference:
http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp


Example deux:

This little girl went to the market. This little girl stayed home. This little girl killed a boy. This little girl cried wee wee wee all the way to jail.

Okay that was dumb. But this little girl named Mary Bell really did kill a boy. When she was 10 years old. And then she laughed about it later. And was put away for a long, long time.


Reference:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/bell/index_1.html


Example trois:

This little boy is in university. He's a sophomore at the University of Memphis. He's 12 years old with an IQ of 180.

Reference:
http://www.memphis.edu/magazine/v20i2/feat4.html


Need I say more?

Also, there's a whole section on "Child Killers" at
Crime Library.


EDIT:

I just came across this one. I had to add this.

This photo is CCTV footage of two 10 year old boys in the process of kidnapping a 2 year old boy who they would beat and torture, and then eventually beat to death and abandon on a railroad track.

Really, kids aren't all they seem to be.

Reference:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/bulger/1.html

Reuters: Myanmar junta carries out more arrests

Thu Oct 4, 2007 1:06am EDT
By Aung Hla Tun



YANGON (Reuters) - Troops in Myanmar hauled away truckloads of people on Wednesday after the departure of a U.N. envoy trying to end a ruthless crackdown on pro-democracy rallies that has sparked international outrage.


(etc...)

Witnesses said at least eight truckloads of prisoners were taken from central Yangon, the former Burma's biggest city, where crowds of up to 100,000 people had protested against decades of military rule and deepening economic hardship.

(etc...)

The protests -- the biggest challenge to the junta since it killed an estimated 3,000 people while crushing an uprising in 1988 -- began with small marches against fuel price rises in August and swelled after troops fired over the heads of monks.

(etc...)

CLIMATE OF TERROR


The junta says the instability was met with "the least force possible" and that Yangon and other cities had returned to normal. It says 10 people were killed and describes reports of much higher tolls and atrocities as a "skyful of lies."


In Brussels, EU ambassadors agreed to toughen existing sanctions against Myanmar and look at trade bans on its key timber, metals and gems sectors, officials and diplomats said.


"There was full agreement on reinforcing existing measures," one diplomat said of the decision, which will be sent to EU foreign ministers for approval in mid-October. "On the second measures, a number of member states took the view it should be done only after further information was obtained."


The junta appears to believe it has suppressed the uprising, with barricades around the Shwedagon and Sule pagodas lifted and an overnight curfew eased by two hours. Eighty monks and 149 women believed to be nuns swept up in widespread raids were released. Five local journalists, one working for Japan's Tokyo Shimbun newspaper, were also freed.


A heavy armed presence remained on the streets of Yangon and Mandalay, the second city, witnesses said. The junta was also sending gangs through homes looking for monks in hiding, raids Western diplomats say are creating a climate of terror.


(Additional reporting by Paul Eckert in Washington, David
Brunnstrom in Brussels, Darren Schuettler in Bangkok and Evelyn Leopold at the
United Nations)



They send gangs through homes to look for monks in hiding. I don't understand why we weren't more outraged when it happened the first time in 1988. 3,000 people is a hell of a lot of people to die. If you ask me, this is an act of terrorism that needs to be combated.

(Also on Reuters: slideshow for the Amazing Philippines Beauties contest, a transgender beauty pageant - http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?collectionId=1130)

Adrianne Curry vs Perez Hilton

I don't know who Adrianne Curry is (apparently she won America's Next Top Model or something) but I like her. Why? Because I was browsing the net at work (because work is boring), stumbled upon her ridiculously laid out blog, and then saw an entry delicious entitled "Adrianne Curry vs Perez Hilton".


And because I don't like Perez Hilton, I obviously had to click it. It's this full out rant against Perez because he apparently took a quote from her blog and misused it in his own. This totally does not surprise me, but I loved the anger behind the entry. Ha. She called him a pig.


It's totally true, anyway. It baffles me why people listen to this fat pig diss other people about their looks. I mean look at him. He looks greasy, disgusting, and the kind of guy who'd dry hump the village bicycle when she's passed out on the floor because he's so ugly that even she wouldn't do him. Really.


And also, he's ugly.


And in case you didn't click that link, I would just like to reiterate how ugly he is with this picture:


Ugly. Gross. Like wtf. It's an abomination to your eyes. Ok that's enough.

BBC: Australia in African refugee ban

By Nick Bryant BBC News, Sydney



A freeze on the settlement of refugees from Africa - including those from Sudan's Darfur region - has been announced by the Australian government.


Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said the refugees had trouble integrating, and other parts of the world such as Iraq and Burma were greater priorities.

The freeze will last until mid-2008, and there are no guarantees that Africans will be admitted after then.


(etc..)


'Xenophobic' jibe


(etc...)


One community leader said they were making an immense contribution to the economy by taking jobs which many Australians simply did not want to do.


Certainly, there is a nativistic streak in parts of the Australian electorate.


In previous campaigns the Prime Minister John Howard government has benefited from concerns over immigration - especially in regional seats.


Only last year the town of Tamworth in New South Wales voted against hosting a trial refugee resettlement programme after the Sudanese were branded as criminals by the local mayor.


So fierce was the condemnation that the council was forced to reverse that decision.




I've said it before, and I've said it again. A lot of Australians are just downright racist. I've never had a personal out and out experience myself, but a "xenophobic vibe" is just the right way to put it. And the further away you get from the cities, the worse the vibe gets.

No, I'm not being judgmental. New Zealand wasn't like that and both countries are very similar in a lot of ways. I'm not as comfortable in Australia as I am in New Zealand. Doesn't that tell you something?


Wednesday, 3 October 2007

BBC: Burmese monks 'to be sent away'

Get this:

Thousands of monks detained in Burma's main city of Rangoon will be sent to prisons in the far north of the country, sources have told the BBC.

About 4,000 monks have been rounded up in the past week as the military government has tried to stamp out pro-democracy protests.

They are being held at a disused race course and a technical college.


Sources from a government-sponsored militia said they would soon be moved away from Rangoon.


The monks have been disrobed and shackled, the sources told BBC radio's Burmese service. There are reports that the monks are refusing to eat.

(etc...)


The authorities said 10 people were killed as the protests were dispersed, though diplomats and activists say the number of dead was many times higher.


The banned opposition broadcaster Democratic Voice of Burma has issued a picture which they say shows the body of a monk floating near the mouth of the Rangoon river.


Last week several monasteries were raided, and there were reports of monks being beaten and killed.


With many monks behind bars, the demonstrations have now died down.


On Monday, the centre of Rangoon was almost back to normal, a reporter, who cannot be identified for security reasons, told the BBC.

(etc...)

The atmosphere in Rangoon is tense, the reporter said. Local people are well aware that the monks have been locked away and are afraid that they will be next.


The crackdown, in which unarmed protesters were beaten, tear-gassed, and shot at, has attracted condemnation from abroad, and even from Burma's neighbours in the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean).

(etc..)


That's just wrong. They're monks. Their whole way of life is about peace. What is this going to turn out like? The answer to the "Monkish question"? Are they being shipped off to concentration camps where they will be forced into labour until a "Final Solution" is come up with? Jesus (AS).

The people of Rangoon need to continue demonstrating until they let the monks go. This is unacceptable.

On the Dangerous Topics of Islam and Other Things

So I've been browsing http://www.sunnipath.com/ and found some interesting things that we're supposed and not supposed to do. For your benefit, I will summarise:




  • Men and women are not allowed to dye their hair black. However, it is sunnah for them to dye their white hair red (with henna) or yellow (with saffron).

Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=3661&CATE=418


Interestingly, according to my uncle and ustaz, this is because we cannot sama-kan what has been created by Allah (SWT), meaning that those who are blonde cannot dye their hair yellow and those who have brown hair cannot dye their hair brown. But the verse quoted didn't mention anything about that, so I'm not sure on that point.




  • The hijab is wajib, the niqab isn't. The verse only specifies that women must 'veil' their neck and cleavage.

Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=5849&CATE=329, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=7123&CATE=329




  • Most surprisingly, it's not haram (in the Hanafi school) to consume wine vinegar!

Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=15860&hd=1&cate=0&t=rss




  • It is haram for men to let their clothing fall below their ankles if it is done out of pride, makruh if it is done for other reasons.

Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2163&CATE=377




  • It might be "disliked" for men to wear pure red when it is not mixed with other colors. Who knew?

Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=3093&CATE=377



Ok, that's enough for today. This "Dangerous Topics" thing might become a repeating occurrence.

Tuesday, 2 October 2007

BBC Sport: Alonso wants split from Hamilton

Fernando Alonso says he would rather not continue alongside Lewis Hamilton at McLaren next year.

The Spaniard, set to lose the title to his team-mate, said: "I'd be delighted if I didn't carry on with Hamilton."

"If we are not together next season and I can go to a good car, then great. If we have to carry on together then we will have another great battle."

Meanwhile, Renault team boss Flavio Briatore has confirmed he has offered Alonso his old job back.

"I told Fernando that the moment he is free from McLaren we would be pleased to have him back," said Briatore.

Briatore is convinced Alonso would not have quit Renault if he had been aware he would receive the same treatment as a rookie.

"If, before signing the contract, they told Fernando, 'Come with us, but you won't have any sort of advantage', he wouldn't have gone," Briatore told Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport.
"If you hire a world champion, then you must give him the number one status."

The relationship between the two McLaren drivers deteriorated after Hamilton criticised Alonso last week.

Alonso, who was speaking in an interview with Spanish radio station SER, also denied speculation he could take 2008 off, returning to Formula One to drive for Ferrari when his McLaren contract runs out in two years' time.

"It hasn't entered into my plans not to race next year," he said.

"I don't have any news about Ferrari. They have a contract with Kimi Raikkonen and Felipe Massa for next year, it's not a possibility that has entered into my thoughts for the coming year."

Hamilton says he would rather Alonso was not still at McLaren next year, even if it meant the double world champion ending up at Ferrari.

"I'd much rather it were Fernando at Ferrari and me at McLaren," said Hamilton prior to winning at Fuji Speedway on Sunday.

Alonso's relationship with McLaren team boss Ron Dennis has broken down after a series of disagreements during the year.

It reached a low point during a row at the Hungarian Grand Prix in August over Alonso's status in the team.

Alonso threatened during the row to reveal incriminating e-mail evidence about McLaren's involvement in the spy row that has dominated the sport this summer to the sport's governing body, the FIA.

He quickly apologised and withdrew the threat, but not before Dennis had telephoned FIA president Max Mosley to tell him of the conversation.

It ultimately led to McLaren being thrown out of this year's constructors' championship and fined £49.2m for having confidential Ferrari technical information in their possession.

And Hamilton has turned up the pressure on McLaren to tear up Alonso's contract, which still has two years to run, by saying he sees a long-term future at the team.

Commentary:

Say it isn't so. They've both been so good to McLaren :(

I mean Hamilton's awesome and staff but this is the best 1-2 team since before I was born. I suppose this is why Schumacher never had a strong second driver in Ferrari with him. Damn your egos, boys! Suck it up for the team!

The problem, I suppose, is that McLaren has never been like Ferrari (i.e. to have a favourite son). McLaren has always treated their drivers fairly, and the championship isn't given to one driver on a silver platter. Alonso should have known and thought of that before he signed up with Ron Dennis' golden boy. I mean Dennis personally head-hunted Hamilton when he was 10 and has for the past 12 years sponsored him. Didn't he see this coming?

Then again, F1 drivers aren't known for their mild temperament so this could have popped up in any team given this circumstance.

Anyway, that was the gist of what's happened in the past month. This article has more than one implication though.

Firstly, Alonso leaving McLaren is something all parties are alright with.
Secondly, Alonso going to Renault would put Nelson Piquet, Jr back a few years from his F1 debut.
Thirdly, it would also mean that Fisichella is out of the picture.
Fourthly, does this mean that Gary Paffett will be taking over the second driver spot?
Finally, doesn't McLaren realise that they're losing the best 1-2 winning team there is? What better way to hold off the other team from points than to have shoo-ins for both spots at the top of the podium?

The Star: Motorcyclists warned of road ban

IPOH: The Works Ministry is considering banning motorcyclists from expressways if they continue to be a nuisance on the road.

Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu issued the warning yesterday after witnessing superbikes travelling on the North-South Expressway at 170kph.

“The expressway is not a place for motorcycle races. They must abide by the law,” he told reporters after visiting the new Sungai Perak bridge on the Ipoh-Lumut highway in Bota, some 50km from here.

Samy Vellu added that he wanted to meet representatives of motorcycle clubs and associations on the matter.

“I will talk to them first. However, if the problem persists, the ministry will ban all motorcyclists from using expressways,” he said.

The current regulations, he said, did not stop them from using the expressways.

Samy Vellu also warned motorists to be aware of the 16 police observation towers on federal roads across the country.

The 16 new observation towers, costing RM1mil, were completed in early June this year and handed over to the police on June 28.


What? After all the things that motorcyclists have done, he wants to ban them from the highways for speeding? What a jackass. That's far and wide not even in the top 10 list of the most dangerous things that motorcyclists do on the road.

E.g. that Harley-Davidson that decided that it would be a good idea to go the wrong way on the Kerinchi Link around a blind corner. He was so lucky that I wasn't going very fast (shut up. sometimes it's true) at the time.

The other thing is, what observation towers? Where are these observation towers?

Monday, 1 October 2007

Part 2: On the Dangerous topics of Islam, Tattoos, and others.

Modern Tattoo Methods

Answered by Shaykh Amjad Rasheed
Translated by Shaykh Hamza Karamali, SunniPath Academy Teacher

Q: I read from some answers on here that tattoos are not allowed due to the colour being mixed with blood and then something being left on the outer surface of the skin which is firstly impure and also prevents water from reaching the skin. Modern tattoo methods have changed. Pigment is now inserted underneath the skin so therefore, there is no blood on the skin and also nothing prevents water from reaching it. Therefore is it allowed?


A:

1) Modern Tattoos are not Necessarily Filth

[h: The tattooing process referred to by the scholars of Sacred Law is, “to prick the skin with a needle until blood exits, after which a powder-dye is sprinkled on it to leave a blue or green mark [h: on the skin].” (Hashiyat al-Shirwani `ala al-Tuhfa, 2.128). The mark that remains on the skin is thus a trace of the blood that was drawn out, and the prayers of a person with such a mark are not valid until the tattoo is removed because blood is filth and it is not valid to pray with traces of filth on one’s body.]

As for modern tattoo methods, if they do not involve the mixing of dye with blood after it exits onto the outer surface of the body, then the tattoo is not considered a trace of filth [h: and one’s prayers are thus valid with such a tattoo on one’s body].



2) Modern Tattoos Nevertheless Remain Unlawful

Scholars mention three legal reasons for the unlawfulness of tattooing: (1) the unnecessary infliction of pain caused by the needle that penetrates the skin, (2) the being affected by filth caused by the mixing of the dye with the blood that exits after the needle’s penetration, and (3) the altering of Allah’s creation without necessity. Each of these three reasons suffices to independently make tattooing unlawful, even if the other reasons are not present.

The great late Egyptian Shafi`i scholar, Ahmad al-Halwani al-Khaliji said by way of explaining the reason for the unlawfulness of tattooing,

“The legal reason [for the unlawfulness of tattooing] is … that tattooing comprises infliction of pain, filthification, and it and the matters that are mentioned alongside it [h: in the hadiths that prohibit tattooing] comprise altering of Allah’s magnificent creation. [h: This last legal reason is derived from the fact that when prohibiting tattooing, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) described the tattooing women as] “those who alter Allah’s creation,” which is a hint to the Quranic verse, “… and I will surely command them, and they will then surely alter the creation of Allah.”” (al-Wasm fi al-Washm, 25)

The great Shafi`i hadith scholar, Munawi, also mentioned in his book, Fayd al-Qadir, that the reason for the prohibition of tattooing is that it involves altering Allah’s creation.

If the first two legal causes for the prohibition of tattooing are no longer found in modern tattooing methods, then the last legal reason nevertheless remains. It therefore seems to this needy soul—after contemplating the words of the scholars of Sacred Law, and after consulting our teacher, Shaykh Muhammad al-Khatib (may Allah preserve him)—that tattooing is unconditionally unlawful regardless of the method that is employed because it involves altering Allah’s creation without necessity, even if it no longer comprises the infliction of pain or the filthification of the skin. This is clearly implied by the words of Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari in his book, Sharh al-Rawd, and also by the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in the hadith related by Bukhari and Muslim, “Allah curses women who tattoo themselves or have themselves tattooed, those who remove their facial hair, and those who part their teeth, [all] for the sake of beautification, altering Allah’s creation.”


Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=13513&CATE=365

Aww, so close and yet so far.

And yet, Islam encourages Muslims to take care of their appearance, and makes beautification (not excessively, though) sunnah. On the one hand, we could argue that it's a form of adornment of Allah's creation, and not a form of mutilation. But that's a very shaky argument.

The other issue that arises is the alteration of self for the sole reason of beautification. If I interpret this correctly, this probably means that braces are haram (unless not wearing them would cause you har), because it's not only just for beautification, but it's also painful.

Quite luckily, I already found the entry that said that plucking is (to an extent) alright.

I think this is going to be an ongoing topic.

Not Halal

So apparently, I've really taken this non-halal way of life to a whole new level. Apparently, because I work in a bank, and a bank's income with which they use to pay me is derived from interest, the income that I earn is not halal. Not only that, I "will go to the fire" because I preside over their activities.

Maybe I shouldn't have come back to Malaysia. This is a hell of a guilt trip.

Reference: Mufti Says

On the Dangerous topics of Islam, Tattoos, and others.

This is a topic that we've much discussed, and since

  1. I've forgotten all my research,
  2. I've lost all my research,
  3. The internet has proliferated since the conduct of my research, and
  4. My Google skillz are much better now

I've decided to begin research again. If this doesn't apply to you, you need not read this entry. And in the conduct of my research, I've found some very useful websites which actually facilitate constructive conversations on Islamic topics:

  1. http://maniacmuslim.com
  2. http://www.ummah.net
  3. http://www.sunnipath.net

Yes, Muslims have found the internet. Ph33r. And now we begin. Let's call this Part 1.

Part 1: Arguments Against Tattooing

The basic gist of it is as follows, and read this carefully:

The meaning of the verse [And obey the Prophet] (4:59, 5:92, etc.) is not that the Prophet saws is also a judge whose orders and prohibitions are law issuing from him rather than Allah Most High. Allah Most High declared the obligator ness of obeying the Prophet saws only in the sense that He made it obligatory for us to obey him in whatever he saws orders and makes obligatory for us to do.

It is Allah Most High Who makes it obligatory for us both to obey and to do, except that the order for some of the acts are formulated by the Prophet saws. Such formulation is only a proof or sign of Allah's own binding order. The meaning of [And obey the Prophet] is therefore "Know that whatever the Prophet saws commands or forbids you to do, it is I Who commands and forbids you to do" as explicated in the verse [And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids, abstain from it] (59:7).

Without such order, the Prophet's saws command would not have been binding upon us. Illustrating this principle is the following narration from `Alqama:`Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud ra said: "Allah Most High curses women who tattoo others, women who have tattoo applied to them, women who have their eyebrows clipped, and women artificially tooth-gapped, all for cosmetic purposes, changing Allah's fashioning." News of this reached a woman of Banu Asad called Umm Ya`qub. She came to him saying: "O Abu `Abd al-Rahman! I heard that you cursed such-and-such." He replied: "Why should I not curse those whom Allah's Messenger saws cursed?"

She said: "Lo! I certainly read all that is between the two covers [of the volume of Qur'an], and I did not find this." He replied: "Had you read it you would have certainly found it. Did you not read [And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids, abstain from it] (59:7)?" She said yes.

He said: "Allah's Messenger saws forbade it."Narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihs, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah in their Sunan, Ahmad and al-Darimi in their Musnads, al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7:312) and Shu`ab al-Iman (6:170), Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (12:314), `Abd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf (3:145 #5103), al-Humaydi in his Musnad (1:53), and Ibn `Abd al-Barr in Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (2:1181-1182 #2336-2337). Al-Dhahabi narrated it in al-Kaba'ir [the Enormities] and he said: "It is agreed upon [by Bukhari and Muslim]."Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani said in Fath al-bari (10:378) in commentary of this hadith:Nawawi said: "An exception from the prohibition of plucking away facial hair is when a woman has a beard, mustache, or hair growing between her lower lip and chin, in which cases it is not unlawful for her to remove it, but rather is commendable (mustahabb)," the permissibility being on condition that her husband knows of it and gives his permission, though it is prohibited if he does not, because of the deception it entails. End of excerpt.

Mufti Lajpuri in his Fatawa Rahimiyya declared it required (wajib) for her to pluck such hair from her face.There is a kind of temporary metaphorical "tattoo" that is desirable for women: to dye the hands and feet with henna. Of course women also use it for the face and hair, and men for the beard. In some countries of the Borneo peninsula men also apply it on their hands and feet on the occasion of weddings, although it is actually forbidden in their [Shafi`i] madhhab. However, it would be wrong to call all this tattoo since that word lexically means an indelible marking of the skin.

A man came to the Prophet, Peace be upon him, with his hands dyed with saffron. This is a removable, temporary skin ornament, yet the Prophet saws did not even return his salam. All he said to him was: Go wash this away. He went and came back, and there was a little bit left. Again the Prophet saws did not address him except to tell him to wash it away more thoroughly. So this is a lesson for men that decorating/altering the skin in such manner is not allowed.Another factor which makes it prohibited is that tatooing is the fashion of unbelievers, and the Prophet saws said: "Whoever looks [i.e. wilfully] like a people is one of them." And Allah knows best.

There you have it.

On the other hand,

Women and Hair Removal
Answered by SunniPath Answer Service Team

Q: Is it permissible for women to remove facial hair, and hair from the arms and legs? I am in the beauty business and I do waxing for my clients. Please tell me if it is permissible in Islam.

A In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful & Compassionate

From a previous question answered by Shaykh Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf:

Taking the hadith and the various statements of the Hanafi jurists into consideration the following could be concluded:

  1. It would be permitted for a woman to remove a beard or a moustache that appears on her face. Even though it is facial hair, but since it is to stop women from resembling men, it is permitted. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, in fact they have said it is recommended, not just permitted. The same will be to bleach this hair instead.
  2. If the eyebrows are linked in between, it would be permissible to remove the excess hair from in between to separate them [i.e. the hair above the nose]. The reason for this is that linked eyebrows are looked upon as a defect, hence it would be permissible to remove it.
  3. A 'few' stray hairs around the eyebrows would be permissible to remove by clipping them off, if it looks defective, or for married women creates abhorrence in their husband. This does not mean it is permitted to remove a whole line or two of fine hair from around the eyebrows [as is the case nowadays].
  4. Dense bushy eyebrows may be trimmed down to a more normal size. However, one must exercise great caution in this regard, since one does not want it to fall under the warning of the hadith. If one is not sure how to determine the normal size they should not act on the benefit of the doubt, but rather follow the more cautionary approach and trim less. What so called 'regular' [especially non-Muslim] people consider nowadays as the norm i.e. eyebrows that are shaped in particular unnatural or reduced to thin lines can not be considered as acceptable in Islamic law due to the severity of the hadith.
  5. Great caution has to be exercised in this regard, since the hadith is very strict and there are some Hanafi scholars who have taken more strict position. For instance, Mullah Ali al-Qari (Allah be pleased with him) comments [relating from Imam Nawawi] that plucking of the facial hair is haram (unlawful) for a woman with the exception of moustache or beard hairs (Mirqat al-Mafatih 8:218). The concessions mentioned above are for the removal of a defective appearance and not for purely beautification purpose, hence, caution in this matters is the way.


Wassalam,
SunniPath Fiqh Team

On the one hand, tattoos are forbidden because they are said to be blemishes on the perfection of Allah SWT's creation. On the other, some concessions are made to fix the defects of the perfection of Allah SWT's creation. I think the questions here to be raised are:

  • What determines what is a defect worth being fixed and what isn't?
  • Who are you to say that Allah SWT did not intend for women to look this way?

The good news is that there are contradicting opinions. I'm yet to find solid references to put up. Never fear. I got time. To be continued...

Blue Monday

On the one hand:
It's Monday.
I'm ridiculously sleepy.
I can't drink coffee. >_<

On the bright side:
There's only one more Monday to go before puasa is over.
There's only 12 days to go (incl. today) before puasa is over.
There's only 1 weekend to go before puasa is over.
My social calendar is pretty full until next week.
I get to start drinking again in 12 days and a few hours.