u/BandAppropriate5282

Due to animals and difficulty in properly handling foam minoxidil, my derm moved me to oral minoxidil. I was facing immense scalp hairloss from Telogen Effluvium. The oral medication is causing a lot of hair growth all over my body.

Before this medication, I was able to easily get by with shaving. My body hair never grew back fast of thick. But now it’s uncontrollable.

What is a good new shaving method? I know IPLs are popular now, but I’m worried they won’t work because of my oral minoxidil which will re-awake hair follicles.

Any advice?

I had some great conversations on this forum about slavery (esp as described by Sahih Bukhari) and many people have told me that Islam is at its core moving towards abolishment of slavery.

Yet after watching Ibrahim Trarore’s new press about why he won’t implement Sharia in Burkina Faso, including the comment on the slave existing even as recently at the 1960s in the Arab world, it had made me start thinking about slavery abolition. Not to mention from the records, it seems that slave market closed mostly from new age global social pressure that has deemed slavery inhumane, rather than the government of Medina deciding that they no longer need slaves.

In one of the holiest cities in the world, how was slavery (specifically targeting Black African people) still permitted?

Can someone explain the purpose of the Quran requiring to be maintained in its original Arabic.

I know that: 1) It is the direct word of God, so ought not to be changed, and 2) Given to the people of the land who knew the language. This makes sense.

What does not make sense is how remaining in Arabic can be useful for the future believers of Islam, since many will not understand the Arabic, and only recently was translation work accessible to the public.

I know that Arabic is a very dense language, and often times does not properly translate into English or any other language for the matter (perhaps an argument for why it must remain in Arabic to have integrity), but this is also requires that for people to fully understand it, they need to learn Arabic.

My background is not from the Arab world. My ancestors converted to Islam a few centuries ago, but, I’m not sure if they spent these centuries understanding the Arabic. My parents and grandparents learned to read the Quran in Arabic, but relied on their imams and preachers to translate the book. Their forefathers probably had to go through the same thing.

But this is what utterly confuses me— does this not make the Quran and the word of Allah inaccessible? They must be learned through a mediator, and assuming the mediator will properly translate (which they do not, in the case of my mother who grew up hearing false laws based on culture rather than religion).

Only now, that the world has access to the internet and translation guides, can anyone understand the Quran. But what about the centuries before when my ancestors did not? Is this not unfair to them?

Can someone explain the purpose of the Quran requiring to be maintained in its original Arabic.

I know that: 1) It is the direct word of God, so ought not to be changed, and 2) Given to the people of the land who knew the language. This makes sense.

What does not make sense is how remaining in Arabic can be useful for the future believers of Islam, since many will not understand the Arabic, and only recently was translation work accessible to the public.

I know that Arabic is a very dense language, and often times does not properly translate into English or any other language for the matter (perhaps an argument for why it must remain in Arabic to have integrity), but this is also requires that for people to fully understand it, they need to learn Arabic.

My background is not from the Arab world. My ancestors converted to Islam a few centuries ago, but, I’m not sure if they spent these centuries understanding the Arabic. My parents and grandparents learned to read the Quran in Arabic, but relied on their imams and preachers to translate the book. Their forefathers probably had to go through the same thing.

But this is what utterly confuses me— does this not make the Quran and the word of Allah inaccessible? They must be learned through a mediator, and assuming the mediator will properly translate (which they do not, in the case of my mother who grew up hearing false laws based on culture rather than religion).

Only now, that the world has access to the internet and translation guides, can anyone understand the Quran. But what about the centuries before when my ancestors did not? Is this not unfair to them?

I have been thinking a lot about the condition of women in modern times versus in ancient times, when the Quran was first revealed. Often times when I disagree with a Quranic decree or Hadith, many people respond with, “At the time, [xyz decree] gave more rights/freedom to the people than previous masters and polytheists.” (For example on the treatment of slaves and women).

I want to add that I live and grew up in the west, so these social conditions are different for me.

I do wonder if we have come to an age where certain things are no longer applicable. One common example is the treatise on polygamy. May scholars have said that polygamy may no longer be accepted given that the conditions for women’s right have improved and that we are not in active states of war. Since women can now exist financially and socially free without fathers, brothers, or husbands, man no longer needs to marry multiple women to protect them.

Another aspect I question is on division of inheritance (by gender), Mahr, and man being the protector of women (and women being submissive to him). It makes sense that during the time the Quran was revealed, the conditions for women were deplorable, and they needed religious mandate to ensure them protection and access to finances. However, it is also clear that this time is over for many women, especially since many countries legal system grants women rights to equal inheritance and financial freedom. Women are able to work and protect their own money (like through pre-nups). Essentially, women are no longer burdened to be protected by men. This is just the fact of life in many countries (esp in the west), so do those mandates still apply?

I also am in question about slavery. While I can accept that the Quran radically changed the conditions for slaves, it did not fully condemn slavery (only said the one of the best deed is to free a slave). Economically speaking, we are far beyond the age of slavery, but, many nations (especially the gulf arab nations) are practicing a form of indentured servitude with their domestic workers and treatment of Africans in African nations like Libya, Congo, and Sudan. They are still using a form of slavery. Can we not reinterpret that being our global economy no longer needs slavery, we should completely abandon it all together, and fight against any powers that use it?

Just some thoughts, let me know what everyone thinks!

My partner and I are not religious people. We share the same beliefs about politics, humanity, and morality, and are very much in love with each other. The issue is— he is not muslim, and he is white american.

My partner decided to take the shahada and convert, not because he truly believed, but because he wanted to gain permission to marry me under Islamic law. While he isn’t religious, we both are “spiritual” and we both believe in the existence of God, but are struggling with accepting religion as a whole.

My parents have a problem with him because they want me to marry someone within my own race and a born muslim. Actual “religiousness” wouldn’t matter if I were with someone of my own race, my religiousness matters because he is outside my race.

I don’t know how to explain that we both believe in the same thing, in the same way, and love each other dearly. What we care about, we share, what we don’t care about, we also share in opinion. Any advice or help?

My parents are straight up threatening to disown me if I go forward with marriage.

Edit: I am not religious and my parents are very aware of this. My parents themselves are starting to become more religious as the years go by, but have never enforced anything on me by force. They have let me live my life by choice.

I’ve gotten into arguments with my family on this topic:

Is it worse to have to believe some parts of faith (in the Quran and the rules of Islam) but not other parts, OR, to fully believe in all parts of the faith, but continue to act in sin.

Due to my work as a researcher and anthropologist, I sometimes have a hard time having full faith in the religion due to certain historical discrepancies, and things about gender, and the ontological positioning of women. However, I do have faith in the religion, and I am more drawn to the relationship between God and the individual than the rigid guidelines of law and order— hence why I am still Muslim. I believe in 90% of the Quran.

My family on the other hand tells me that partial belief is worse than fully believing in the Quran, but still succumbing to sin. They made this statement when I pointed out that is was hypocritical of them to criticize me when they have a mortgage, they thinks it’s a fina that I (unmarried) live alone without a guardian, and are overall very liberal about many things. They said that they know this is wrong, and this acknowledgement of its wrongness/sin is far better than having no faith.

This does not make sense to me because it seems as though they are insincere in their faith. I know certain things (like having a mortgage) is unavoidable in today’s society, but justifying interpersonal choices by saying you acknowledge it’s a sin seems disrespectful to the religion.

But what do people think about this? How shouldI think about my practice in the religion?