On Wed, 28 May 2003 10:07:31 -0500 "R. Clayton McKee"
 writes:
> Thing is:  Whether the veil is required or not depends on which 
> flavor of Muslim you ask.  Some don't feel it's required, some most 
> 
> certainly DO, and they can cite scriptural and theological 
> references 
> out the wazoo to prove the others are wrong.  Mileages vary. 
> 
> There's also a feeling among some of the stricter sects that 
> allowing 
> themselves to be photographed is ipso facto a sin; they hold that 
> there are prohibitions in there somewhere against making likenesses 
> 
> of humans because humans are made in the image of God and therefore 
> 
> an image of a human violates one of the Commandments.  Or something 
> like that.  

In Morrocco, in '71, taking a picture of someone was akin to stealing
their soul.
The King at the time had started a campaign to modernize his country's
thinking, starting with publishing images of himself.

Still, my folks were very careful not to photograph people -- and Dad got
in trouble when shooting a picture of a rug above a shop-keeper. Only
persuasive argument and lots of finger pointing at the rug above saved
the camera.

> I'm not a scholar on  the subject.  Again, Mileages 
> Vary.

in any denomination....
Why we should think that Islam is a single entity, when our own brands
(Pagan, Christian, Jewish....) come in so many shades is, well,
astonishing....

> But, of course, either way she's a Muslim.

and an ID photo of her in a veil is no ID photo at all, imho, tygress

oh well!

====
But what life is without danger, really? [Jill Fredston, arctic
adventure's] father, Arthur Fredston, a courtly Manhattan attorney, was
walking near the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Her mother, Elinor Fredston, was diagnosed with peritoneal cancer almost
six years ago.... So, compared with terrorism and cancer, what's an
occasional polar bear? --Michael Ryan

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha