She wants to open a beauty salon and is asking about offering her services to non-Muslim women

I live in the United States and I am planning to open a hair salon,
but I heard that it is not permissible to offer this service except to
Muslim sisters who wear hijab. But in fact the location of this salon
will be in a place where there are no Muslims and the Muslim women who
come to it will be coming from far away, which is another matter
altogether. At the same time I cannot close the door to non-Muslim
women; rather from experience when I was a student in university
studying cosmetology it seems to me that this field is an opportunity
for da'wah because non-Muslim women will ask about why I wear hijab
and sometimes we have a detailed discussionwhich may lead to one of
them being guided, if Allah wills. In addition to that, most of my
neighbours are non-Muslim, as are some of our relatives, and all of
them want me to offer my services to them. What is your opinion?
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:
For a woman to work as ahairdresser for women is permissible in
principle, solong as that is not accompanied by any haraam things that
usually accompany this kind of work.
See the answer to question no. 120891
Secondly:
If most of the people in the place where you choose to work are not
Muslims and your work will basically be with kaafir women, then it is
not permissible for you towork in the field, because all of the
required guidelines on working in that field cannot be adhered to with
those who do not believe that these things are haraam and do not
adhere to thatat all. Undoubtedly working in that field will be
helping them in not covering and in making a wanton display and
uncovering, and even nakedness and changing the creation of Allah.
Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of themeaning):
"Help you one another in Al-Birr and At-Taqwa (virtue, righteousness
andpiety); but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And
fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment"
[al-Maa'idah 5:2].
Thirdly:
With regard to the issue of mixing with these women and calling them
to Islam, this is a noble and important matter. However, it is not
permissible to participate with them in whatever they do of sins, or
to help them in that. It is not permissible to commit a certain sin
for the sake of a hoped-for or imagined interest. It is possible to
achieve the interest of da'wah by other ways or in other places where
it is not necessary to help them in sin.

Muslims say they do not worship idols. When they go to Mecca, why do they kiss a black stone?

Isn't that like worshippingan idol?
Muslims do not worship the black stone. They regard the stone as a
created thing. The most fundamental principle of Islam is that nothing
or no one is to be worshipped except Allah, the one true God.
Muslims who can afford the journey are required once in their lifetime
to visit the House of Worshipin Makkah. This was the first house built
for the worship of the one true God. It was constructed byAbraham and
his son Ishmael, peace be upon them. The black stone was brought to
them from heaven by the angel Gabriel to function as a corner stone.
It was thus affixed in one corner.
Because Muslims kiss that stone, some observers hastily conclude that
Muslims worship it. A kiss, however, is not an act of worship unless
it is accompanied by an intention to worship. If you kiss your child,
for instance, that does not mean you worship your child.
Some may find it strange that Muslims should treat a stone with
respect. But this is not just any old stone. It is an item out of
paradise.
The act of fixing a stone to mark a place of worship is as old as
history. In the Bible we are told that Jacob, on whom be peace, had
fixeda stone at a place where he saw a vision. He poured oil on it and
calledit Bethel meaning 'house of God' (see Genesis 28:18). He did
this again upon God's instruction (see Genesis 35:1, 14, 15). No one
should understand from this that God instructed Jacob to worship the
stone.

Obama's "red line" warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention

Once again, Western powers are digging deep for excuses to intervene
militarily in another conflict-torn Middle East country, as U.S.
President Barack Obama warned Monday that the use of chemical weapons
by Syria's government wouldchange his "calculus."
With the hypocritical talksof eliminating weapons ofmass destruction
in Iraq and protecting civilians in Libya still ringing in the ears,
such "red line" threats seem to have almost become a signal for the
United States and some of its Western allies to sharpen their weapons
before exercising interventionism.
The world should stay vigilant that these dangerously irresponsible
remarks would do nothing but effectively escalate the current bloody
situation in Syria and gravely tarnish the prospects of settling
Syria's 17-month-old crisisthrough political means.
It is true that the UN and Arab League-led mediation efforts on the
ground have yet to yield satisfactory results to broker a ceasefire
between government troops and armed rebels in Syria.
However, when continuous radicalism-fueled roadside bomb attacks,
along with heartrending poverty and chaos, have nearly killed the
hopes for stability andprosperity in Somalia, Iraqand Libya, nations
that have suffered West-led military interventions, foreign crusades
would simply incur even more violence, hostilities and hatred in
Syria.
Apart from being ineffective to bring real peace, military
interventions by the United States and its Western partners are always
interests-driven and highly selective.
It is not difficult to find that, under the disguise
ofhumanitarianism, the United States has always tried to smash
governments it considers as threats to its so-called national
interests and relentlessly replace them with those that are
Washington-friendly.
That easily explains why both Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's
Muammar Gaddafi, who once worked closely with the United States, were
later depicted as brutal dictators with the people's blood dipping
through their fingers.
Right now, as conflicts between government troops and rebel forces
still rage in Syria, nations around the world should continue to build
on the progress that has been achieved by outgoing international envoy
Kofi Annan and his team.
Any attempt to scrap the chances for a political settlement and to
turn Syria into the next testingground for Western weapons must be
guarded against and ruledout.
China, being acutely aware of the harm of foreign interventions, has
always stood firmly against them and supported the political
settlement of all crises.
Thus, the Chinese government is keen to continue working with the
international community to back UN-backed negotiations aimed at
bringing real and lasting peace to Syria.

Russia warns West over Syria action

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the West yesterday
against any unilateral action on Syria after President Barack Obama
said US forces could act if the Syrian leader deployed chemical
weapons againstrebels trying to topple him.
Lavrov met China's top diplomat and a Syrian government delegation
inwhat appeared to be a push to keep diplomacy going at a time when
fewer Western and Arab governments believe that a UN-backed peace plan
can end the violence in Syria.
Russia and China have opposed military intervention in Syria
throughout 17 months of bloodshed and have vetoed three UN Security
Council resolutions backedby Western and Arab states.
Lavrov spoke at a meeting with China's State Councillor Dai Bingguo
one day after Obama, in some of his strongest language yet, said US
forces could move against Syrian President Bashar Assad if he resorted
to chemical weapons against insurgents.
Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on "the need to
strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles
contained in the UN Charter, and not to allow their violation," Lavrov
said during his meeting with Dai.
"I think this is the only correct path in today's conditions," Lavrov told Dai.
Lavrov's remarks also underscored Moscow's wish to keep
internationalefforts to end Syria's crisis within the United Nations.
Obama said on Monday he had refrained "at this point" from ordering
military engagement in Syria. But when asked whether he might deploy
forces, for example to secure Syrian chemical and biological weapons,
he said his view could change.
Russia has also expressed concern about Syria chemical weapons,
sayingit had told Damascus that even the threat to use them was
unacceptable.
But Lavrov said on Monday that the Security Council alone could
authorise the use of external force against Syria, warning against
imposing "democracy by bombs."
To help counter Assad's superior firepower, Western powers are giving
non-lethal equipment to rebels and Saudi Arabia and Qatar are believed
to have funded arms shipments tothem.
After the talks with Dai, Lavrov met a Syrian government delegation.
Lavrov said he was interested in hearing"plans for further actions to
shift the situation into the channel of a political dialogue in order
for Syrians themselves to decide their fate without external
interference."
Lavrov said the path to a solution in Syria lay in thehalt to fighting
by both the government and its foes.