As what what we were discussing in this thread, initially I'd just put it up out of curiosity about the responses. Stockholm syndrome came up. I can't remember if the thought had already crossed my mind prior, but the response somehow did not surprise me. If you read back, even I bought into it for the first few posts. As I'd thought more on it though, I'm not convinced anymore that it was Stockholm syndrome. As to why she'd adopt Is;am, I can't answer that since i'd never adopted it myself, but I can understand how she could be impressed by it at least, and if you combine that with a spiritual quest, I think I can see why she'd adopt Islam.
Personally, I still can't understand how she overlooks some of the obviously outdated aspects of Islam, and so can only speculate. One possibility is that she sees too much materialism in the world around her and so turns to a religion she knows, and it happens to be either the Christian Faith or Islam, both of which are outdated, and so she adopts Islam as her source of spirituality. And out of a sense of honesty, she concludes that if she adopts Islam, she must adopt it altogether or not at all. Granted all of this is just speculation on my part, but I don't see Stockholm syndrome playing a role in her adopting Islam at all.
And as for 'morons' supporting these outdated laws, remember that many of them have been raised Muslim and have never been taught to think critically about religion.
In school, we question numbers and are taught a critical approach to mathematic, and are capable of analyzing them in a rational manner. Ditto for science courses, much less so for language courses (which often ethnically prejudiced) but still to some degree at least.
But in school, religion is taboo, so as a result it's usually only taught in the home, and usually not critically, with parents merely teaching that their religion is right and that's the end of that.
Now let's suppose for a moment that world religions was a compulsory component of the school curriculum, where pupils would in fact be exposed to various religious texts, including the Bible, the Qur'an, the Bagavad-Gita, the Dhammapada, the Kitab-i-Aqdas, etc., we'd likely find people adopting a more critical approach to religion, along with more people respecting Islam's historical contribution while still being able to acknowledge its outdatedness.
So whose fault is it that the school system does not teach an equally critical approach to religious studies as it does to maths and science?
As long as it does not do that, it's not really fair to then blame a person who's never been taught to analyse his Faith critically for not doing so. If he's never been taught, unless he has a naturally critical mind already, then he's not likely to know how to approach religion as critically as he does maths and science. I've met such examples, with one who comes particularly to mind. He was an educated engineer, highly intelligent and criticlaly-minded, and did question the natural world about him (as he'd been taught in school), yet when it came to religion all he could do was defer to the local imam and read the Qur'an in Arabic even though he could barely understand the language himself and believed that somehow the power of the Qur'an did not rest in the meaning of the words, but rather in the form of the Arabic words themselves. How else can we explain that such ignorance can rest in such a highly developed mind?
The only conclusion I can come to is that school taught him critical thought when it tame to maths and science, but not religion.