Former prisoner of the Taliban converts to Islam
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Imam Nawawi said: Our companions (the scholars of the Shafi' Madhab in Fiqh) have said that everything which is prohibited to look at is also prohibited to touch, nay touching is even worse. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited everything that leads to sin, like his prohibiting men from entering upon women or being in seclusion with them by his saying “Be very careful not to enter upon women”.
There is no difference of opinion among scholars that it is prohibited to shake hands with a woman out of desire. This also applies to hugging, or touching any other part of her body. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) considered this a form of fornication. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The son of Adam’s portion of fornication has been written on him, and he will do it without a doubt. Gazing is the fornication of the eyes, hearing is the fornication of the ears, speech is the fornication of the tongue, touching is the fornication of the hand, the heart aspires and wishes, and the private part either allows it to take place or doesn’t. (Sahih Al-Bukhari)
Found here: The Ruling for shaking hands with the opposite gender
The prohibition of handshaking is based on the concept of "Forbidding acts which lead to greater harm" (Saddu Tharee'a). Thus, the cause of prohibition is not the act of handshaking in itself, but rather external factors that were involved in the act. Hence, it is from the minor sins, not the major sins. The same reasoning applies to gazing at the opposite gender.
Furthermore, acts that have been prohibited due to external factors can be allowed in a case which there is a need. Consequently, the scholars have made exceptions to the general rule. So, the doctor can touch an ill woman for the sake of treatment. Handshaking with an old woman who is not likely to get married and there is no fear of a greater harm is permissible. Likewise, handshaking with an old man who no longer lusts women is allowed. The same would apply to any situation in which there is no fitna (fear of lust or greater harm) existing.
In the West, people do not know about Islam itself, let alone this ruling on handshaking. This reality makes it mandatory for Muslims to announce to people their faith and culture. They must point out the wisdoms and the reasoning of Islamic sacred law behind rulings such as this one.
In a situation where a woman (or vice versa) who does not know of this ruling or even of Islam extends her arm and you shook hands with her, then you have not fallen into sin In Sha'llah. Reason being I wouldn't want you turning down his/her handshake to lead to a greater harm. I wouldn't want it to spark a negative reaction towards their view of Islam, or even lead them to feel emotionally hurt. This is what ought to be kept in mind based on "Fiqhul Muwaazana" (the Fiqh of measuring circumstances and their results). But at the same time, the Muslim must do his/her part in explaining to people the principles of Islam before situations such as these occur.
:-?
Also, I don't know if she was reading some Western version of Koran. She claims that Koran regards men and women as equal. But both Koran and Sharia plainly regard one man as equal to two women. Nowhere in Koran or Sharia are men and women treated as equals (except perhaps in a spiritual sense).
I believe that for the most part, this stems from Mohammad's condemnation of female infanticide and yes, that is somethings that pagans in the Gulf practiced at the time (Torah had condemned it long before the Christian or Muslim eras)
And yes, Islam accepts the equality of women but unfortunately it seems that it is equality is spirituality only. In life? Women are less - excuse me, women have 'their place and duties' which usually end up with their subservience to men. Sharia law definately puts women at a disadvantage.
the Islamic outlook on women was truly revolutionary in the Gulf at that time - but it was a time when women were routinely bought and traded, Female children were killed. Having said that, he betrothed himself to a 6 year old - she wasn't in need of protection, she had parents and while he 'waited' until she was an 'adult' before he actually had intercourse - why did he have to marry a child? He went to war with one of the Jewish tribes in the Gulf that refused to accept that he was 'THE' prophet to end all prophets. He killed them all, took everything they owned and then 'married' the one last person of the tribe. Bet she just LOVED being married to the man that killed her family. Turns out that when she died she willed her belongings to her nephew - her Jewish nephew.
For its day the Koranic outlook on women was advanced - almost Talmudic, but it never progressed. Niquab? Understandable in the middle ages but now, in the west? no. The whole 'you need 2 women to equal the witness of one man' thing? Insulting.
To Einassir, if he reads this. How can you rationalize that? It's tanamount to saying that Allah when made an inferior creature, Is this what YOU believe?
Quite so. I understand in the final stages of Hajj, in front of the Kaba (the holy stone), men and women are regarded as equal, there is no discrimination. But that is in some ephemeral, spiritual sense only, perhaps after death.
In day to day life, women are very much regarded as inferior, and in many instances, one man is regarded as equal to two women.
If it is the Stockholm syndrome, then it will certainly wear off over time. After all, brainwashing can only achieve temporary results and must be maintained for its effect to remain. So if it is brainwashing, that too will certainly wear off over time.
If after a long duration, she remains Muslim, then even if her original conversion would have been caused by brainwashing, her continued practice of it would certainly have become of her own free will. Only time will tell.
'Wastern version of Koran'? First off, we normally place a definite article in front of 'Koran', but also there is only one version of the Koran, albeit with translations into various languages. The version she must have read would have been the Koranic version.
I think we need to make a distinction between the Koran and understandings thereof. Different people and different scholars will have different understandings of that same book, just as two Christians reading the same Bible will have different understandings of it.
I'd read the Qur'an a number of times, and I would not say that it grants women social equality with men, but rather simply that it does grant them specific inviolable freedoms, and men specific obligations towards women; though it does grant women spiritual equality with men. If she understands these freedoms and obligations to mean equality, then that may be what it is. It does not mean that she'd read some 'Western Koran'. She and I must certainly have read the same Koran (albeit possibly different stylistic translations, though the content would still remain identical), but she simply understood it differently from the way I'd understood it.
I can certainly understand her attraction to Islam. When I'd first read it, I'd considered adopting it myself if it weren't for certain laws that I felt to be outdated.
Not necessarily. Once she is converted to Islam, her whole outlook may change. Then she may believe only things she hears which are favorable to Islam and disbelieve anything said against the Koran and against Islam. The brainwashing can feed upon itself. She can reinforce her own brainwashing.
It may be that once she accepted Islam, she stopped thinking logically at least when it comes to religion (that happens to many Muslims and indeed, even many Christians, then it comes to religion, they go by emotion rather than by logic).
It was just a facetious comment, Machjo. I assume there is no 'Western' version of Koran.
I agree. But as you say, that does not mean that women have equal rights. Indeed, in many areas (inheritance, testifying in a Sharia court etc.), it specifically says that one man is equal to two women.
Well then, she understood it wrong. And indeed, if by that she understands Islam granting women equality, then by the same (twisted) logic, surely Bible also grants women equality? Then why switch over?
I can understand a man wanting to convert to Islam, men have all the advantages in Islam. But a woman wanting to convert to Islam, well, she is either a masochist, has very low self esteem, or both.
Last edited:
If that should be the case, then it would have nothing to do with her captors anymore since she'd be choosing to maintain this Faith of her own free will.
Yes, that can happen to some, especially once they start following some scholar or other. Some Muslims fall into the trap of believing anything an imam says because of his 'learned' position rather than read the Qur'an for themselves. The same can apply to Christians in relation to priests and reverends, or Jews in relation to Rabbis, for example. They suspend their own critical thought processes and instead of reading their sacred texts for themselves, they end up idolizing some ecclesiastic authority. But again, this would have nothing to do with her captors, but would rather reveal something of her own character if this is indeed the case.
Indeed the bible does not grant women equality either. In fact, if we threw prejudice aside, Islam grants women more protection than the Christian faith does if we should compare the Qur'an to the Bible.
That would depend on what religion he'd be converting from. Again, the only religion I know of that teaches explicit equality between men and women in the sacred texts would be the Baha'i faith. Islam wold be the one that would come closest to women's equality otherwise. But I doubt a man who intends to suppress his wife would need any religious sanction for it. After all, Islam also places many obligations on the man towards women, so I doubt Is;am would be particularly atractive to such a man.
And as for women adopting Islam, again, if they enter Islam from the Christian Faith, it would actually be a step up. All you have to do is compare the text of the Qur'an to that of the New Testament to see that.
I honestly think that anyone who has actually read the Qur'an, with its whippings, stonings, mutilations, amputations, beheadings.. in service of its detailed specification of a rigid theocratic tyranny, would have to have some deep alienation from his/her native culture and pressing need for order, beyond all reason or mercy, to see this type of society as a refuge.
On top of this you would be blind to not to see how unsuccesful in comparative terms Islamic societies are.. violent, technologically stunted, governed by feudalism or tibalism. It is a source of seething frustration throughout the Islamic world.
On top of this you would be blind to not to see how unsuccesful in comparative terms Islamic societies are.. violent, technologically stunted, governed by feudalism or tibalism. It is a source of seething frustration throughout the Islamic world.
Last edited:
Indeed, it would have nothing to do with the captors. However, the brainwashing carried out by the captors (perhaps unintentional) would still endure.
Indeed, Bible doesn’t grant women equality, neither does Koran. My point was that if someone by twisted logic concludes that Islam indeed does grant women equality, then the same twisted logic should lead her to the conclusion that Bible also grants women equality. Then why switch from Bible to Koran? One of the main reasons she gave for converting was that Islam grants women equality. That reason is nonsense, in my opinion.
Islam does not come closest to equality, that is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, Bible comes closer to equality than Islam does. Bible regards woman as her husband’s servant. Man is the boss, woman must obey him.
However at the end of the say, both the master and servant are human beings. Islam, when it says that one man equals two women, in effect regards women as less than human, only half human. The protections given to women in Koran are the kind one would give to animals, to somebody who is so weak, so pathetic that they need some protections.
Koran gives man explicit permission to beat his wife. On that, most Muslim scholars agree, the only disagreement being the severity of the beating. So this Scottish journalist, if she ever gets married, Islam will give her husband explicit permission to beat her, if she dares disobey him. I fail to see where there is equality in that. Incidentally, Bible does not give a man explicit permission to beat his wife.
In my opinion, Bible describes a master/servant relationship, while Koran describes master/slave relationship.
I agree, such a man does not need any religious sanctions for it. But if there is a religious sanction, no doubt he would welcome it. After all, a wife beater would be much happier if he knows that God tells him to beat his wife, rather than know that he beats his wife because there is something wrong with him.
As I have already explained, I fail to see how it would be a step up. Any religion where God tells the man that he has the right to beat his wife, is the pits, as far as women's rights are concerned. Indeed, I cannot think of any other religion where women are treated more shabbily (except perhaps in Hinduism).
The reason for that is Muslims, and not Islam. Islamic societies have flourished in the past, in the Middle East. During the reign of Caliphs (Harun Al Rashid being the most well known), Middle East was a rich and prosperous land, people of all religions and all faiths were welcome.
In those days, Muslims were quite relaxed about Islam, they were not Fundamentalists like they are today, they were quite tolerant. For instance, in Omar Khayyam's Rubiyat, there are several references to drinking alcohol.
there are a few sects of Islam ,that is, there are some different interpretation of Koran and Muhammed's sayings.
some Muslims ( especially puritans) in Turkey support those rules but the majority doesn't, either.
I am Muslim , i have many friends of opposite sex and i hug or shake hands with them when i meet them. there is no problem but in Arabia or Iranian that would cause a chaos, of course.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (Matt. 7:16 - Jesus' caveat of false prophets) :smile:
Ok - I've read the Q'uran, and while I can see the steps forward that Mohammed makes, I also see the limitations.I also see that Islam is not the first religion to recognize the worth of women - or the rights of slaves etc ...
I can see the advancements that Islam promoted - but I look at history and yes - I read the Q'uran, and I see as much bigotry and misogyny - if not more - as I see in any other religion.
So, you can know what the Quran says without reading it?
Shi'ites, Sufis, Sunnis, etc., yes. Islam isn't nearly as splintered as Christianity and Judaism are, possibly because it isn't as old and its texts haven't been modified and commented on as much, but it's not a monolith either, there are plenty of disagreements among Muslims, about the meaning of Islam's scriptures and the Prophet's sayings and the succession of authority from him. All the scriptures of the major monotheisms are alike in the sense that it's possible to find support in them for pretty much any position you'd care to take.
One has to see these books in the light of the times when they were written, DHW. As I have said before, it wouldn’t surprise me if Mohammed was a liberal, a progressive in those days. After all, when a man has one and a half loaves of bread and a woman has none (i.e., she has no rights), it is a progressive, liberal position to say that woman should have at least half a loaf of bread.
So it may well have been a progressive attitude in those days. However in these days of equal rights, it is positively barbaric to say that one man is equal to two women.
I don't know if you could say Muhammad was a liberal, though a progressive might be a better term.
And yes you're right about taking the context of the time into account. And yes I agree that some laws of the Qur'an are outdated today in my opinion.
All that said, I don't believe attacking Islam is the solution, as that merely puts Muslims on the defensive. I also do not believe that a woman who converts to Islam necessarily has low self-esteem, etc. Though I'm not a woman myself, I can say that when I'd first read the Qur'an, I was impressed at how advanced a book it was compared to other religious texts I was familiar with at the time. Though I'd not adopted Islam (owing to some of its laws being outdated among other things), I could still see why it would appeal to people who are looking for a religion, when compared to many other religions.
To be fair to Muhammad, we do have to consider him within the context of the time and place in which he found himself, and within that context, Islam is a progressive religion, and so people familiar with that time in history can't help but be awe-struck at how advanced the Qur'an was for its time.
i don't think we are discussing solutions here, Machjo. We are simply discussing Islam and whether it grants equal rights to women, as that reporter claimed. It doesn't.
Quite so. And my problem is not with Mohammed (or even with Koran or Sharia), for saying that one man is equal to two women. In an age when women had no rights, to say that a woman has half the rights of a man may have been a gigantic step forward.
My problem is with morons who today claim that one man is equal to two women. And with those who want to apply Sharia (which treats one man as equal to two women) in today’s world. To me, the right way to look at Sharia or Koran is by historical perspective, and not as an immutable word of God.
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.
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.