Why Aren’t Muslim Women Converting to Christianity?

#107 ECHOBOOM


jaggo Pakistan advice is good & appropriate if it is coming from a pakistani or Indian muslim or even from a hamidm2. Or, even if it comes from any white, yellow, or black muslim or non-muslim ( thanks for the tip--ribbing & rubbing is getting better)

But from a hindu?--with a ganesh memory! don`t you ever laugh?

So you think you can got on to top of the world by riding a Camel`s back in the Arabian Desert???

Get up man....how long are you going to sleep???

manto...
... you are absolutely right about the opposition from sindhi politicians... i remember reading about the threat that...sindh will be turned into a river of blood if the biharis were repatriated to pakistan... by the prime minister of pakistan...mohtarma benazir bhutto...

Dear Sir,
The reason why Muslim women do not convert to other religions is simply because the majority of Muslim women are under constant pressure from society and families. The reason why Islam is the fastest growing religion is because there are more missionaries and people spreading the ``word``. Religion plays on the mind and strives on guilt. We all have guilt and lemme hand it to Islam... it does a darn good job of playing on the guilty mind. And if peopel want to slow dance or dirty dance... it is kind of up to them dont you think. ``Your people`` are old enough to decide what is right for them and what is not. And believe me Islam does not have the answer to all of life`s problems. Let me tell you the problem people have with Islam. Muslims make it a point to inflict their beliefs on others. Its been like that from the beginning. If someone commits a sin you make your life`s destiny to correct them. I know I know... I am duly warned, and I might hear an earful from you. But instead of vowing to explode on the liberals that you hate so much. Try and understand that as human intelligence progresses, religion becomes less believable. Just like the tooth fairy. Beileve me sir, I was a devout Muslim but something profound happened... I graduated 6th grade!

#147 by hassanjaffrey, #140 by Salim_Chauhan, #137 by Aasif

#133, ``All terrorist groups are ideologically led by the Urdu speaking from Bareli and Deoband...Terrorism is a curse from UP... ``

Three seemingly educated and super smart turkeys -eating and returning both- have commented on my above quote. No one seems to understand the difference between the foot soldiers and the Ideological leadership. Shiat! And I though some people have learned a thing or two after they returned from Turkey without a turkey.

The entire ideological leadership to the current fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan has come from the maulvis either trained in Deoband and Bareli or are the disciples of the criminality they teach there. If someone wants to discuss this in detail they are welcomed to it. I don’t even have to look for references in posting the names of those ``ideological Urdu speaking leaders``.

#154 by majumdar

“Salimbhai/Tahmed sahib/Maulana Urstruly (pbuh)

”I fail to understand why there is so much resistance to repatriation of 250,000 stranded Pakistanis”

Bara Bhai…

You are asking the wrong people…They have no idea what the problem is. It’s a long story. I will post in detail, perhaps tomorrow.

Hamidm Mian,

Beware of the wrath of the `amazons` ... do learn to tango quickly in between breaks between other distractions such as cleavages etc ... `werna ghar mein jhagra parhey gaa`.

#105 by Salim_Chauhan

Aap ki zarra nawazi hai sarkar!

Manto mian

(But I think the compromise will have to be that Biharis might repatriate but it has to be in Punjab... and Punjab only. )

I had come to the same conclusion based on pure common sense. Glad to know that we think rather alike... except on the minor matter of partioning Bengal and Punjab.

Regards

Why aren`t the Muslims staying put in their Pure lands ?

The assorted pea-brain Muslims would have us believe that the ``dominant discourse`` in west is nothing but free sexuality. They come to this conclusion in a very sub-conscious manner while typing away on their Windows PC with the most latest high-speed worldwide connection laid down by the decadent west technology. Other instances where they may realize the decadent culture of the west are while standing in long queues outside the western embassies begging for western visas, while flying to west in Boeing or Airbus planes, while picking up the life-saving prescription medicine from the local drug store, etcetra, etcetra....

Now all of this brings me to a logical question. With all of the heart-ache that muslims undergo due to decadent culture in west, why don`t they just stay back in their pure lands ? Wouldn`t that be the best way to ``stick to their roots`` ( literally ) ?

In retrospect, may be the muslims need not stay back in their pure lands. One look at the Ghettos in France, Bradford, Oldham, Denmark, etcetra would confirm that Muslims are not just migrating to western lands but they are bringing their ``Pure lands`` with them.

a great effor Ahmer !
You are talking absolutely right. The way of so called enlightened Islam is taking us to the depth of ignorance where we ll neither able to acquire World(Dunia) nor relegion(aakhirat). Just to elloborate I want to share an incidence of my recent days.
I m not a religious person nor are my friends. on an event probably of Eid me and my friends went on outing driving on the roads we reached Fortress stadium Lahore. We were in a mood of enjoing the day and our time but despite this many of us started abusing the Government after what we saw overe there women wearing short dresses exposing every thing they have to the world and people looking at them lustfully. we just drove out of the stadium area while feeling the heat on our ears due to the shame we were feeling about our society. (this is from some one abolutely not religious).
So u can well imagine that where ur society is going, even if we have to follow the west, we should take the example of those who are inspiring and converting to Islam instead copying their madness of nudity.
as we are told that `` they(non muslims) will never be happy for us(muslims) untill we adopt their religion`` .

and to sri!
please dont use any abusing words to any of the religion. please talk serously after getting atleast some knowledge of what you are talking.
as far as ur allegatons are conerened please consider my raw points.
1) Muslims only see the nudity and sexuality in west.
Ans: well Sri ! the case is this that at a level of conversation where difference of opinion is being addressed I believe it is logical to talk the major issues one see in the other opinion holders view of point.
2) Muslins come to the west
Ans: I dont think that this is even equal to that migration which is bing made to Muslims countries by the people in west for the sake of knowledge and lively hood in past times.

We were in a mood of enjoing the day and our time but despite this many of us started abusing the Government after what we saw overe there women wearing short dresses exposing every thing they have to the world and people looking at them lustfully. we just drove out of the stadium area while feeling the heat on our ears due to the shame we were feeling about our society. (this is from some one abolutely not religious).


ROFL.. nice post..

You should make use of the heat on your ears. Goto the nearest ``jihadi camp`` and enroll yourself. You can`t allow these things to happen in ``allah`s land``.

Folks I have a solution to the ``mohajir`` problem.


Muhajir or Mohajir (Arabic: ãåÇÌÑ) is an Arabic word meaning refugee or immigrant or emigrant. The Islamic calendar Hejira starts when Prophet Muhammad and his companions left Mecca for Madina. They were called Muhajirs. The Arabic root word for immigration and emmigration is Hijrat.
Several Muslim refugee groups have been termed as Muhajir or Mohajirs over the centuries.
Prophet Muhammad and his companions escaped from Mecca to Madina ..


Looks like ``Mr. Mo`` has given the name ``Mohajirs`` (??) and made it famous. If you think about it, shouldn`t the ``Muhajirs`` be planning to re-take Delhi (or the land of Kafirs)?? like what Mr.Mo did, and should not fight amongst themselves within the group of ``believers``??.
It makes sense.. :-)

An interesting discussion, here`s a reaction by a muslima on another freshly reverted muslima. Strange behaviour indeed.

http://hotcoals.org/?p=84


Hot Coals
Ahead of you are days which will require endurance, in which showing endurance will be like holding hot coals - Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings upon him)
« Meeting the Master
Afghan Convert Controversy: A Counter-Perspective on Apostasy in Islam »
April 1st, 2006
Faith And Its ExpressionTo shake or not to shake? Is that even a question?
Yasmin Amin

Yvonne Ridley’s article: “Sheikh Tantawi’s Handshake” is making the rounds of the internet. An intriguing and interesting viewpoint indeed! What would Ms. Ridley, a fresh convert to Islam and celebrated Muslima, converted by the Taliban whilst in captivity, have to say after she went to see Sheikh Tantawi? Sadly the article is not about some profound message about religion or religious discourse, nor is it about a pending or former insightful fatwa. It was all about just a simple handshake. You might wonder about me wondering about it, but the Muslim world apparently is wondering about it and why shouldn’t I? After all, this is so earth-shakingly important in the annals of Islamic adab. The bottom line of the article is that Ms. Ridley went to meet Sheikh Tantawi and he wanted to shake her hand and she got totally affronted about it. Don’t tell me you haven’t heard all about it? If not, here’s my take on it.

First of all it was Ms. Ridley who refused to shake Sheikh Tantawi’s outstretched hand, offered in greeting and not the usual other way around, when a Muslim woman would jump over her patriarchal traditionalist teachings and extend a shy hand to a man in greeting, only to have the humiliation of it being refused, which amounts to a bucket of cold icy water dumped on her, frequently veiled, head.

Just why would any Muslim, or Muslima for that matter, shake in fright when faced with a situation of shaking a woman’s or a man’s hand? A handshake can lead to other things it is said. One shakes a hand and before one knows it, one can end up together shaking a bed it is implied. I looked it up and found various rulings saying that: “it is prohibited to shake hands with a woman if there is fear of provoking sexual desire or enjoyment on the part of either one of them or if there is fear of temptation.” These rulings are apparently based on the general rule that blocking the means to evil is obligatory, especially if its signs are clear. But were the signs really that clear in this particular situation? These rulings are also based on a questionable Hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (pbuh) said, “…The hands fornicate. Their fornication is the touch…”

Even so, if this is indeed the reason, I was taken aback. So in other words, Ms. Ridley accused Sheikh Tantawi of impure thoughts? Notwithstanding that he pointed out to her his age and standing as a scholar and a teacher, she actually thought that a handshake between them might provoke desire and temptation. I further wonder who and what she was so worried about? Her own or the venerable old Sheik’s desire? In either case, it is a bit strange. If the former, that is rather interesting, because it just makes me question the purity of Ms. Ridley’s thoughts in this case. That of course leads me right to ‘niyyat’. Isn’t religion and Islam mainly all about niyyat?

The first Hadith recorded in Bukhari’s Collection Volume 1, Book 1, Number 1 reads: “Narrated ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended…”

This was the first Hadith recorded by Bukhari in his book. It was used as an introduction to all Hadiths to come afterwards. This particular Hadith indicates, that all deeds are judged and rewarded according to their intention. ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi is reported to have said that: “Were I to compose a book comprised of various chapters, I would place the Hadith of ‘Umar regarding deeds and intentions in each chapter. This is one of the firm Hadiths, which serves as an axis of Islam.” Al-Shafi’i said that it comprises a third of all religious knowledge. Ahmad bin Hanbal said that the principles axes of Islam, in terms of Hadith, are three: the Hadith narrated by ‘Umar that “deeds are judged only by intention,” the Hadith narrated by ‘Aisha, “Whoever introduces into our affairs that which does not belong, it is rejected,” and the Hadith narrated by al-Nu’man bin Bashir, “The licit is clear and the illicit is clear.” And all these Hadiths relate to our situation here, but I digress. So let us go back to niyyat. If I understand it correctly you get a reward for a thought of a good deed, even before it is done. So just the thought, coming from an arising niyyat, is enough to grant you a bonus point, and shake the balance of your judgement day deed sheet. But in this case the niyyat of a believer (Sheikh Tantawi) is assumed by another believer (Ms. Ridley) to be bad. My next question would have to be: what happened to Sura [64.4] He knows what is in the heavens and the earth, and He knows what you hide and what you manifest; and Allah is Cognizant of what is in the hearts.

So if Allah knows what is in the heart, Ms. Ridley seems to share that knowledge for some unknown and inexplicable reason. Just what is it that Ms. Ridley sees that I cannot? Or is it perhaps that she thinks that her irresistible form, covered in a modest veil is enough to shake the good old sheikh by merely shaking her hand? Or is it perhaps that she is afraid of shaking his hand, so that her own faith is not shaken? Does Ms. Ridley not believe that Allah created man and woman equal? And that for Sheikh Tantawi to allow her some of his valuable time was raising her to his scholarly level rather than assuming a desirable and tempting form under her modest veil?

If Sheikh Tantawi is secure enough to be in a meeting with Ms. Ridley, in the safe presence of an interpreter, discussing some religious issue or other or even granting her an interview about some of his thoughts, why shouldn’t she be secure enough in taking a greeting as it was meant, rather than how it was perceived after being interpreted by her? Is it interpretation rather than niyyat that is the problem?.

Many scholars have interpreted women mixing with men as the root of all evil. So a handshake, in their view, would most certainly lead to evil. I seem to recall that men and women mix in the haram in Mecca for pilgrimage. They do not shake hands there, granted, but they pray side by side in very close proximity. They eliminate worldly thoughts while performing their rituals and are in audience with Allah. So it is not interpretation but their niyyat which matters.

I also recall the prophet visiting Um Haran bint Milhan, wife of Ubada bin As-Samit, on his own. She would offer him meals and sit with him and he enjoyed her hospitality as per Hadith 47, narrated by Anas bin Malik in Bukhari’s collection. So he mixed with her and there were no shakes there. Nobody would allege an evil niyyat to the prophet. But then again that is what Ms. Ridley seems to have alleged to Sheikh Tantawi’s, despite the presence of a third party, namely the translator. And that is what everyone else alleges, who refuses an outstretched hand.

Why does a hand cause so much fear? Is Islam all about evil and its prevention, rather than good and its implementation? A gesture of goodwill goes a long way, even if it is just a kind word, as per Sura [2.263]: Kind speech and forgiveness is better than charity followed by injury; and Allah is Self-sufficient, Forbearing. And Ms. Ridley knows that too, for she writes in her own words: “it is permissible to go for the least line of resistance, rather than embarrass others.”

Yet Ms. Ridley ends her article with “If I ever meet Sheikh Tantawi again I will not be extending my hand, unless it’s clutching a frying pan.” Is this what peace and Islam has been reduced to by Ms. Ridley, to drive your point across threatening someone with a frying pan? And that too on the revered head of a renowned and respected Sheikh of Al Azhar? What happened to ‘adab’? What happened to setting a good example? What happened to good behaviour and decency? What happened to Islam as a way of life? And then one wonders about terrorism and murder? Isn’t a hand clutching a threatening frying pan in defence against a simple handshake alleging that it is almost leading to ‘zina’ very akin to a hand clutching a gun in defence against an alleged insult of the faith like Theo van Gogh had to feel? Why do we not keep things in proportion? Why do we have to interpret all sorts of things into simple gestures that aren’t really there except in the imagination? Why are women reduced (and in this case even by a woman) to sexual objects, without brains and uses other than evoking sexual desires, leading to temptation and ultimately shaking a bed rather than a hand?

Ms. Ridley wrote in her article that she consulted “all sorts of Islamic authorities and they unanimously told her that the Sheikh of Al-Azhar was wrong”. Be that as it may, I suppose those “all sorts of Islamic authorities” had a live conduit into Sheikh Tantawi’s brain and could see and ascertain his evil niyyat. They also found out that he, despite his age and the decades of scholarly years on his shoulders studying theology, would be transported into delight by merely shaking Ms. Ridley’s hand, which would undo his ablutions and lead to other very evil things. But then only Allah knows what’s in Sheikh Tantawi’s head and heart.

But I still have to wonder about those “all sorts of Islamic authorities”. Who are they? Sheikh Tantawi is an authority of his own. Many other Islamic authorities care deeply about his thoughts and try to emulate his behaviour and adopt his thinking. But now those unnamed “all sorts” question his niyyat? Perhaps we should then turn to those “all sorts”, unidentified as they are, for guidance? Why weren’t they identified, if their opinion outweighs that of an Azharite, and not just any Azharite mind you, but THE Azharite?

Could it be because they are maybe some obscure mullah or other? And what are their arguments against the simple innocent handshake as a greeting? Ms. Ridley doesn’t tell us that either, because she was too busy stringing angry words in a three page article about the handshake itself. So what could their reasoning be? Sexual enticement leading to zina? A western custom that should be shunned by the pious Muslims, so they don’t fall into the trap of imitating a bida’? Impure thoughts and wicked imagination leading to unrestrained immoral deeds? Perhaps even the propagation of germs causing disease? Or is there something in the Hadiths or Suras which they are relying on and which Sheikh Tantawi missed?

I am sorry, but I fail to understand all these reasons, because for me it stops at niyyat. If niyyat is good enough for a reward by Allah to a deed still undone, it should be good enough. Or do they know something more than Allah revealed in his book or the Prophet uttered in his Hadiths? If that is the case, I would really like for Ms. Ridley to identify them, so we can all benefit from their profound wisdom.

In conclusion, Ms. Ridley who converted in August 2003, and after verifying her own opinion with those obscure unidentified “all sorts of Islamic authorities” thinks she knows more than Sheikh Tantawi the Sheikh of Al Azhar. In her closing paragraph she wrote that Sheikh Tantawi asked: “Who is teaching her? She can shake my hand, why she is like my daughter. This is the problem with Muslims in Europe today, they listen to extreme voices.” So Ms. Ridley thinks she knows more than the good Sheikh, while Sheikh Tantawi thinks that European Muslims are extremists. If it was a question of who is more grounded in Islam, I will most certainly take Sheikh Tantawi’s word, because if I use my own mind, which Allah has given me, I will most certainly arrive at the logical conclusion that most ‘normal’ men and women can’t really get that excited from a handshake.

Ms. Ridley’s shaking article can be found here:

http://www.muslimsweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1251&Itemid=238

Yasmin Amin is a bibliophile living in Cairo, with interests relating to religious studies and Middle Eastern history.

Some interesting developments... regarding politics in Karachi...



Altaf Hussain has changed the name of APMSO from

All Pakistan `Mohajir` Student Organization to

All Pakistan `Mutehida ` Student Organization.


Daily Jassarat [ An Urdu newpaper with Islamic tilt ] has reported... 22 members of the ruling party
in Sind are detained in connection with the Bombing....

Also it has reported... Altaf Hussain has said ``.....Some of his members are causing embarasement to the party.......``



http://www.jasarat.com/detail.php?category=nation&image=05.gif&date=26-04-2006


http://www.jasarat.com/detail.php?category=nation&image=18.gif&date=25-04-2006

mujtabali2 #168 you write ``We were in a mood of enjoing the day and our time but despite this many of us started abusing the Government after what we saw overe there women wearing short dresses exposing every thing they have to the world and people looking at them lustfully.``

You would have enjoyed the day if you had been a muslim and read the Quran where it calls upon men (that means you ) to lower your gaze before women. How dare you examine what a woman is wearing? Lafangaaz like you should be strung upside down on fortress stadium and given a thrashing. Then you will feel the heat between your ears.