Ladies going to University?

[Raamsade]

Mario B, I'll take a chill pill if you promise to stop clinging to me like a limpet.

[Mario B]

Raamsade;813637 wrote:

Islam isn't that much different from Christianity although much to its credit Islam is far more rational than Christianity which depends more on silly miracles. Seeking knowledge may be encouraged in Islam but not the truth. It doesn't matter how "knowledgeable" you are if your knowledge isn't true you might as well have never learned it. True knowledge is the key here. And any inquiry into the truth is discouraged by by all organized religions because the truth will expose their little dirty secret. Like all secrets tugged under the rug for so long, there comes a time when the stench becomes unbearable. Hence, why Wadaads in general fight tooth and nail against the truth. The Theory of Evolution, a bonafide scientific theory as they ever come, is vehemently rejected by virtually all Wadaads.

The theory of revolution is just that a theory, when scrutinized closely it doen't even pass what it's claiming to hold. Now Islam doesn't deny that they are cosmological and geological evolution and that life was created/ocurred in stages, that all living thing were created from water, these are claims that Islam made hundreds of years before any scientific knowledge.

 

On the issue of objective truths or scientific truths I will quote you Karl Popper who wrote “The more we learn about the world and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance”. He believed that even when a scientific principle had been successfully and repeatedly tested, it was not necessarily true. Instead it had simply not been proved false, yet! This became known as the theory of falsification.

 

The neutrino findings are casting doubt on Einstein's theory of relativity, a theory that supplanted an ealier Newtonian paradigm that was a casting iron world view for a few hundreds years. Recently Albert Einstein was proved to be correct in his view of how the universe is expanding, there is an aya in Q that makes that claim.

 

For me I have never seen a principle that is in either science, philosophy, politics, economics, etc that I found was profound that i didn't come across in the teaching of Islam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please elaborate on the stench thing?

[Paragon]

Raamsade;813637 wrote:

True knowledge is the key here.

And any inquiry into the truth is discouraged by by all organized religions because the truth will expose their little dirty secret. Like all secrets tugged under the rug for so long, there comes a time when the stench becomes unbearable. Hence, why Wadaads in general fight tooth and nail against the truth. The Theory of Evolution, a bonafide scientific theory as they ever come, is vehemently rejected by virtually all Wadaads.

Mr. Raamsade, may I ask, is there one definition - or rather a 'delineation of the contours' of the constituency - of 'true knowledge' that you adhere to more than others? A positivist kind? I wonder. If so, perhaps you could be forgiven for casting all under one 'reality'. Afterall what we are all dealing with here are our endorsements of 'make-beliefs' and 'revealed-beliefs'. The only truth here is that we have multiple competing truths, objectivist or rationalist facts included. What I sense here is that you're advocating for the supremity of facts over held truths. Maybe pitting fact against fact or truth against truth would be the better protocol. If the opposite is done then the confusion remains for good. Let the believers belief and non-believers battle with non-believing facts. On that note, know that rationality itself is a state of mind that frequently changeful in accordance with ushered events. Don't shift about with them - simply remain.

 

On ladies getting educated, I think for whatever its worth, they should be given equal opportunities - because if anything they make better students. The issue should be does Western education promote more culturally negative or positive values in girls more than boys? If so how can we better it together as a community for our own benefits. One factor we must not overlook easily is that one way or another cultures chance and influence each other - and that both genders are equally receptive to cultural change. If any thing proper education equips the individual - male or female - to differentiate between what is good or bad for them. Over all the whole world is undergoing the same stresses and challenges. So learn, adapt and overcome. That is if you want to live and remain in qurboland for a long time.

 

PS: I may joke with women in SOL about some issues but seriously I wouldnt have allowed if my own 2 sisters were denied education! "cos they were damn good at it and have long finished it and are raising beautiful families. They are most modest and most intelligent and thank Allah and good education for that!

 

Samafal, i'm good my brother Alxamdullaah! I hope you are well. Nothing remarkably new i'm afraid.

[Blessed]

^Hello.

 

Raamsade,

I doubt that any university degree equips one with 'true knowledge' and secondly Islam doesn't reject evolution of creation outright, we simply trace the process all back to Allah.

 

Having said that, this has little to do with the topic at hand and the motivation of some who place such limitations on people are down to cultural as well as myopic views of the world, in my opinion.

[Garnaqsi]

Mario B;813646 wrote:

The theory of revolution is just that a theory, when scrutinized closely it doen't even pass what it's claiming to hold.

Looks like someone has been listening to Zakir Naik...

 

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

[Mario B]

I'm my own man, if you want to debate me then your welcome. With regards to Naik, i'm more Ahmed Deedat fan. His strong accent and robotic persona put me off from the outset.

[Mario B]

Ali [RA] in an insightfull comment about philosophers he made this claim, that philosophers will philosophize about the creation untill they come to the conclusion that all this is indeed from GOD, then they will ask each other "who created God"?

 

David Hume in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, after accepting the possibility of a designer in the creation of the heavens and earth, ended up asking, "if there is a designer who created the designer"?

 

Reality doesn't change but perspective does, this premise that Islam is anti-knowledge is just false. Abu Hanifa used to debate the atheist in the Masjid, so did Imam Ghazalli and many other scholars. It's shame modern Muslim don't love education like generation before, you can't pin the blame on Islam. The essence of Islam is that there no speech or action without knowledge, and this principle applies with all branches of knowldges from theology to astrophysics from grammar and logic to pure mathematics and medicine. Most of our wadads now days are semi-literate if compared to polymaths of the past, our scholars are jack of all trades and masters of none, pity.

 

I would like to see a day come soon when our scholars could debate a Sam Harris or a Dawkins or someone of Christopher Hitchens caliber in our mosques, IshaaAllah.

[Wadani]

Mario uve hit the nail on the head. There is a significant gap between the challeneges of this modern world and the needs of Muslims within it and the knowledge and expertise of those we deem to be scholars. This knowledge gap, in my opinion, is among the root causes of the backwardness and lack of development we see in the Muslim world. Like u said, scholars of today are but a shell of those of the past, and its because they no longer value critical thinking, creativity and freedom of expression, Nowadays its as if they've been massed produced in some Shaikh factory, with each one being identical to the other and with each one pre-programmed with ready made simplistic answers to very complicated issues.

[Raamsade]

Mario B, no disrespect buddy but I don't think you're in a position to reject Evolution Theory as you like both the requisite intellect and the education. You sound like the typical unwashed, gullible Muslim regurgitating the trite platitudes of Islamic polemicists. I know you can do better. Stop believing whatever a hairy, sister marrying, boy diddling, rice munching Asiatic tells you. And don't you dare tell me ina laxwase and ina bud seexde told you about how preeminent scientists world over got it so wrong about Evolution Theory. Those guys have smarter things to do with their time like molesting camels and raiding the clan next door. No self-respecting Somali would waste his time with the past-time musings of inferior foreigners and certainly not that of lowly Asians. You say you're a fan of Ahmed Deedat but why not be a fan of equally daft, misogynistic, illiberal Somali wadaads like Sh. Boqol Soon or Sh. Umul or what have you?

 

I don't like prelates in general but I have special disdain for prideless Somali prelates who try to foist on Somalis alien ideas they got from Pakistansi or Arabs. I have special reverence for Somali wadaads of old who, while being completely wrong about eternal salvation and the existence of Allah, had the fortitude and wisdom to reject many of the alien, silly and incompatible aspects Islam. Today we have prideless Arab/Pakistani wannabe Jihadi misfits slaughtering innocent Somalis in the name of Islam. That is what you're supporting wittingly or unwittingly when you attack me as opposed to joining my call for secularism and traditional Somali Islam.

[Raamsade]

Paragon;813710 wrote:

Mr. Raamsade, may I ask, is there one definition - or rather a 'delineation of the contours' of the constituency - of 'true knowledge' that you adhere to more than others? A positivist kind? I wonder. If so, perhaps you could be forgiven for casting all under one 'reality'. Afterall what we are all dealing with here are our endorsements of 'make-beliefs' and 'revealed-beliefs'. The only truth here is that we have multiple competing truths, objectivist or rationalist facts included. What I sense here is that you're advocating for the supremity of facts over held truths. Maybe pitting fact against fact or truth against truth would be the better protocol. If the opposite is done then the confusion remains for good. Let the believers belief and non-believers battle with non-believing facts. On that note, know that rationality itself is a state of mind that frequently changeful in accordance with ushered events. Don't shift about with them - simply remain.

True knowledge is, to me at least, any body of facts/truths that are open to falsification or are ponderable augmented by strong empirical evidence. For example, the "knowledge" of photosynethesis is true one because: (1) there is strong empirical evidence for it and (2) it is falsifiable. In contrast, astrology is not a true knowledge as it lack both hard evidence and is completely unfalsifiable.

 

Regarding competing truths, I disagree strongly. We have a fairly reliable standard to tell truth from falsehood and that is evidence. Like the protaganist from Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground who riled against the oppressive "fact" that 2+2=4, you too are free to disagree with that truth or have your own alternative truth. That doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4 or a falling object will continue to fall if unmet by opposing object. The truth, as the X-Files use to tell us, is literally out there. By "out there" I mean it is outside of us humans and our opinions, feelings, views, etc. The existence of Dinosaurs is incontrovertible fact. It was a fact before humans existed. It was a fact before humans discovered about the existence of dinosaurs. It was a fact after humans found out about the existence dinosaurs. You see, the truth of dinosaurs, like all truths, is independent of what we think or even if we exist at all. So there can not possibly be competing truths. Competing truths are mere opinions. But that doesn't mean opinions are without merit. We have a second tool at our disposal called reason that we can employ to assess the validity of competing claims.

[Abu-Salman]

Knowledge and more importantly, proper thinking, does not really comes from institutions though they are supposed to foster skills such as research, reading or critical thinking (one is supposed to already possess such skills if admissible to a decent university or course).

Anyway, unless one intends to do medicine or other quite technical courses straigth away, there are affordable and decent distance learning versions (particularly for undergraduates).

 

From what I have seen the risks are differents for men and women but it's even more riskier to send far away children with no proper Islamic learning or discipline since most Somali parents disapprove of foreign norms, romantic relationships or unilateral marriages etc and many complain of their children "attitude" in the Diaspora.

 

Also, I see many quite educated "wadads" though of course you can not expect them to all have solid grasp accross science, history, economics etc (whether disciplines such as economics etc are relevant or "scientific" is also another debate, not to mention the different perspectives or emphasis on the "facts" in say history).

It is best to not rely on an institution indeed for learning your own history, particularly now that it is easy to get hold of authoritative texts yourself and access information (fine line between "education" and all too common "indoctrination").

 

 

 

 

Mario B:

 

On the issue of objective truths or scientific truths I will quote you Karl Popper who wrote “The more we learn about the world and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance”. He believed that even when a scientific principle had been successfully and repeatedly tested, it was not necessarily true. Instead it had simply not been proved false, yet! This became known as the theory of falsification.

 

The neutrino findings are casting doubt on Einstein's theory of relativity, a theory that supplanted an ealier Newtonian paradigm that was a casting iron world view for a few hundreds years. Recently Albert Einstein was proved to be correct in his view of how the universe is expanding, there is an aya in Q that makes that claim.

 

For me I have never seen a principle that is in either science, philosophy, politics, economics, etc that I found was profound that i didn't come across in the teaching of Islam.

 

 

Well said Mario B, those debates tend to rest on lots of assumptions ("science tell the truth", "science or scientists operate in a social vacuum" etc) that have been thoroughly rejected and anyway there is a core difference between some "facts" (mathematics, anatomy etc) that seems more objective if not more lasting and fancy theories that promote ideologies while being peppered with few basic platitudes as their respective experts recognise such as economics etc.

With others subjects in between such as medicine: relatively uncontroversial when it comes to emergency trauma care and sometimes even totally "unscientific" if not ideological when it comes to more chronic conditions or deeper biological interpretations (even cancer approach tend not to be that "rationality" based and evolving)...

[Garnaqsi]

Raamsade;814869 wrote:

True knowledge is, to me at least, any body of facts/truths that are open to falsification or are ponderable augmented by strong empirical evidence. For example, the "knowledge" of photosynethesis is true one because: (1) there is strong empirical evidence for it and (2) it is falsifiable. In contrast, astrology is not a true knowledge as it lack both hard evidence and is completely unfalsifiable.

 

Regarding competing truths, I disagree strongly. We have a fairly reliable standard to tell truth from falsehood and that is evidence. Like the protaganist from Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground who riled against the oppressive "fact" that 2+2=4, you too are free to disagree with that truth or have your own alternative truth. That doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4 or a falling object will continue to fall if unmet by opposing object. The truth, as the X-Files use to tell us, is literally out there. By "out there" I mean it is outside of us humans and our opinions, feelings, views, etc. The existence of Dinosaurs is incontrovertible fact. It was a fact before humans existed. It was a fact before humans discovered about the existence of dinosaurs. It was a fact after humans found out about the existence dinosaurs. You see, the truth of dinosaurs, like all truths, is independent of what we think or even if we exist at all. So there can not possibly be competing truths. Competing truths are mere opinions. But that doesn't mean opinions are without merit. We have a second tool at our disposal called reason that we can employ to assess the validity of competing claims.

Very well said!

[Blessed]

The Islamic legal rulings that pertain to the daily affairs of life are always connected to the welfare of the people in their individual lives and in their relationships with each other. Such rulings, therefore, have causes that can be grasped by reason and understood in a clear and precise manner.

 

These rulings differ from those that pertain to acts of worship, since acts of worship are connected to the benefits of the Hereafter and our direct relationship with Allah. Such matters are generally not discernable to the human intellect. Many great scholars have tried to determine the wisdom behind why we do certain things in prayer and in pilgrimage - and quite often they have failed and said: "This is purely a matter that we must accept on faith. Allah knows best about it."

 

The ruling that a woman may not travel without her husband or a male escort from her immediate family (a mahram) falls under the first category of rulings. We can appreciate the reason for the prohibition. When we understand that the reason for this prohibition is the fear for her sanctity and honor and the fear that she might be taken advantage of or raped, then we know that the issue is one that needs to be weighed in light of the benefits and harm present in a given situation.

 

Therefore, we have the opinion in Islamic Law that it is permissible for a woman to travel without a mahram when she is reasonably assured of her safety or when traveling poses no more danger for her than staying at home. The latter situation is often the case in non-Muslim countries where walking down her own street can be more dangerous for her and full of temptation than sitting on board an airplane. The environment of an airplane is quite often safer and more wholesome than that of the neighborhood in which she lives.

 

From this point of departure, we shall present the evidence and juristic reasoning of the people of knowledge:

 

`Adî b. Hâtim relates that Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him: "O `Adî, have you seen al-Hîrah (a region in Iraq)."

 

`Adî replied: "I have not seen it, but I have heard of it."

 

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: "If you live long enough, you will see a woman departing by camel in a litter and traveling until she reaches the Ka`bah without fearing anyone but Allah."

 

`Adî informs us that he thought to himself: "Where are the robbers and bandits who run rampant through the land?" Then `Adî says: "I have seen a woman travel by camel litter from al-Hirâh to the Ka`bah fearing no one but Allah." [sahîh al-Bukhârî]

 

This hadîth shows us that it is permissible for a woman to travel unescorted if the road is safe. Someone might argue that the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is merely reporting that such a thing would one day take place, not that it is permissible. However, this argument is weak. This statement is made in a context of praising Islam and showing its future ascendancy. Therefore, it must be assumed that what is being used to indicate such praise is permissible in and of itself. Moreover, `Adî b. Hâtim saw this woman and did not condemn her action, nor did anyone else.

 

Al-Bâjî, in al-Muntaqâ, writes: "Perhaps what some of our scholars have said (regarding prohibition) refers only to cases where the woman is alone or with a small group. As for the great caravans and the secure major thoroughfares, they are to me no different than the places of residence that are filled with markets and merchants. In such cases, her safety is secured without the presence of a mahram or female companions. This opinion has been related to us from al-Awzâ`î."

 

Qâdî `Iyâd, when discussing the prohibition of a woman traveling without a mahram to escort her, says: "This refers only for a young woman. As for an older woman who is less enticing, she can travel anywhere she wants without her husband or a mahram. Ibn Daqîq al-`Id: considers this a specification of a general ruling in consideration of the meaning behind it."

 

The great jurists Mâlik and al`Awzâ'î - and also al-Shâfi`î in his more prevalent opinion - rule that a mahram escort is not a condition for a woman to make her obligatory pilgrimage. The only condition is that she will be safe on the journey. Al-Shâfî'î says: "Safety can be achieved by her being chaperoned by her husband or her mahram, or by the company of other trustworthy women."

 

Some scholars have said that if it is safe enough, she needs no one to accompany her. She can travel alone along with the caravans and be safe. This is indicated by the hadîth of `Adî that we mentioned earlier.

 

Permissibility is even more certain when a woman cannot find a mahram and her best interests are to be secured by her traveling. Permissibility is indisputable in cases where travel becomes a necessity for her, on account of the principle in Islamic Law that necessity makes unlawful things permissible. This is why the scholars have permitted a woman to travel unescorted to emigrate from a non-Muslim country to a Muslim one. In some situations, they even declare such a journey to be obligatory upon her.

 

And Allah knows best. And may the peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad.

 

www.islamtoday.com

[Blessed]

The perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. It is a condition for a woman to have a Mahram with her when travelling but not when staying in her residence; the Hadeeth which you referred to meant this. Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “A woman must not travel except with a Mahram.” [Al-Bukhaari and Muslim]

As regards a woman staying in her residence, then it is a condition that she be in a place where she feels secure about herself but it is not a condition that she has a Mahram with her as we clarified in Fatwa 120947.

Besides, the father is not obligated to reside with his daughter nor is he obligated to travel to his son. In case he volunteers to do so, then he should look to what is better and more beneficial. However, you may consult each other on this matter and exchange your views about it. Al-Bukhaari reported in "Al-Adab Al-Mufrad" from Al-Hasan Al-Basri who said: “I swear by Allaah, no people consult each other except that they would be guided to the best options that they have; and then he recited the saying of Allaah (which means): {…and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves.} [Quran 42:38]”

Allaah Knows best.

 

http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=155371

 

 

I'm only posting to show that there are differences of (Islamic) opinion on these issue and that is a blessing. InshaAllah, people will look at all the options and choose what is good for them and theirs.