From: mmokhtar@attmail.com (Mazen Mokhtar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:57:06 GMT
Organization: AT&T
Originator: mmdh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com

In article <1992Aug14.021404.28377@uceng.UC.EDU> mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
>>
>You say that Islam stresses on monogamy. Due to the society now it
>is more stressed than before, so one day it might be stressed to be
>the only way.

  Are you sure? I don't think so. Wars are not likely to end and men are
not likely to start outnumbering women.

  In any case, what's the problem? After all, no one is forced. Women
obviously sometimes accept polygyny or else no woman would marry a married
man. First wives are also not forced, since they can stipulate at the time
of their marriage that their husband may not take a second wife.

  The question should never be why polygyny is allowed, the question should
always be why it should be forbidden. Everything is allowed unless there is
reason to forbid it, why do you want to forbid polygyny? Why take away from
people a right that God gave them? What gain will society make?

  Multiple sexual partners are allowed by US law. How is that different
from polygamy? I say that Islam restricts polygamy and that US law doesn't.
Marriage in the US is only a financial and legal convenience. People are
allowed to be married in any combination as long as their marital rights
are only protected in pairs.

> Thus it proves the fact that everything has to change
>with time. So nothing is timeless.

  God is timeless. Morals are timeless. The superiority of right over
wrong is timeless. The evil of oppression is timeless.

  The law of God is timeless.

>What about people who want to buy cars, homes etc. Should they wait
>their whole life trying to save that much money?

  Since when does Islam forbid borrowing? Islam even allows you to charge a
higher amount for an item delivered today and payed for at a later time.

>Is the crime rate in Saudi low just because of these punishments?

  Not just because of these laws, but mainly because of them.

>Saudi is not a good example because it is an extremely rich country
>with a small population, they do not even have to pay income tax.

  They always had an _extremely_ low crime rate, even a few decades ago
when they were not nearly as rich. There are other rich countries, western
and others, which all have significant crime rates. I am the last person
to support Saudi government, but in this particular case they are right
and successful.

>I said that dead penalty is given in extremly rare cases is that
>true about the hand cutting.

  Yes. They had a twelve year stretch (I think, in any case about that long)
in which they did not have to amputate a hand once. Please note that this
punishment is only for some cases of theft. Every one of twenty-some
conditions must be met for the thief to qualify.

>Also a lot of innocents are bound to lose limbs is that acceptable by you?

  No. No injustice is acceptable, that is why the Islamic system is so good.
Very few people receive that punishment. Even is one out of thirty is innocent
(which is unlikely, since the conditions on proving guilt are quite severe),
that is still a tiny number of people. Society benefits from safety,
generates fewer thieves and the net result is fewer thieves lose their
hands, and fewer innocents lose their lives.

  Some people make the mistake of looking at one side of the injustice, the
criminal or the victim. Islam looks at both sides, people are not punished
for revenge, they are punished in order to establish justice and for the
good of society as a whole. It is nice to say how easy we should be on the
guilty if we forget the victims. It is also easy to say we should be harsh
if we only care about victims and forget the criminal. Islam is the balance
in this and other controversies, and its success is spectacular to say the
least.

>If this method is not obselete then why don't the other Islamic countries
>have it(eg Pakistan). 

  If oppression is so bad, then why do so many countries have it ?

  Those who want to make change for the better in the Islamic world are
usually shouted down by Muslim as well as Western leaders. There are too
many people who benefit from injustice for the implementation of justice
to be easy. One day the injustice will be overthrown, on that day I hope
to be among those who hastened it, not among those who fought it.


Regards,

Mazen Mokhtar
Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:4505 soc.culture.indian:28241 soc.culture.pakistan:13701