From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:27:29 GMT


In article <1992Aug13.063644.28151@uceng.UC.EDU>, mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.011649.16448@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> >How can you say what there will or will not be in the future?  Since
> >we don't know, your point becomes moot.
> >
> Here you are proving my point. If you are so sure of the timeless value of the
> Koran, then you know the future. Allah has said that 1 woman can never have
> more than 1 husband, his reason for that as you say is because it is impossible
> to tell the father of the child. So for these clauses to be valid for
> all eternity, there will never be found a way to test whether some X is a
> father of Y. So you know the future or are you having second thoughts.

Nope, no second thoughts.  I claim it is timeless.  You claim that it
isn't.  Your claim that it isn't rests on your assertion that DNA
identifying of parents will become a 100% method one day.  Something
we do not know.  Hence your point is moot.

My claim does not rest on that.  The Qur'an doesn't say anything about
DNA identifying and does not give that as a reason.  God did not say
that polyandry is outlawed because of identifying the father.  That
was a reason *I* gave.  If you wish to show that the Qur'an cannot
apply at all times, you have to show me how and why.  So far, you have
not done so.

> >The US has much more power, and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait did go to the
> >US.
> Didn't they have one condition that Israel will not interfere?  According to
> you a desperate person will go to anyone for help regardless to the principles
> involved.

But if the US is by itself enough to deal with the problem, why
include Israel?


> which it will never break (unless some conditions change). If the person is
> making a mockery of the Koran, tell him so (haven't you heard of Jihad),
> don't suck up to him.

Jihad?  Yes, I've heard of it.  What does it have to do with this?
Please do tell us what you understand by Jihad.

> >Do the countries really tell him that?  Or do they go to him and say,
> >"We are an Islamic country in need.  Please be a good Muslim and help
> >us?"  Do you see the difference?
> 
> So what if you are an Islamic country in need, why should he help you?
> You have to convince him that he is a true muslim and it is his duty
> to help other muslim nations. You really have to market yourself after
> all he is going to give you money without interest.

You have to convince him that *to be* a good Muslim, that is what he
would have to do.  See the difference?

> If Islam does not have a veil requirement then we are argueing about nothing.
> But who are you to say that Islam does not require a viel? Khomeni and
> the Afghan mahujdeen say otherwise. 

Islam and what it prescribes is defined by the Qur'an.  There is no
requirement in Islam for veils.  If you think otherwise, I ask you to
present the appropriate passages in the Qur'an.  You can't because it
is not there.

> >That's only because of the nature of the current banking system in the
> >"west."  But who says that is the way it has to be?  Why could an
> >Islamic banking system not survive?  As for Islamic banks not being
> >able to compete, there are many such banks from Malaysia to Saudi
> >Arabia which seem to be doing just fine.  My question was why you
> >think they are obsolete.  Again, their existence shows that they are not
> >obsolete.
> >
> Which banks in Malaysia to Saudi are doing fine, please give some
> refrences. And what do you mean by fine. I have explained why they are
> obsolete. They being in existance does not prove a thing, to show a 
> country is Islamic there have to be such banks exist. If it cannot
> compete with the regular banks then the system is obsolete.

Why?  Why do the regular banks have to exist as they do now?

> >> In Nigeria theives were shot dead. This did not bring the crime down, the
> >> theives were just more careful that they left no witness alive. 
> >
> >So why would your system work any better?
> >
> >
> The regular system may not work better, but it will prevent an innocent
> person person from suffering for ever. When a hand is cut it can never
> be replaced.

But the death penalty exists in this country too.

-- Shakil