Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
From: mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:36:44 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati

In article <1992Aug13.011649.16448@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug12.174639.8730@uceng.UC.EDU>, mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug12.150802.10809@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>> >There is no 100% foolproof method yet.  There is some degree of
>> >inaccuracy in DNA testing.  Ask the FBI -- they're still arguing over
>> >it.
>> >
>> Okay let us say you are right there is some inaccuracy in DNA testing(though
>> people have been convicted of rape by this method), say in the future
>> if they find out a 100% foolproof method then do you think 1 woman can
>> have more than 1 husband, thus making this clause defunct. 
>
>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.

>
>> >I will indeed say he is not a true Muslim.  When I am in trouble, and
>> >I know of someone in power who can help me, I will go to him/her.  The
>> >Emir has power and wealth -- obviously people will go to him in times
>> >of trouble.
>> 
>> Israel has the most power in the Gulf region, did Saudi and Kuwait go
>> to them for help. Israel would have been most happy to destroy Iraq
>> for ever. 
>
>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.
>
>> South Africa is rich because of its gold, did India ever go
>> to it for a loan. 
>
>I don't know.  But there are plenty of other states that India can and
>does get loans from.  But what is your point?  Say you have an Islamic
>country A which needs a loan.  Now it can go to some country B which
>has an emir who isn't exactly what we would consider a good Muslim.
>Or it can go to some country C which is not Islamic at all.  So we
>have to choice between going to a Muslim who commits sin but is
>likely to give loans, and going to a non-Muslim who is less likely to
>give loans.  Which would you go to?
Sorry but you know nothing about India. Recently all Advanced countries refused
to loan money to India and as a result the foriegn exchange of India almost
dried up. The loan was eventually put through but great sacrifices had to
>to be made by India. My point is every country has a set of principles,
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.
>> Generally you do not approach a person or country
>> for help if its priciples contradict your own. Do you think that you can
>> tell the Emir you are misusing the Koran you will go to hell and then
>> ask him for 1 billion dollars aid. The counties which go to him say that
>> you are true muslim, we your muslim brothers are in trouble, please help
>> us. When muslims call him a true muslim what is the world to
>> think...
>
>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.
>
>> >Well, I think the analogy between staying locked up and modest dress
>> >is a bit extreme...  Clearly, almost every society has some dress code
>> >that is accepted as "decent."  Certain parts of the body are expected
>> >to be covered.  Modest dress is a relative term -- some expecting more
>> >to be covered than others.  There are obvious differences in anatomy
>> >between women and men which is why, even here, men and women are
>> >expected to cover themselves differently.
>> >
>> Yes men and women are expected to cover themselves differently every where.
>> But a burkh goes overboard in its modesty, does it not impose a lot of
>> restriction on the person wearing it. Modern times offers a lot of
>> opportunities to women the burkha might restrict them. Also something 
>> which is forced on a majority of the population cannot be right. 
>
>Who are you to decide what is overboard in modesty and what is not?
>Are you not judging according to your own standards?  Also, is it
>permitted here in the US for example, to walk around stark naked in
>the streets?  Clearly not, you would get arrested.  But then, isn't
>the requirement for dress something which is *enforced* upon the
>majority here?  Clearly, *every* society has standards for modesty in
>dress.  What do you understand by burkha?  Islam does not have a veil
>requirement; it does require modest dress.  

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. 
>
>> >Well, if you look at a lot of he loans that are granted to "Third
>> >World" countries and you observe how they struggle with just trying to
>> >pay interest, you start wondering about the system...  My question was
>> >basically why you think Islamic banking is obsolete.  What you have
>> >pointed out is that other systems can work, but that still doesn't
>> >answer my question.
>> 
>> Loans are given to the third world countries because they agree to pay
>> interest. If they refused to pay interest I am sure US, Japan would
>> rather invest that money in their own people. Nobody borrows money
>> because he enjoys paying interest, they borrow it because it is desperately
>> required. I thought I anwsered your question. A bank is a place where people
>> keep their money, the more the money kept in the bank the more succesful
>> the bank. This money the bank invests. Because of no interest policy
>> Islamic banks cannot compete in the market, even rich shiekhs put
>> their millions of dollars in foriegn banks, thus the country loses out.
>> I have not pointed out that other banks work, I pointed out
>> that they work better than the Islamic system. Because of the Islamic
>> system money flows out of the country it does not come in, and who suffers
>> due to this?
>
>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.

>> >> May be before times were desperate, and lawness could be brought into
>> >> effect only by drastic measures, regardless if some innocent people
>> >> suffered. What if you cut of some one's hand and then after some years
>> >> you realize that he was innocent. Don't you think that he would prefer
>> >> staying in jail some years than losing his hand, I know I would.
>> >> Please don't claim Islamic judges are perfect they make no mistakes.
>> >
>> >The argument is that fear works and once implemented, crime will sink
>> >to very acceptable levels (e.g. Saudi Arabia).  As for times being
>> >desperate before, one look at inner cities in some of the larger urban
>> >centers in the US may make you shift that statement to the present
>> >tense too...
>>
>> 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.
>-- Shakil
Manoj