From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Followup-To: soc.culture.bangladesh
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:26:00 GMT


In article <86227@netnews.upenn.edu>, sarkar@grip.cis.upenn.edu
(Nilanjan Sarkar) insults:

> Sometimes I really wonder what is the real reason that you don't see the
> other person's point. Is it that you don't *want* to see that and
> think what you say/understand is the *ultimate* ? Or, accepting defeat
> gracefully in an argument is totally unknown to you ? Or, you are
> really so stupid as not to see the opponent's point ?

Well, I will grant you that you have a different style to Deb
Chatterjee, but even though your style of expression is possibly a
little more subtle, both of your arguments seem to rest on insulting
the author you are attacking.

Stupidity is a relative measure, and in that respect, you are most
welcome to judge my "stupidity" against your own standards.  If your
articles so far on the subject matter are a reflection of those
standards in any way, I can't really say I feel particularly
insulted...

So let's take a look at what you have to say:

> Whatever be
> the case, you repeat your *verdict* one more time and say "what is
> your point ?" !

Apparently, in your case, that is not necessary, as it is clear that
your point was merely to insult.

> Now the case in hand is very clear. Remove your mental block and read
> this question - " a man can have more than one wife in some cases (those
> cases may be very rare), but, no matter what, a woman *can not* have
>                               --------------
> more than one husband - is this sexist attitude ?" . For the time
> being forget who said that and whether it is straight from the almighty
> who can not make any mistake and all those glorifying adjectives.
> Say, I tell you this - won't you think me sexist ? Don't twist the
> argument by saying it is the woman's choice whether to accept polygyny
> or not - the question is - why the woman will not have a choice for
> polyandry when man is given the choice of polygyny ? And, is not
> it sexist ?

I like this!  Let's continue with this brand of logic: A woman can
have children.  Not all women can, but NO MATTER WHAT, a man cannot
have children.  Geeez, isn't that SEXIST!!!

Since the stupidity which you associate with me clearly wasn't getting
me any further, for your benefit, I decided to consult something of
greater knowledge, my worthy Webster's dictionary.  Let's see what it
says:

   sexism: the economic exploitation and social domination of members of
   one sex by the other, specif. of women by men

Alright, so now that we have that out of the way, let's apply the
stupidity test.  A man A is happily married to a woman B.  He is
wealthy, but kind-hearted, so when he finds a bunch of orphans who are
in need, he decides to take them under his shelter.  But his wife B
already is overworked with their own kids, so A decides to propose to
C, because he needs her to take care of the orphans.  Of course, he
first asks B for permission since it is required by Islam.  B grants
him that permission.  So he proposes to C, but C doesn't think it
is what she wants, so she says no.

Good, so let's begin by applying the stupidity test to B.  Has B been
economically exploited?  Nope.  Has she been socially dominated?  She
could have said yes or no, so obviously she has not.  So the stupidity
test fails on B.

Let's continue on to C.  Has C been economically exploited?  Nope.
Hmmmm, the stupidity test isn't looking too good, huh?  So our last
test, was C socially dominated?  Given that she basically told A to
get lost, I think not.  But now, what does that mean?  Could it be
that the stupidity test has failed altogether????  Clearly, Webster's
and the English language doesn't think it is sexist!

So what can we conclude from this?  Well, it seems that either both
Webster's and I have failed the stupidity test, or someone needs to
rethink his standards for labelling people stupid...

-- Shakil
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan