From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:50:11 GMT
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science


In article <1992Aug14.021404.28377@uceng.UC.EDU>, mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.010131.29222@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> >You seem to be implying that polygyny is *forced* upon people.  You
> >forget that it is allowed only under stringent conditions, and hence,
> >for all effective purposes, it never even comes into play!  Islam
> >really does stress monogamy and that is the fact that everyone seems
> >to be completely ignoring.
> >
> 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. Thus it proves the fact that everything has to change
> with time. So nothing is timeless.

The societal behavior may change, but my argument is that it still
falls within the bounds of Islamic law

> >Please, I *challenge* you to find me a passage in the Qur'an which
> >says that the veil is a requirement for women.  I maintain that there
> >is no such passage, and no such requirement.  There are many things
> >which are required in many countries for societal reasons.  Saudi
> >Arabia, for example, does not allow women to drive.  But this has
> >*nothing* to do with Islam!  Again, veils are not an Islamic
> >requirement and I request you to show me otherwise in the Islamic
> >scriptures.
> >
> Okay I trust you that there is no requirement of the viel on Islam.
> What do I conclude from Saudi, Iran and Afghanistan. Are their leaders
> some sadistic males who enjoy opressing women on the name of Islam?
> If so why include these countries in the broad embrace of Islam.

What do you understand by the broad embrace of Islam?  If certain
societies require veils for women, that is a societal constraint, and
any gripes you have about that should be directed at those particular
societal practices.  It is not an Islamic requirement.  It is also not
prohibited by Islam, and in that sense, it is not unIslamic for either
a man or a woman to wear a veil or not to wear one at all.  Basically
Islam has no standpoint on veils at all.

> What about people who want to buy cars, homes etc. Should they wait
> their whole life trying to save that much money? Also the industries
> will suffer because of the lack of customers, then the jobs will suffer
> and eventually the std of living will fall down. But you brought up
> an interesting point if the bank lends some industry money,what does
> it expect in return. It cannot expect the same amount as money loses
> it's value with time. Do they become share holders in that company.
> If some investors want share holders they will go to the stock market
> why will they go to a bank. That's why this banking system is
> obsolete.

But why shouldn't the whole system be based on share holding?

> >You yourself have just given the justification for Islamic
> >punishments.  The idea is that after it is implemented, people will be
> >scared enough by it that crime sinks, and the punishment won't need to
> >be used as much.  That is why it works in Saudi Arabia where crime is
> >amazingly low.  I do not understand how you can give the same logic
> >for death penalty above and yet point accusing fingers at Islam for
> >the same thing!
> >
> Is the crime rate in Saudi low just because of these punishments?
> 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.
> I said that dead penalty is given in extremly rare cases is that
> true about the hand cutting. Also a lot of innocents are bound
> to lose limbs is that acceptable by you? I am not pointing an
> accusing finger at anyone I only think that these steps are not 
> required and are too extreme. Any way you yourself agree this form is
> obselete by repeating again and again that Saudi has this punishment.
> If this method is not obselete then why don't the other Islamic countries
> have it(eg Pakistan). 

Just because a country doesn't implement it does not mean that it
can't be implemented.  My feeling is that the fear factor would work
very well in scaring people away from crime.  The wealth of Saudi
Arabia is not particularly relevant to the crime issue.  The United
States is a very wealthy country, as is Germany or any number of other
western countries.  And yet we find high crime rates.  I do believe
that the low Saudi crime rate is a result of the Islamic laws that are
implemented.  Note that Saudi Arabia was not always wealthy.

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