From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islam Preaching Equality
Date: 16 Dec 1992 12:40:23 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <16DEC199214405348@vxcrna.cern.ch>, mirza@vxcrna.cern.ch (MIRZA,I./EP) writes:
> In article <1glkvtINN91@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU>, ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes...

> >Your impressions are wrong and characteristic of the standard
> >anti-Islamic propaganda the western media loves.  
> 
> 	A typical attitude, lots and lots of sentimental statements 
> 	no substance.

So you are implying:

1) The western media does not display an anti-Islamic slant
2) That I am making lots and lots of sentimental statements
3) That my statements have no substance

(1) speaks for itself, and even the most rabid Islam-basher would
laugh.  In the case of (2) I refer to the quoted passage above.  Since
I made ONE statement, the "lots and lots" claim seems very much out of
place.  As for (3), I have shown the substance many times in the past,
and I will quote from some of those articles again now.

> >The issues you raise
> >above have been discussed in the past on several of the groups you
> >posted this to, as well as in soc.religion.islam.
> >  The one male
> >witness is equal to two female witnesses is incorrect, and I have
> >shown this many times in the past.  
> 	
> 	I have missed the arguments you gave (somehow), but wonder
> 	how can you say that, or may be you belong to group of
> 	muslims who consider parts of Quran invalid. I would
> 	just say that even in ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
> 	this has been instituted now (In case you are not following
> 	the recent Islamisation in Pakistan).

I don't know what is implemented in Pakistan and it is not my problem.
I am telling you what the Qur'an and thus, Islam, says.

> >The inheritance laws are not
> >identical for men and women, but they are very complex -- there are
> >some situations in which men are favored and some in which women are.
> > 
> 	It is not at all complex. You remind me my islamiat teacher
> 	who also thought that it is very complex but then I found
> 	it was so for him because he did not know fractions!
> 	I must give in that there might be some practical problems
> 	like what would be 66.666666 % of a TV set? Obviously these types
> 	of questions would not have occured at the time of Mohammad.
> 	[Use of word identical is incorrect, UNEQUAL will be better]

I used the word "identical" on purpose.  Here are some quotes from
some earlier articles:

  People are eager to label Islam as discriminatory towards women, but
  fail to realize that Islam is the only religion that bothers to
  specify all the fundamental rights of women.  One can never stress the
  need for this enough.  Clearly, even in present day society, there is
  much discrimination.  Women do not enjoy equal status in the
  professional world, and inevitably suffer from lower pay than their
  male counterparts.  The list of abuses is endless.  Despite the
  repeated claims by various parties that women enjoy greater freedoms
  now than in the past, there is still a very long way to go.  Had
  people bothered to research the laws that Islam lays down, much of
  this trouble could have been avoided.

  One of the first things that the Islam-basher will point to is the
  inheritance laws in Islam.  A little selective quoting can accomplish
  much for a practiced debater, and this serves an Islam-critic quite
  well.  The Islam-basher will pick out a line or two from sura Al Nisa
  to show differences in inheritance laws.  But the inheritance issue in
  Islam is immensely complicated.  One cannot isolate a few lines to
  prove something one way or the other.  While it is true that there is
  no absolute equality on inheritance, the mathematics behind it is
  non-trivial.  A mother can inherit more from a son than a father,
  depending on the situation.  A woman gets ``mahr.''  Inheritance depends
  on the number of children, the number of grandchildren, the parents --
  the list is endless.  More importantly, the Qur'an does insist that
  men have the responsibility to provide for the family -- that does not
  mean that the woman cannot choose to do so, but it does mean that the
  woman is free to do with her income what she pleases.  The wife is
  also not responsible for doing housework.  If she does, she can demand
  a salary for it, and for any other work she does in the home,
  including raising children.  Indeed, selective quoting could be used
  to show that *men* are discriminated against, since the responsibility
  of providing for the family rests on their shoulders, and women are
  free to do with their income as they please.

  The critic of Islam will argue further than Islam permits beating
  women.  He will quote from sura Al Nisa:

       As to those women
       On whose part ye fear
       Disloyalty and ill-conduct,
       Admonish them (first),
       (Next), refuse to share their beds,
       (And last) beat them (lightly);
       But if they return to obedience,
       Seek not against them
       Means (of annoyance):
       For Allah is Most High,
       Great (above you all)

  While there are many arguments on whether the word ``beat'' is really an
  appropriate translation, one need not point to that in setting the
  critic straight.  Capital punishment is not a foreign concept to
  Islam.  In fact, many punishments in Islam are physical in nature.
  What is the offense being punished for?  UnIslamic conduct.  There is
  a strict order of punishment: first, you warn, then you deny physical
  pleasures, and only then do you beat ``lightly.''  The inevitable
  question that arises, of course, is why is the reverse not true?  Now
  think about the physical implications.  Given standard human reflexes,
  and the fact that men are generally physically stronger than women, a
  woman who tried to hit a man will probably get beaten more severely in
  response.  So what is the option?  The procedure in this case is for
  the woman to take the man to an Islamic court where they will punish
  him by beating too.  If the man is unjustly punishing the wife, she is
  free to challenge him in the first stage when he warns her, and take
  him to court on that count.  There is no question of discrimination.

  Then there is always the most common stereotype and misconception,
  namely that regarding polygyny.  The Qur'an is quite clear in
  specifying the stringent conditions under which it may be permissible:

    3. If ye fear that ye shall not
       Be able to deal justly
       With the orphans,
       Marry women of your choice,
       Two, or three, or four;
       But if ye fear that ye shall not
       Be able to deal justly (with them),
       Then only one, or (a captive)
       That your right hands possess.
       That will be more suitable,
       To prevent you
       From doing injustice.

  It is quite clear from the above that the polygyny allowance is purely
  for humanitarian reasons.  The ``if'' clause above distinctly states
  that the question of polygyny only arises when there are orphans to
  take care of.  At times of war, many children are orphaned, and many
  more men perish than women.  Consequently, polygyny is permitted to
  ensure appropriate care for the orphans.  Furthermore, assuming the
  required conditions are met, one can only marry a second wife if one
  treats the wives equally.  Since this is obviously very difficult to
  do, and the Qur'an mentions this in the same sura (see 4:129), it
  follows that polygyny can only occur under the most exceptional
  circumstances.  Of course, the skeptic will ask why polyandry is not
  permitted.  Needless to say, this line of reasoning fails to take into
  account the complex social situations under which polygyny is
  permitted -- it is obviously not something for everyone.  But it also
  fails to take into account the problem of infinite family chains.  If
  polyandry were also permitted, it is very easy to show mathematically
  that one could end up with infinite family chains.  Given the
  importance that Islam places on family structure, the problems of this
  are obvious.  Since family structure is so important, it is easy to
  see that while the mother of a child is easily determined, polyandry
  would make it difficult to determine the father of a child.  All these
  reasons are strong arguments against polyandry.

  Another favorite quote of the Islam-basher comes from 2:282, a passage
  referring to transactions:

       And get two witnesses,
       Out of your own men,
       And if there are not two men,
       Then a man and two women,
       Such as ye choose,
       For witnesses,
       So that if one of them errs,
       The other can remind her.

  The critic will try to argue that the above equates a man with two
  women.  Clearly, the need for the second witness is *only* in case of
  error.  This does not mean that two women's votes are equal to one
  man's.  This is consistent with the rest of the Qur'an -- nowhere is
  it stated that two women's statements are equal to one man's.  Of
  course, the inevitable question will arise why one needs a second
  woman to correct any potential mistakes.  You might not need one --
  all it says is that she should be there in case.  Historically, and in
  many societies *today*, women have not been as well represented in the
  financial world as men.  Hence this situation.  Now I would expect a
  lot of arguments against this as not being representative of western
  society today, etc.  That may be true, but one must remember that the
  Qur'an is a timeless document which has to be applicable at all times.
  And it doesn't change the fact: the second witness doesn't come into
  play unless the first one makes a mistake.  Even in that situation she
  merely points this out.  There is no question of doubting equality of
  votes.  Most importantly, though, the critic does not recognize the
  main point.  The passage quoted above does not place any restrictions
  on who is performing the transaction.  It could be two women
  performing a transaction who use men as witnesses.  A woman is free to
  perform all the transactions she desires.

  In his last sermon, prophet Muhammed (PBUH) said, ``O people!  It is
  true that you have certain rights with regards to your women, but they
  also have certain rights over you.''  He preached how one should
  respect women and recognize their rights.  Men and women are equal,
  but they are not equivalent, having certain complimentary duties
  towards each other.  There may be some laws which favor men to some
  extent, but there are others that favor women.  The combined package
  guarantees rights for everyone, and the question of discrimination does
  not even arise.


Hope this is enough substance for you...  If not, there are plenty
more where that one came from.

-- Shakil