From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Sexism in religion?
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:31:35 GMT


In article <1992Aug18.070456.602@tamsun.tamu.edu>, gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.010844.16734@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> >You think this is an issue of giving one person more rights than
> >another?  Then please explain to me why men have different rights
> >regarding how to dress than women in *this* society.  God knows how
> >many times I have asked you this and obtained no answer.  Please
> >explain to me why courts generally give a mother custody over the kids
> >in case of divorce.  There are countless examples like that.  Let's
> >face it, men and women are different and there will always be some
> >differences in the laws.  This does not translate into sexism as long
> >as nobody is being exploited.  Similarly, in Islam, polygyny is
> >permitted under very exceptional circumstances, whereas polyandry is
> >not.  Nobody is exploited in this situation, and so it is not sexist.

> In S.Africa there are lots of public places where only the whites 
> can enter -- swimming pools, resturants etc. Blacks are not permitted
> to enter them. It is upto the management to decided whom they wish
> to do buisness with. By not permitting a black to enter, the management 
> has not exploited anyone. It has not extorted anything out of anyone. 
> The blacks are free to go someplace where they are permitted. By your 
> logic, since the management of these places have not exploited anyone,
> they are not racist. 

This is a moot point.  I never said anything about racism, the whole
argument was about sexism.  You're comparing apples and oranges here.

The whole point is that I have shown where definite differences
between men and women are accepted without being labelled as sexist,
and shown why Islam's laws on polygyny are not sexist.

> >Excuse me, but you are the one who suggested that Islamic law is
> >obsolete.  The burden of proof rests on your shoulders.  I have
> >pointed to the example of Saudi Arabia where Islamic laws on crime
> >(one of the Islamic things that *is* implemented there) are
> >implemented, and the crime rate is extremely low and has been low for
> >a long, long time.

> A very important trade off should be considered here. Saudis have a 
> totalatarian govt. where low crime rate is traded off for individual 
> rights. Do you know that there is no such thing as 'investigation' 
> in Saudi jurisdiction. Someone is blamed/suspected and is imprisoned. 
> If a witness or two is found against that person, he is executed without 
> further trial or full verification of facts (and especially if the 
> charge is even minutely related to religion).
> 
> Didn't someone say "I would rather let 10 guilty men go free than hang 
> 1 innocent man". Obviously the saudis don't believe in this humanatarian
> maxim. 

There are indeed cases of insufficient witnesses, especially in the
case of political persecution.  And you are right in stating that that
has to do with the totalitarian nature of the government.  But I was
not speaking of political prisoners.  I was speaking of *crime* and
Islam lays down very specific guidelines for witnesses and evidence
in such cases.  The punishments for crime have worked very well as a
deterrent.

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