HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shafqat@neuro.duke.edu (Saad Shafqat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Hey cousin!
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:27:08 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.



The problem with cousin marraiges (consanguinous marraiges) is 
in-breeding.  Its a significant issue.  The vast majority of
genetically determined diseases and disabilities are recessive,
meaning that two copies of a given defective gene must be inherited
(one from each parent).  Inbreeding limits the genetic pool and
thus increases the chances that a given defective gene will be
co-inherited.  Consider the following situation:

A man has two different copies of a gene, A and a.  'A' is the
normal gene and 'a' is a modified version of the same gene that
causes disease.  This person marries his first cousin whose genetic
makeup is very similar to his since they are close relatives and
there is thus a fairly good chance his wife also has genes A and a.
Since both copies must be in the 'a' form for disease to be manifest,
both the husband and wife are disease-free (silent carriers).
So far so good, but see what happens when this couple procreates.
The distribution of this gene will be as follows:

25% of their kids have AA (inherit the good copy from each parent);
50% of their kids have Aa (inherit good from one and bad from the other);
25% of their kids have aa (inheirt the bad copy from each parent).

On average, 25% of their kids will thus be diseased.  This proportion
will keep on increasing if the kids continue to marry their relatives.
In the worst case scenario, if an aa man marries an aa woman, 100%
of their progeny will be diseased (the statistics are a little
different for diseases on the sex chromosomes - they are much
worse for males).

So the question is, does the high consanguinous marraige rate (easily
over 50% of all marraiges, I'd say) result in an increased number
of genetic diseases in the population ?  Nobody knows the answer
because the data have not been collected, but it is almost certainly
so.  I think consanguinous marraiges are largely due to limited
opportunity for single men and women to interact in our society.
This results in heavy reliance on arranged marraiges, which is
automatically biased towards relatives since (a) you see them
more often, and (b) they are known quantities.  This practice
should of course be strongly discouraged.  In particular, children
from consanguinous marraiges should DEFINITELY avoid marrying their
first cousins except if they fall in love, in which case anything
is OK, even marraige to a Hindu,:-).


With regards,

Saad.


-- 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:18785 soc.culture.bangladesh:7081 soc.culture.indian:41948
From: imustafa@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MUSTAFA IBRAHIM )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Difference
Date: 25 Dec 92 07:24:30 GMT
Organization: Colorado School of Mines

In article <1he5boINNn5c@hsc.usc.edu> banerjee@hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.041146.37055@slate.mines.colorado.edu> imustafa@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MUSTAFA IBRAHIM ) writes:
>
>>    It seems this guys belongs to the donkey family. thats why he 
>>   cannot tolerate any referecne to  donkey :-)))))))))))))))
>
>
>
>At least I dont have the liberty of behaving like an absolute imbecile on the
>net which is more than what I can say for you. 
>
>And you wonder why your family wishes they were all DONKIES?     
>
>Wouldn't you behave similarly to escape the kind of abject humiliation
>that they are subjected to on a regular basis? At least this way they can
>come together and share their ignominy.
>
>Samit
>-- 
>Samit Banerjee,			    |  
>University of Southern California   |  A man who smiles when things go wrong,
>Internet: banerjee@scf.usc.edu      |  has found somebody to blame it on.
>Bellnet : (213) 342-1401            |  

 In fact , it was you who first behaved like an absolute imbecile.
 I have my own views and I have full right to place them on the net.
 If you dont like my articles , you can skip them instead of calling
me names.
It does not suit to a person who is the preacher of the most tolerant
religion in the world (after the demolition of Babri mosque) 
:-)))))))))))
Organization: Sophomore, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:34:33 -0500 
From: "A. R. Abid" <aa2g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Mr. Altaf Hussain retires from politics

Sometime back there was a posting about MQM chief Mr. Altaf Hussain's
retirement from MQM and national politics. Could someone answer a few
questions about his retirement?

Q. Has he actually *quit* politics or does he plan to re-join the
political scene after the change of present government?

Q. Mr. Hussain named Mr. Azeem Tariq as the chairman of MQM. Who is the
Quaid now, since he used to be the MQM Quaid?

Q. What is the reaction of 1) GOP, 2) MQM leadership, 3) MQM workers, 4)
MQM voters, and 5) people from other parts of the country to his
retirement?



Thank you

A. R. Abid
aa2g@andrew.cmu.edu
From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Date: 25 Dec 1992 14:57:32 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec23.164324@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan) writes:
>In article <ljhe2rINNg3s@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan
>Hyder) writes:
>> 
>> Well, for that you need to read the whole of  Quran. The Quranic
>> verses were simply given by me, because the post explicitly mentioned
>> not to go by Hadiths. As you know, Hadiths of the prophet explain
>> where and when to apply such verses.
>> 
>> My reason for citing such verses was to impress that Hadith have necessarily
>> to be used in conjunction with Quran. Quran explicitly asks
>> us to do so in atleast 9 places. 
>>
>Thats subjective again.
>
>

What is subjective? Are you saying that it is my subjective
opinion that  Quran explicitly mentions at least  at nine
places to use the example of the Prophet (pbuh)?

Do you want me to quote the factual positions of Quran on this
issue?

Once before you asked me to do that. When I did that you completely
 somersaulted by refusing to even admit that Quran is the word of God.

Sura 2

8. And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah
and the last day; and they are not at all believers.

9. They desire to deceive Allah and those who believe, and
they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive.

10. There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their
disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they




Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: aftab@cesdis1.gsfc.nasa.gov (Aftab Ahmad)
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Organization: Center of Excellence in Space Data and Information Sciences
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:43:08 GMT


	I think this dream thing is taking the conversation away from center :)
Every great job in history (and today) started with a dream (I cann't stop
myself), but did Iqbal really dreamed of what he is attributed to. I don't remember
the reference but I did read that after the AlaBad speech a news paper asked
Iqbal to elaborate on his idea of concatnating the four provinces to which he 
replied that 'it is not a demand ; it is just an idea; in fact it is not my idea,
it is the idea of some emotional young people'. I am not associating these words
or the meanings thereof to Iqba unless someone on the net can confirm these
or something similar.
	While dicussing Pakistan's birth one must keep in mind that Pakistan
was not the only solution, at least Jinnah thought so. My question to Irfan
is what would be your position if the Congress leaders accepted all demands of
Jinnah (or Muslim League) and Jinnah accepted giving up on Pakistan?

fakat

aftab
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: mghayalo@uceng.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod)
Subject: Re: Pakistan is lilbit different from Israel
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:37:15 GMT

In article <1hbgk4INN13q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> khan@ces.cwru.edu (Mansoor Khan) writes:
>Stuff Deleted
>
>>The creation of the Jewish state of Israel solely on the basis of religion
>>which resulted in the mass expulsion of Arabs and non-jews is derided by the
>>entire muslim world and possibly by a large number of Pakistanis; but I've never
>>understood how the creation of the muslim state of Pakistan was justified in the
>>same breadth by the same people.
>
>>--Javed.
>
>	Pakistan and India were Created by bisecting pre-1947 India.
>	People who lived in post-47 India were living there for centuies.
>	Similarly people who lived in Pakistan lived there for Centuries.
>	i.e. Baluchis, Panjabis, Sindhis, Bengalis, and Pathans. Yes, huge
>	trans-border migration took place, but all of the people who now live
>	in Pakistan and India,  lived in pre 47 India for thousands of years.
>	Israel on the other hand was created for bringing people who
>	did not belong to Palestine. In other words, Jews who live in
>	todays Israel, most of them are of non Palestinian ancestary.
>	i.e. people of pre 1948 Palestine <> people of Jordan + People of
>					     Israel + People of West Bank
>						      of river Jordan.
>
>	but people of pre 1947 India = people of modern Pakistan 
>				     + people of modern India.
>  
>Mansoor Khan
>Cleveland, Ohio
>
>

That means you are saying it is OK to throw out a person from his home of
a thousand years, if the people who threw him out have also lived there
for a thousand years.  


Manoj
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: must@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mustafa Syed)
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 21:17:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.221008@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan) writes:
[ unneccessary stuff deleted ]

>The creation of the Jewish state of Israel solely on the basis of religion
>which resulted in the mass expulsion of Arabs and non-jews is derided by the
>entire muslim world and possibly by a large number of Pakistanis; but I've never
>understood how the creation of the muslim state of Pakistan was justified in the
>same breadth by the same people.

	Very Simple. 
	
	In case of Pakistan, local populace through ballot
	voted to form the state of Pakistan.
	
	In case of Israel, OUTSIDERS created Israel with utter disregard
	for the local population. If there would have been a ballot to
	decide about the creation of Israel among the then local inhabitants of
	the land of Palestine( now called Israel), there would be no issue
	at all. 


	Mustafa syed.

>
>--Javed.
>
>  


Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:19016 soc.culture.indian:42497 soc.culture.bangladesh:7225
From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: The Quran and the Modern Science
Date: 1 Jan 1993 15:21:13 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec30.005356.25321@news.nd.edu> milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph) writes:
>:
:Here is what Pervez Hoodbhoy has to say about Bucaille:
:
::Islam and Science, Pervez Hoodbhoy, Zed Books Ltd., 1991
:ISBN 1-85649-025-4 (Paperback), Foreword by Prof Abdus Salam.
::Chapter 6/Page 67-68:
:
:
:"Whereas Monsieur Bucaille appears eminently satisfied with his 
:methodology, Muslims who wish to combine reason with faith will
:readily detect at least two fundamental flaws in it even though`
:they accept the divine nature of Qura'n."
:
:"First it will be recognized that the proof of a proposition is 
:meaningful only if the possibility of disproof is also to be
:entertained. .... Since believers know that it is impossible for
:the Qur'an to be wrong in any manner, all attempts at 'proving'
:its divine nature are entirely specious from the start."
:
:"Second, hanging an eternal truth on to the changeable thories of
:science is a dangerous business."
:

Note:  Allah presents the signs in Quran with a clear qualification.
The signs are ONLY for those who "understand", "reflect", and who
"ponder". 

People have often doubted these signs. This is what Quran says
about such people:

Sura 6:

25. And of them is he who hearkens to you, and We have cast
veils over their hearts lest they understand it and a heaviness into
their ears; and even if they see every sign they will not believe in
it; so much so that when they come to you they only dispute with
you; those who disbelieve say: This is naught but the stories of
the ancients.

26. And they prohibit (others) from it and go far away from
it, and they only bring destruction upon their own souls while
they do not perceive.

Sura 6:
* What ever sign is presented to such people, they will dispute.
  Remember that logic can be used to prove every thing and disprove
  every thing.

109. And they swear by Allah with the strongest of their
oaths, that if a sign came to them they would most certainly
believe in it. Say: Signs are only with Allah; and what should
make you know that when it comes they will not believe?

110. And We will turn their hearts and their sights, even as
they did not believe in it the first time, and We will leave them in
their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.


35. And if their turning away is hard on you, then if you can
seek an opening (to go down) into the earth or a ladder (to
ascend up) to heaven so that you should bring them a sign and if
Allah had pleased He would certainly have gathered them all on
guidance, therefore be not of the ignorant.

36. Only those accept who listen; and (as to) the dead, Allah
will raise them, then to Him they shall be returned.

37. And they say: Why has not a sign been sent down to him
from his Lord? Say: Surely Allah is able to send down a sign, but
most of them do not know.
From: "faraz rabbani" <faraz.rabbani@canrem.com>
Subject: re: the quran and the mod
Reply-To: "faraz rabbani" <faraz.rabbani@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: soc
Date: 3 Jan 93 18:19:59 EST

 VF> Milind Saraph writes:
 >|> You still don't get it, do you? Science can be talked about by
 >|> the religious peepuls but it cannot be used alongside a divine
 >|> being. Science rejects a divine cause for anything.

 Vijay Fafat writes:
 VF> Depends on how you interpret it. The basic principle of science
 VF> is that everything has a rational explanation and one should'nt
 VF> resort to demons and Gods. Of course, one *could* try and
 VF> "rationalize" the idea of God but that does'nt fit into the current
 VF> framework as yet and is best left for the metaphysicists. To that
 VF> extent, Science does not accept the supernatural.

Whose "science" are you talking about?  Science is not some being
with a life of its own.  It is a Truth.  And how that Truth is
discovered depends on the individual or group how discovers it. 

Faraz Rabbani
Toronto, Canada

faraz.rabbani@canrem.com

... THE ROAD TO SUCCESS IS ALWAYS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.bangladesh
From: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Subject: Re: The Quran and the Modern Science
Reply-To: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:18:49 GMT

In article <1i293pINNen3@aludra.usc.edu>, fafat@aludra.usc.edu (Vijay
Fafat) writes:

|>	Depends on how you interpret it. The basic principle of science
|>	is that everything has a rational explanation and one should'nt resort
|>	to demons and Gods.

This is a strong statement.  I dont think it is necessary to start with
such an assumption.  Demons and Gods are outside of scientific method.

|>Of course, one *could* try and "rationalize"
|>the idea of God but that does'nt fit into the current framework
|>as yet and is best left for the metaphysicists. To that extent,
|>Science does not accept the supernatural.

Scientific method, by definition, does not deal with the supernatural.

-- Milind Saraph

ps: I think we are picking nits here.  You seem to like strong statement,
    I feel comfortable with the weak ones.
From: haider@tao.rice.edu (Haider Abbas Rizvi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: RE: Private Education in Pakistan
Date: 25 Dec 92 21:34:32 GMT
Reply-To: haider@rice.edu
Organization: Rice University

In article <1hfqeuINNb3l@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, khan@ces.cwru.edu (Mansoor Khan) writes:
|> 	Ofcourse wealth's importance is obvious. But, not the way people
|> 	like Mr. 10% and Mr. 90% are trying create it. 
|> 
	Just curious, who is this Mr. 90%. I have been away from Pakistan
	for a bit too long I guess.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Haider Abbas Rizvi                   | Deptt of Elect and Computer Engg,  |
| haider@rice.edu     		       | Abercrombie A225, Rice University, |
| (713)-527-8750-3598    	       |      Houston, TX 77251-1892.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: "faraz rabbani" <faraz.rabbani@canrem.com>
Subject: re: shaitan kabeer
Reply-To: "faraz rabbani" <faraz.rabbani@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: soc
Date: 21 Dec 92 09:14:51 EST

 -=> Quoting Shams Hasan to All <=-

 >It needs the vision of a true Muslim to see the face of enemy
 >behind the thick veil of deception.  Khomeini was about the only
 >`Muslim' leader after Malik-al-Faisal who really understood the game
 >played by America (and its allies) in Muslim lands, and therefore called
 >it `Shaitan Kabeer'.

 SH> Mr. Kamran Iqbal,
 SH> If what you send is true, and I am sure US policy is about American
 SH> interests and interest of its contituents, then still you must answer
 SH> why is Islam in the dark ages scince a thousand years... There were no
 SH> US then, there was no British Empire then and there definitely was no
 SH> westeren conspiracy then. Btw, could you tell us poor netters who you
 SH> are, ie where from , and why do you blame outside forces, when the
 SH> inside is ROTTING AND STINKING TO THE MARROW !! 
 SH> And in the end, please be just a teedsy bit more specific, regarding
 SH> Pakistan, ie ofcourse, if you are someone concerned about things
 SH> Pakistani ? 
 
Exactly!  Blaming others for our present woes is simply a lame
excuse not to do the things that we as Pakistanis can do to change.
I mean.  USA doesn't (totally <g>) formulate the Gov.  of Pak.'s
budget, through which our literacy has FALLEN since the 1960s, and
who use "Islamisation" as a synonym for ignorance: nowhere in
Islamic teachings is it stated that "In the name of Allah, keep the
masses ignorant." -- which is what modern "Islamisation" seeks to
do... 

And I fail to see why Khomeini, an evil, senile, "ghair-Islami" man
who developed a personality cult (totally ghair Islami, I think), is
someone to admire...  I think that he did more damage to Muslims and
their well-being, by making us the world's new scapegoat for no
reason but his own self-interest, that he should be seen as a real
"kamina"...

Faraz Rabbani

... O.P.P. (One Powerful Paki)
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.india,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.afghanistan,soc.culture.turkish,soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna,soc.culture.iran,soc.culture.african,soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.asean
From: minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas)
Subject: keith moore to speak in cincinnati
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:15:40 GMT

salam alaikum brothers and sisters,

msa of university of cincinnati would like to announce that it will be hosting
a lecture by the famed kieth moore of the university of toronto. he will of
course be discussing the quranic verses regarding the development of the
embryo. he will be speaking at cresgie auditorium at the medical school on
january 14th. it will be sometime in the evening i believe 7pm, inshallah.
please make every effort to come and see and hear what he has to say.
jazakallah khairan
zafar minhas
___________________________
MINHASZT@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU
MINHASZT@UCUNIX.SAN.UC.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: aftab@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Aftab Ahmad;MU-SPIN/CESDIS)
Subject: Punjabi Dialect/Language
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:32:48 GMT


	Alas! Punjabi is no more a language. There was a time that the most
learned people in India sub-continent used it for spreading social and
spiritual love. If one can speak Punjabi, one can speak any language in the
world - either because of the richness of its pronunciations or may be the
people who spoke it have some biological advantage, perhaps since great
people all over the world tried to live in here at one time or the other.

	There are many words in every language which cannot be translated
in any other language. Punjabi probabely have more of these than any.If you have
seen the Punjabi movie "Heer Ranjha" (three times at least to really appreciate
the language), you know what I mean.

	I remember once a bus conductor asking a lady if she is going to the
last stop (Bibi tusi torR jana) and Bibi saying no I am going to the last
stop (she thought torR is the stop name :).They were both Punjabi. Unfortunately
after the birth of Pakistan, Punjabis have taken the charge of Urdu cutting
their next generations off their inheritance. They could have kept both
languages. But this did not stopped there; English is pushing Urdu to the same
corner of lonliness where we remember Punjabi as a once-geart language. Alas!
-- 
Ruler told Socretese 'You think, therefore you are not'
From: sandipan@sdd.hp.com (Sandipan B.)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: RE SOC.CULTURE.PUNJAB
Date: 21 Dec 1992 20:03:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdl131.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec21.190757.4973@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, swami1@troy.cc.bellcore.com (swaminathan,kashi r) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec21.150147.28905@news.clarkson.edu> rajat@sunny3.che.clarkson.edu (Rajat Kapoor) writes:
|> >
|> >Why not rec.humor ...?
|> >
|> >
|> >Kapoor
|> >
|> >( No offense, please...)
|> >
|> 
|> 
|> That's not humourous.
|> 
|> I fully support soc.culture.punjab. They have a distinct culture,
|> but I would prefer if it is also under the soc.culture.indian as
|> soc.culture.indian.punjab. It would be less controversial that way.

Well, (maybe many people are not aware) Pakistan has as many Punjabis
as does India. And as far as the culture is concerned, there is
NO difference at all. And as Swami puts it, "That's not humorous."

-sb
Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:18657 soc.culture.bangladesh:6993 soc.culture.indian:41730
From: fafat@aludra.usc.edu (Vijay Fafat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Difference
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:39:27 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Madar Mirashi writes:
>
>        Q. What is the difference between Mustafa Ibrahim and a bucket
>           of shit?
>        A. The bucket!

	Since swiping jokes from Lawyers is allowed (blame it on Madar :),
here are some more:

Q: Why won't sharks attack Mustafa?
A: Professional courtesy.

Q: How do you get mustafa out of a tree?
A: Cut the rope.

Q:  Do you know how to save the drowning mustafa?
A1: No.
    Good!