Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
From: mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 10:37:38 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati

In article <1992Aug14.194110.8327@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug14.125402.8346@uceng.UC.EDU>, mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug14.145011.5624@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>> But you still say that a man can have more than one wife in some
>> cases but a woman should have only one husband under any condition. 
>> Could you be termed as a sexist?
>
>I could, as you appear to, but it would be wrong.  You see, it's not
>just a matter of the very specific situations under which polygyny is
>permitted.  Don't forget that it is a woman's *choice* to decide
>whether she would go into a marriage like that.  Clearly, almost all
>women will choose not to walk into something like that, regardless of
>circumstances.  Why is that sexist?
>
But some women may walk into that. What if parallel circumstances exist
for the women, and the man allows his wife to have a second husband, would
you still insist that a woman can have only one husband and a man can
have upto 3 wives if all Koran conditions are met. If yes that is termed 
as sexist.
>> By saying that Islam has no stand point on veils does it mean that
>> men of different countries can decide whether their women should wear
>> veils or not. In Saudi, Iran and Afghanistan it is the men who are forcing the
>> women. The Indian constitution has no standpoint on veil, by that we mean
>> that the women can decide what they wear.
>
>Yes, and Islam says the same thing -- whether a woman wears a veil or
>not is her problem.  It is not required by Islam.  I cannot speak for
>particular societies where that may or may not be the case, because it
>has nothing to do with Islam.
>
Iran and Afghanistan are Islamic states and they make women wear viels
in the name of Islam. You say this is not part of Islam, then it shows
that a country should never be a religous state as religious leaders
misuse religion to exploit people. How is the leader chosen anyway, is
it by God? 
>> Is the average person as rich as an average person in Saudi. Is there
>> not a big gap between the rich and the poor in the West? It is these
>> people that break the law. An Islamic country not implementing an
>> Islamic law and you still claim that law is not obselete. It's like
>> saying that just because people do not live in cave does not mean
>> that people cannot live in caves and thus caves as an home is not
>> obselete.
>
>I find your analogy to caves to be somewhat amusing and misleading,
>but nevertheless, I would like to point out that living in caves is
>indeed not obsolete.  There are still people in parts of the world who
>live in caves, but more importantly, the point is that there is no
>reason why people would not be *able* to live in caves.  Many Islamic
>countries cannot implement Islamic laws because the minorities would
>raise a very big fuss about it.
>
That's really funny. Islamic countries care about their minorities.
No minority group will agree to an Islamic state, as a nonmuslim
cannot be a leader of that state. Do you think the minorities in
India will go along with secularism, if the constitution says they
will have all equal rights but the Prime Minister of India will
always be a Hindu. No your argument about not implementing of
Islamic laws in most Islamic states because the minorities would
raise a big fuss is not true, the only other reason could be is that
they consider it obselete. 
Yes you can live in caves but people do not look for caves to call as home.
There are many parts in the world where there is no electricity or not
enough water. People live there. Do you think they choose to live
under these conditions?
>> I also understand how polygamy used to work in the olden days. There
>> were less men due to war, and to provide security to all women it was
>> allowed.
>> Fear was used to command respect and obedience (Islamic punishments).
>> Now it is replaced by the carrot and stick approach.
>> For stealing they used to cut off your hand, for rape what? Maybe
>> rape was not considered a crime then, it was thought of as a natural
>> reaction to temptation offered by the woman. So to prevent such
>> incidences viel was reccomended.
>
>Wrong.  Rape has always carried a death penalty in Islam.
As you say viel is not mandatory in the Koran. Are the leaders of
these countries sadistic human beings who misuse the Koran. And if
the people of those countries have so much faith in the Koran, why
don't they atleast point it out to them. If the leaders are so worried 
about the fuss of the minority then they are bound to be scared
about the fuss of the majority.
>
Manoj
>-- Shakil


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