From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:01:31 GMT


In article <1992Aug13.230244.25745@uceng.UC.EDU>, mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:

> As long as you are not the author of the Koran, your reasoning
> of the passages are as good as mine. I think that this passage
> was included in the Koran as the population of muslims was extremely
> less and they had a lot of enemies. So to have more children preferably
> male, he asked men to have more than one wife. So that all the resources
> were used to the full potential. Now there are a lot of muslims in
> this world and some muslim countries are overpopulated, and the only
> enemies the muslims have seem to be other muslims. So now I don't think
> this clause is valid anymore.

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.

> >Islam and what it prescribes is defined by the Qur'an.  There is no
> >requirement in Islam for veils.  If you think otherwise, I ask you to
> >present the appropriate passages in the Qur'an.  You can't because it
> >is not there.
> >
> How can I trust you, maybe you missed something in the translation( I am
> assuming you know Arabic, from old Arabic to present day Arabic). I would
> rather trust the muslim leaders who keep on insisting on the viel after 
> all they must have done some deep research on the Koran. 

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.

> People who want to buy cars or something else and do not have
> money upfront, think they should exist. Investors who have great plans
> and do not have money upfront think they should exist. Industries who have
> something to sell and they have customers who do not have money upfront
> think banks have to exist. And bankers who end up making more money for
> their lending think that banks should exist.

But investors can borrow money from Islamic banks too.  So where is
the problem?

> >But the death penalty exists in this country too.

> Very less people are sentenced to death. It is always accepted by the people
> that extremely few but some innocent people may lose their lives. This is 
> accepted because it has to be shown to potential killers that if they take
> a life they would lose theirs. 

But that is *precisely* the logic behind the punishments prescribed by
Islam.

> The death sentence is used to the minimal
> and only in extreme cases. As for cutting peoples hands for robbing
> there are more chances of innocents suffering a fate which will be permenant.
> Is this punishment given on extreme cases or all theives are treated
> alike?

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!

-- Shakil

Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:4405 soc.culture.indian:27781 soc.culture.pakistan:13546