From: mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:14:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.010131.29222@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>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.
>
You say that Islam stresses on monogamy. Due to the society now it
is more stressed than before, so one day it might be stressed to be
the only way. Thus it proves the fact that everything has to change
with time. So nothing is timeless.

>> >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.
>
Okay I trust you that there is no requirement of the viel on Islam.
What do I conclude from Saudi, Iran and Afghanistan. Are their leaders
some sadistic males who enjoy opressing women on the name of Islam?
If so why include these countries in the broad embrace of Islam.

>> 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?
>
What about people who want to buy cars, homes etc. Should they wait
their whole life trying to save that much money? Also the industries
will suffer because of the lack of customers, then the jobs will suffer
and eventually the std of living will fall down. But you brought up
an interesting point if the bank lends some industry money,what does
it expect in return. It cannot expect the same amount as money loses
it's value with time. Do they become share holders in that company.
If some investors want share holders they will go to the stock market
why will they go to a bank. That's why this banking system is obsolete.

>> >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!
>
Is the crime rate in Saudi low just because of these punishments?
Saudi is not a good example because it is an extremely rich country
with a small population, they do not even have to pay income tax.
I said that dead penalty is given in extremly rare cases is that
true about the hand cutting. Also a lot of innocents are bound
to lose limbs is that acceptable by you? I am not pointing an
accusing finger at anyone I only think that these steps are not 
required and are too extreme. Any way you yourself agree this form is
obselete by repeating again and again that Saudi has this punishment.
If this method is not obselete then why don't the other Islamic countries
have it(eg Pakistan). 

>-- Shakil
Manoj

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh