From: rroy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raja R Roy)
Subject: Re: Islam Preaching Equality
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:26:45 GMT


In article <18DEC199217545263@vxcrna.cern.ch> mirza@vxcrna.cern.ch (MIRZA,I./EP
) writes:
>In article <1gqg4qINNmf9@bailey.cs.yale.edu>, ahmed%bailey@cs.yale.edu (Shakil
 Waiz Ahmed) writes...
>>..deleted
>>-- Shakil
>
>    Well let me do it all over again.
>    But first few words why? 
>    Unlike you I have not spent my life in europe. I have spent
>    large part of my life in a country called PAKISTAN and
>    I still hold something we call a GREEN PASSPORT. It matters to me
>    lot whatever happens in my country especialy discriminations
>    caused either due to culture/languages or on the name of Islam.
>    This is one reason that I restrict my postings to .pakistan.
>    Although I dont think I have any problems arguing with others,
>    but hope that others can also worry about their own problems rather
>    indulging themselves into other countries affairs. To first order
>    I do not care what Islam/Muslim do in Bangladesh or Saudi-Arabia.
>
>    Now let us come back to "my handwaving"
>
>    1. You still own me a number that is
>       take any "COMPLEX" example of heritage and calculate
>       "Share of brother/Share of a sister"
>       and let us see what it is?
>       This is the only relation where you can see if the 
>       male and female have been treated equally, as you cannot
>       compare share of a mother to her son, or share of a daughter
>       to her uncle, since the relations themself are unequal.
>       When will you be kind enough to grant me this information?
>
>    2. I had restricted myself to above only because I thought that 
>       we should not just go arround in circles without conclusions.
>       But to avoid "handwaving" here I will also consider the other 
>       aspects as you have suggested too.
>
>    3. Let me quote from your postings.
>       "
>        The critic of Islam will argue further than Islam permits beating
>        women.  He will quote from sura Al Nisa:
>
>        As to those women
>        On whose part ye fear
>        Disloyalty and ill-conduct,
>        Admonish them (first),
>        (Next), refuse to share their beds,
>        (And last) beat them (lightly);
>        But if they return to obedience,
>        Seek not against them
>        Means (of annoyance):
>        For Allah is Most High,
>        Great (above you all)"
>        "
>
>        One has to be absolutely biased to ignore the clear discrimination
>        here against women.
>
>        a) Has Quran given the same advise to women, refuse to share bed
>           with their men?
>        b) Has Quran allowed WOMEN to BEAT their MEN (offcourse lightly!)?
>        c) Your answer refering to the physical strength of men is  
>           not true. I have seen cases in my life where women
>           beat men or women's relatives beat men etc. Your explaination
>           might be true, if atall for a tribal arab society!!
>        d) Why a man cannot take his women to an Islamic court right
>           at the start rather first trying to beat her (offcourse lightly).
>
>        [on contrary " women for you are like your fields. You can
>                        use them the way you wish..."
>        ]
>
>        Please give clear answers to these questions dont try to drag
>        me in circles [namely on the meanings of word beating and lightly].
>
>
>    4. Let me now quote what you wrote on polygamy,
>       "
>        Then there is always the most common stereotype and misconception,
>        namely that regarding polygyny.  The Qur'an is quite clear in
>        specifying the stringent conditions under which it may be permissible:
>
>        3. If ye fear that ye shall not
>           Be able to deal justly
>           With the orphans,
>           Marry women of your choice,
>           Two, or three, or four;
>           But if ye fear that ye shall not
>           Be able to deal justly (with them),
>           Then only one, or (a captive)
>           That your right hands possess.
>           That will be more suitable,
>           To prevent you
>           From doing injustice.
>        "
>
>        Here again you have to be absolutely biased to ignore a clear
>        discrimination. You say that it is good for orphans, I say that
>        second marriage both on the part of male/female can also be
>        destructive for the children. You say that it is not for everyone
>        well where in quran it is written that it is not for every one?
>        Which humanitarian aspects allow a man to have more than one
>        wife but do not allow a women to have more than one husband?
>        There are converse examples where one women can have more than
>        one husband (Tibet), Are muslims doing better?
>        Having multiple wifes was just a tradition for the society
>        and Mohammad just tried to be a bit rational, by imposing
>        a restriction of 4 [only for others not for himself].
>
>    4. Now let us take your Quote on witness;
>       "
>        Another favorite quote of the Islam-basher comes from 2:282, a passage
>        referring to transactions:
>
>          And get two witnesses,
>          Out of your own men,
>          And if there are not two men,
>          Then a man and two women,
>          Such as ye choose,
>          For witnesses,
>          So that if one of them errs,
>          The other can remind her.
>
>          The critic will try to argue that the above equates a man with two
>          women.  Clearly, the need for the second witness is *only* in case o
f
>          error.  This does not mean that two women's votes are equal to one
>          man's. This is consistent with the rest of the Qur'an -- nowhere is
>          it stated that two women's statements are equal to one man's.  
>        "
>      Again a case of absolute ignorance, and please do not try to 
>      change meanings, Quran is very explicit here and does not need
>      your desperate commentary.
>
>      a) Why ONE man and TWO women at first place?
>      b) Why one should not have ONE women and TWO MEN so that if one 
>         makes an error the other man can remind him?
>      c) Where in Quran it is said that you should elect your Government
>         by voting, and men and women should have equal weights?
>
>    So you have some substance to work at. There are some other comments due.
>    Even If I had to defend Islam I would not do it the way you have tried.
>    By making above quotes and trying to conclude equality of women you are 
>    only making fool of yourself and Islam. On most topics the Quranic 
>    verses are very explicit indeed, and do not need any, commentary. 
>    and if this was not the case Mohammad had also written a commentary.
>
>    Quranic laws were written for a society which was tribal and
>    male dominant, and if we look at it in this prospective then it
>    easy to understand why these laws are as they are. Indeed they
>    were a step forward at that time.
>
>    Human history has travelled 1500 years since then, a lot has
>    been learned and applied to the society. A lot has been understood
>    and discovered on male and female relations within a society.
>    Obviously Quran made a step forward with respect to it own time,
>    but by forcing it on yourself or others after 1500 years you are only 
>    making a leap backwards. 
>
>    Lucky ME, you and MULLAHS like you can never turn the clock arround.
>
>    I do not say that the current advance human societies do not
>    have any problems, but if they dont then what attraction we
>    will have in this world?
>
>    Who would have invented Quantum Mechanics if Newtons laws
>    were good for all?
>
>    As I have said before there is another way to look at it and that is
>    the Islamic History of 1500 years. Can you give examples from
>    such a long history when Muslims really made good out of Quran [beside
>    4 Khulifas]? 
>
>    Even if we assume that Quran is a perfact book it does
>    not solve any problem unless it becomes a practicable set of laws
>    and if they are practicable? can only be juged from the 1500
>    years history not from the words spitted out of a MULLAH's mouth.
>    And even if the only required quality is the so called beuty of ideas 
>    then why should I go for Quran? why not "UTOPIA".
>
>    [Islam could not even keep East and West Pakistan together.!]
>
>    [ I wonder when we will stop beating the drums;
>      PIDRUM SULTAN BOO....
>      PIDRUM SULTAN BOO....
>      PIDRUM SULTAN BOO....
>      and start looking at the facts, (miserable indeed they are)
>      but it is never late.
>    ]
>

    Very well said. You are one of the rare people, a rational muslim.
 You must be a remarkable person to have been able to think and express
 your views with unambiguity.

 Raja 
>    Mirza Ilyas
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh