From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Talaq over Phone (I recieved a personal Mail)
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:26:52 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <1992Nov13.100324.17254@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, indu@iss700.Columbia.NCR.COM () writes:

> To: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Talaq over phone  ( I received a personal Mail)
> 
> In article <1dsc13INN9s9@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> you write:
> >In indu@iss700.Columbia.NCR.COM () writes:
> >
> >[usual gas deleted]
> 
>    Yeah. Delete it. When facts become un-digestable they become gas.

Facts? :-)  I am beginning to fear that you really believe much of
what you say!

> >Doesn't say much about the books you read or the people you talk to... :)
> 
>  Atleast I'm open to truth, from which ever source they come from. Even from 
>  you. 

Apparently not, as this article shows.  You completely ignore the
facts I presented.

> >I can't believe you actually have the nerve to post anything by Anis
> >Shorrosh.  Ahmed Deedat put him in his place so many times, and he
> >keeps coming back for more.  I strongly recommend that you watch some
> >of the videos of their debates in various parts of the world.  I
> >almost felt sorry for Shorrosh at the end -- the guy just didn't stand
> >a chance...
> 
> Cool. Even Anis Shorrosh talks about Anwar Deedat the same way. (Since I'm
> no supporter of Anis, I'm not mush concerned with his interpratation.
> All I 'm doing is to use his books for getting certain facts). Facts 
> remain facts, whether spoken by Anwar Deedat or Anis Shorrosh. (By the way,
> when my friend gave me this book and said - what have got with these two 
> guys.  All we need is facts. Thats it.)

Again, I suggest you watch the video tapes and you will see for
yourself.  The name is "Ahmed Deedat," not "Anwar Deedat."  This is
only the Nth time you mess up his name -- doesn't say much for your
credibility...

> >>     The fifth wife - Zainab, His Adopted son's Ex-wife
> >
> >As far as I know, Islam doesn't allow "adoption" in the technical
> >sense of the word, but it does allow fostering.  The two are not the
> >same.  Your original claim was that he married his son's wife.  Now it
> >suddenly has become his "adopted" son.  Do you really know what you're
> >talking about?
>    Why is it so suddenly?      Are you finding it hard to digest? How does 
>    an Adopted son differ from "son"? When Muhammad himself conceded that 
>    marrying a Son's wife is a thing is Unheard of? What about that?

*You* are the one who suddenly changed his statement.  First you speak
of his son.  Then you change it to "adopted son."  So you were wrong
to begin with?  You don't know the difference between an adopted son
and a real son?  I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this
to someone.  You see, it isn't really the storks who bring the babies.
There is such a thing as a "biological" parent of a child.  And if you
look at 4:23 in the Holy Qur'an (I posted it yesterday), you will find
that marriage to the wife of a *biological* son is prohibited.  An
"adopted" child in Islam exists only in the sense of fostering, and
this has nothing to do with biological relations.  Hence, marrying the
ex-wife of an "adopted" son is perfectly legitimate.

Is this really so difficult to comprehend?

Let me give you the precise verses from the Qur'an so that all your
questions are answered.  First, let me address the issue of "adopted"
children.  I quote from the Holy Quran, Sura Al Ahzab (33), from verse
4: 

   nor has He
   Made your adopted sons
   Your sons.  Such is (only)
   Your (manner of) speech
   By your mouths.  But Allah
   Tells (you) the Truth, and He
   Shows the (right) Way.

5. Call them by (the names
   of their fathers: that is
   Juster in the sight of Allah.
   But if ye know not
   Their father's (names, call
   Them) your Brothers in faith

Yusuf Ali's footnote to this says:

"If a man called another's son 'his son', it might create complications
with natural and normal relationships if taken too literally.  It is
pointed out that it is not only a facon de parler in men's mouths,
and should not be taken literally.  The truth is the truth and cannot
be altered by men's adopting 'sons'.  'Adoption' in the technical
sense is not allowed in Muslim Law.  Those who have been 'wives of
your sons proceeding from your loins' are within the Prohibited Degrees
of marriage; 4:23; but this does not apply to 'adopted' sons."

Now if that doesn't clear up the adoption question for you, nothing
will.  If you would rather believe what Anis Shorrosh tells you that
the Qur'an says instead of reading the Qur'an itself, you simply
cannot be helped.  Let us look at the Zaynab story:

From Sura Al Ahzab (33), verse 37:

    Then when Zayd
    Had dissolved (his marriage)
    With her, with the necessary
    (Formality), We joined her
    In marriage to thee:
    In order that (in future)
    There may be no difficulty
    To the Believers in (the matter
    Of) marriage with the wives
    Of their adopted sons, when
    The latter have dissolved
    With the necessary (formality)
    (Their marriage) with them.
    And Allah's command must
    Be fulfilled.

The footnote says:

"Zayd's marriage with the Prophet's cousin Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh,
did not turn out happy.  Zaynab the high-born looked down upon Zayd
the freedman who had been a slave.  And he was not comely to look at.
Both were good people in their own ways, and both loved the Prophet,
but there was mutual incompatibility, and this is fatal to married
life.  Zayd wished to divorce her, but the Prophet asked him to hold
his hand, and he obeyed.  She was closely related to the Prophet; he
had given a handsome marriage gift on her marriage to Zayd; and people
would certainly talk if such a marriage was broken off.  But marriages
are made on earth, not in heaven, and it is no part of Allah's Plan to
torture people in a bond which should be a source of happiness but
actually is a source of misery.  Zayd's wish -- indeed the mutual wish
of the couple -- was for the time being put away, but it became
eventually an established fact, and everybody came to know of it."

> >Muhammed (pbuh) had proposed the marriage between Zainab and Zaid, so
> >when Zaid divorced Zainab, he saw it as his duty to take care of her.
> >He was reluctant to marry her because others may have thought he was
> >marrying his son's wife (from your articles, it appears there really
> >are people who are capable of thinking that! :)) Allah(swt) gave the
> >answer to this, "Muhammad is not the father of any of you men."
> >
> >[rest of gas deleted]
> 
>    Well friend. You can delete what ever you want, and where ever you want.
>    That will not prove any thing. I have following doubts. Please
>    clarify me.

Clarify you? :-)  Yes, well, I can clarify what I said, but if it is
clarification of yourself you want, you might want to consider a
doctor or some other person who is better qualified for that task...

>    I would like to make my personal assessment of Anis Shorrosh.

All your questions are completely irrelevant if only you would
understand the obvious facts above.

> >> IS Anis Shorrosh wrong in his RESEARCH on Islam? 
> >
> >Anis Shorrosh is pathetically wrong.  Just how wrong will become clear
> >when you watch his debates with Ahmed Deedat.
>   
>   Where and why? I'm not much  concerned about Deedat-Anis debates or 
>   T.V shows. ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHERE IS HE WRONG IN HIS FACTS?  I'm not 
>   concerned about their interpretations w.r.t. to his  missionary
>   objectives. 

Please watch the videos, and you will see just *how* wrong he is in
his *facts*.

>     As I have suggested in my  previous posting,
>     choose between baseless personal abuses  and Authentic Objective Fact 
>     oriented discussion.  All your personal comments will only expose YOU 
>     more.

You said it, not I! :)

[lots of gas deleted]

>     As  for your comment that Islam does not accept other faiths, but then  
>     one is not forced to it  (in some previous thread) I'll be posting 
>     the attacks carried on by Muhammad and  the destruction of Temples in 
>     Mecca,  Medina and other places. Killings of Jews, who have refused to 
>     take Islam. (I read some where that he broke off an Idol of Pigeon
>     and got some 360 Idols broken). FROM THE VERY SAME BOOK, by Anis. 

And you're PROUD of the fact that you're going to use the same
book?????  Some people never learn...

Please be sure to talk about how the BJP is trying to dismantle a
mosque in India.  And don't forget to tell us about how the Jews to
this day maintain that historically, they lived best under the Moors.
Make sure you don't leave out the fact that when the Jews fled from
the Spanish Inquisition, they fled to Muslim lands because those were
the only places the Jews were welcomed.  And while you're on the topic of
forced conversions, I'm sure you will not forget South and North
America.


-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science     INTERNET: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station   BITNET  : ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158      UUCP    : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================