HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani)
Subject: Re: Multiple wives
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:05:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.163826.30471@davidsys.com>, merchant@davidsys.com (Rukhsana Merchant) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.193619.1601@sol.cs.wmich.edu>, sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug18.101149.30461@davidsys.com>, merchant@davidsys.com (Rukhsana Merchant) writes:
> >> 
> > Today, females want and should get equal rights, to make decisions
> > about their life, their body, their marriages, etc. It is only fair.
> 
> Yes.  But they do have rights to make decisions about their life,
> their bodies, and their marriages.
> 
> A woman has a right to choose to go into marriage with multiple wives
> (as a choice).  She may see benefits that suit her.  If a husband chooses
> to override her (to remain in a monogamous  marriage), without consideration
> to her feelings (whether of not she has signed a clause before marriage),
> then he has failed to observe one right, to exercise another right.
> And she has the right to leave the marriage (whether or not she has
> accepted a choice to have another wife enter into the marriage) at any
> time.  It is up to her wali to protect her interest prior to her marriage,
> but it her choice at any given time.  
> 

But she has no right to have two husbands, a right given
to man. If this not UNEQUALITY, then what is ?

> 
> IMHO, a woman is not suited to a relationship with more than one husband.
> It has to do with the way a woman loves, but I will stop here, since it is
> more of a personal opinion. 
>  
>
In fact, all the females that I have met, read about, etc EXACTLY
hold the same opinion as yours. 

Their must be some underlying reason for this opinion.
What is that reason ? Why do they want a single husband ?
They are stupid !, they are un-educated ! they are non-religious ?

No, they are just humans, and want a basic human right.

Females want and must get equal rights!  Males have run this world
too long and they have been too mean. It is time to give back the
rights to where they belong.

Rukhansa Bhan, I suggest, we close this discussion, I guess we have
made our opinions clear. I enjoyed the discussion and wish you the best. 

> -Rukhsana Merchant
> 

regards,

-Naveed

Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: asim@heckle.ugcs.caltech.edu (A. M. Mughal)
Subject: Re: Multiple wives
Organization: Caltech Undergraduate Computer Science
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:41:12 GMT

In article <21AUG199210064707@vxcrna.cern.ch> mirza@vxcrna.cern.ch (MIRZA,I./EP) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.153127.1@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu>, ali@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu writes...
>>In article <1992Aug20.031222.4238@cco.caltech.edu>, asim@irk.ugcs.caltech.edu (A. M. Mughal) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug19.183759.1@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu> ali@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug18.101149.30461@davidsys.com>, merchant@davidsys.com (Rukhsana Merchant) writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	The point of Islam allowing multiple wives is not an issue that
>>>>> .....................
>>>>> Islam is the exception.
>>>>
>>>>  You're right there * were* definite reasons for allowing multiple
>>>>  ......
>>>>acquiring another wife.  No doubt about it!!
>>>>jahanara  
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Rukhsana Merchant
>>> 
>>> Asim Mughal
>>> [Standard Disclaimer]
>
>     Just to remind all of you two things. First there is no special condition
>     mentioned in Quran for having more than a single wife beside "justice"
>     whose interpretation is left entirely on the man himself. 
>     Second the limit is only on wifes. There is no limit on "Laundees"
>     or mistresses .
>
>Mirza Ilyas

	I would think "Laundees" & "mistresses" have already been forbidden
	when Quran talks about no physical relationship without a certificate
	from an Imam, co-signed by two witnesses & the couple ;)

Asim Mughal

[Standard Disclaimer]
From: sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Multiple wives
Summary: Islam did not go far enough
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:36:19 GMT
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.

In article <1992Aug18.101149.30461@davidsys.com>, merchant@davidsys.com (Rukhsana Merchant) writes:
> 
> 	The point of Islam allowing multiple wives is not an issue that
> is debatable.  It is allowed and it is the sunnah of Prophet Muhammed (phuh)
> and it is still valid today as it was fourteen centuries ago.  There are
> reasons why it is permitted and the guidelines in Islam are for all
> people and all time.  Those who disagree with the concept and call it
> sexist and baised against women can choose not to practise it.  But when
> people conclude to questioning the character of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)
> and theorizing that Islam deprives the rights of women, then, those
> people haven't really understood what Islam has given to women.   
> 
 I agree that islam has done wonders, but it did not go FAR enough.
I stopped short. Islam should have given equal rights to males
and females, and it did'nt.

I highly praise Islam for providing rights to females AT THAT TIME.
Islam is only religion to explicitly do so. Mohd[phub] must have
to face lot of opposition to implement this rule, but he did it.
That was an incredible achievment. But not good enough!

Today, females want and should get equal rights, to make decisions
about their life, their body, their marriages, etc. It is only fair.

>
> Islam is the exception.  
> 
For its followers, all religions are exceptions.
All reliiogns are dear to its followers, we must respect all religions.
>
> -Rukhsana Merchant

regards,

-Naveed
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: vu0208@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (!)
Subject: Re: An (up-to-date) Update on SCPians ;-)
Keywords: duke
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:13:22 GMT

In article <TcTDPB1w165w@spectrx.saigon.com> r3po@spectrx.saigon.com (r3po) writes:
>shafqat@neuro.duke.edu (Saad Shafqat) writes:
>> In article <713383467@lear.cs.duke.edu> azhar@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Salman [Qu
>> >
>> >Minor corrections... the two cars are Acura and Cressida,
>> >respectively. For the less informed about cars, Acura is the luxury
>
>> If SCP subscribers were ever in doubt about Salman Azhar's true
>> colours, this upstart display of wealth and possession should
>> clear things up beyond any reasonable doubt.  
>> 
>> What a shame; what a contrast.  On the one hand, admire the God-given
>> talents that enabled this man to become Duke faculty; on the other
>> hand, retch at the pettiness, materialism and self-glorification
>
>i never thought that completing the requirements of phd is an evidence
>of "talent" (especially in a not-top-rated like Duke CS school).
>and i dont know of any first-class CS/EE school that will hire its
>own graduate (it is considered too damaging to the pretige of a good school)


This is not true...i can sight two of many examples here:

1) Dr. Yaser Abu Mostafa (an egyption) was accepted as faculty  by
   Caltech after his Ph.D in EE.

2) Dr. Charles Seitz (now at Caltech) was accepted as faculty by MIT
   after he completed his B.S, M.S, and Ph.D at MIT in EE.


>
>But, again, for some people even getting an admission is a "marvellous
>achievement" and they consider themseleves as "too good to be true"
>
>but what does I know....
>
>-r3 [know nothing] po
>
>such an interesting specie is it...these homosapiens (not to be 
>confused with SCPians)
>
>PS: duke university is indeed VERY good (in the areas where it is excellent)
>   my comments are limited to a single school in it
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>r3po@spectrx.saigon.com



Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: ali@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Multiple wives
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:37:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: mcclb0.1992Aug19.183759.1
Organization: NYU Medical Center, New York, NY 10016, USA

In article <1992Aug18.101149.30461@davidsys.com>, merchant@davidsys.com (Rukhsana Merchant) writes:
> 
> 	The point of Islam allowing multiple wives is not an issue that
> is debatable.  It is allowed and it is the sunnah of Prophet Muhammed (phuh)
> and it is still valid today as it was fourteen centuries ago.  There are
> **reasons why** it is permitted and the guidelines in Islam are for all
> people and all time.  Those who disagree with the concept and call it
> sexist and baised against women can choose not to practise it.  But when
> people conclude to questioning the character of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)
> and theorizing that Islam deprives the rights of women, then, those
> people haven't really understood what Islam has given to women.   
> 
> Islam is the exception.

  You're right there * were* definite reasons for allowing multiple
wives, but most of those reasons do not exist today.  There is no
shortage of men for one thing (thank G-d :-)) and women, many women, 
do not need to be taken care of, you and I are probably good examples.
I dont think it is a matter of questioning the Prophets (pbuh)
character to call it a sexist rule, because the concept of sexism 
didnt exist at that time; however it does exist today, and by
definition allowing multiple wives is a sexist concept.  However to 
each his own and if someone feels he can treat more than one wife 
equally and his wives agree to it then it is their personal business.
I for one would shoot my good man in case he became interested in 
acquiring another wife.  No doubt about it!!
jahanara  
> 
> -Rukhsana Merchant
From: shafqat@neuro.duke.edu (Saad Shafqat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Multiple wives
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:49:55 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug18.101149.30461@davidsys.com> merchant@davidsys.com (Rukhsana Merchant) writes:
>
>	The point of Islam allowing multiple wives is not an issue that
>is debatable.  It is allowed and it is the sunnah of Prophet Muhammed (phuh)
>and it is still valid today as it was fourteen centuries ago.  


I think a good case can be made that multiple wives though permitted
in Islam are not encouraged.  The husband is required to treat each
wife as he would the other(s), which to me is an impossibility almost
by definition.  Besides, I also think one's wife should be one's best
friend and there can only be one true best friend.  Rasul Allah's (pbuh)
multiple marriages speak to his superior faculties of human interaction.
It is a gold standard just out of reach for the rest of us.  

Saad.

ps anyone know what was the maximum number of wives the Prophet (pbuh)
   had at a given time ?




-- 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:13630 soc.culture.indian:28044
From: msardar@digi.lonestar.org (Mohammed Tariq Sardar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Message from the author of DESI JOKES
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:31:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.



Dear Friends,
     		In the last few days i have posted several jokes under the title 
"DESI JOKES FOR PUNJABI SHERS". Response to these jokes have been encouraging, i
have been getting mail messages from all over the country saying MORE MORE MORE
( remind me to post a joke on this subject MORE MORE MORE). 
 
Since all fingers are not the same, likewise every one else have different
sense of humour and one person (TARIQ ANJAM) have found these jokes offensive, 
well, he must have lived a very shaltered life. 
I dont know where decency and moral exist any more, i will attempt to give 
few examples where indecent behaviour is well excepted. The biggest source 
of corruption are television and INDIAN movies, both display large
amount of sexual activities. I can not watch an INDIAN  movie with my parents 
any more unless one fast forwards certain scenes.

One goes to the beach or the swimming pool and sees nothing but naked bodies, 
that's fine by me, this is the WESTERN culture and evry one enjoys a peek.

Let me tell you the most DAMAGING things on the NET which are as follows, 
the SHIA v SUNNI issue, sunnis are cursing shias calling them KAFARS and
vice versa, INDIAN are bashing PAKISTANI, HINDUS are claiming MOSLEM have 
been committing crimes against them for centries  ARABS are bashing IRANIANS 
and TURKS are fighting the GREEKS ....etc etc etc  shit goes on and on.

I like to see nothing more then people from different race and religious groups
living in peace  and respecting each other . One way to do this is to break
the cultural barriers and remove hate and fears from each other heart, and i 
belive my jokes do this.

To respect the decency of those people who do not wish  to read my jokes
i will put a warning message at the begining of each joke, as suggested by
a newly acquired friend of mine  NAVEED.  



					     	Regards
						Tariq Sardar
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: asim@irk.ugcs.caltech.edu (A. M. Mughal)
Subject: Re: Multiple wives
Organization: Caltech Undergraduate Computer Science
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:39:55 GMT

In article <l97jhnINNp0t@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu> hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.183759.1@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu> ali@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu writes:
>  However to 
>>each his own and if someone feels he can treat more than one wife 
>>equally and his wives agree to it then it is their personal business.
>>I for one would shoot my good man in case he became interested in 
>>acquiring another wife.  No doubt about it!!
>
>A woman has every right in Islam to make the above feelings 
>explicit before marrying. Or better still, there is no
>one to stop them if they want to have that in writing in the
>marriage contract.

	True, one can put in  any arrangement one wants in the marriage contract,
but the clauses which violate the laws of Allah will not be binding. Just a 
month or so ago, I had a liviely discussion with some friends on this subject.

Specifically, the clause 'I will have the right to shoot my spouse if he 
becomes interested in having another wife' will not be acceptable.

Nor the clause, 'I will not marry another woman' be binding on 'him' as 
the Creator has already given such a permission. The only point I remain
unsure of is whether one has to ask permission from the first wife. I would
like to think one has to but others insisted  on no such pre-approval is 
mentioned anywhere.

Asim Mughal
[Standard Disclaimer]


>
>In Islam, marriage is a legal contract. One can have any clause to
>which there is mutual consent, put in the contract. 
>
>
>


Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal)
Subject: Re: Polygamy & Polyandry.
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 05:39:34 GMT

In article <nadeem.713913941@deathstar>, nadeem@deathstar.Stanford.EDU (Nadeem Hussain) writes:
|> gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Aug15.154739.18892@bernina.ethz.ch> nadeem@igpho (Nadeem Malik) writes:
|> >>
|> >>And on that last point, might I ask how can modern day freedom-thinkers
|> >>justify banning polygamy? 
|> >>
|> >>-Nadeem Malik (nadeem@p.igp.ethz.ch)
|> 
|> >I for one would not condemn polygamy *IF* it was done with the consensus of 
|> >all involved. However, given the fact that most cultures are still matriarchal,
|> >polygamy that enjoys religious sanction is highly abused among the illiterate
|> >(It is only theoretically that the first wife  is supposed to be consulted 
|> >about another wife (and that too under extreme circumstances) but we all 
|> >know what the reality is). Under such circumstances, the very purpose of 
|> 
|> >On the same note, it would be impossible to justify why polyandry should be 
|> >banned (as per Islamic prohibitions). It seems illogical as to why the same 
|> >logic that applies to polygamy (extreme conditions etc.) cannot be applied to 
|> >polyandry. Either condemn them both or accept them both but a one sided stand
|> >only speaks of the sexist hipocrisy of Islam (sorry...Islamic INTERPRETATION).
|> 
|> I agree (if that is you meant "patriarchal" up there rather than matriarchal).
|> However given the patriarchy shouldn't marriage itself be banned?  We all
|> know what the reality of most marriages is.
|> 
|> Nadeem.
|> 

OOPS! Yes, that should have been "patriarchal". But why should marriage 
be banned unless you consider almost all marriages to be utter failures ?

regards,
--   
   ______ ______ ______ ______ __  |\/\/\/|
    ____/  __  /  __  /  __  /  /  |  \  /|   LIFE'S COMPLEX - IT HAS 
   / __   /   /  /   /  /   /  /   | (o)(o)   REAL & IMAGINARY PARTS  
  /   /  /   /   ___/  __  /  /    C      _) 
_____/ _____/ __/   __/ __/ ______/ | \___|  
E-mail - gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu       |   /   All Std. Disclaimers apply.
From: a9@btr.BTR.COM (a9  a9@btr.com)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Invitation: FZ farewell party
Summary: invitation
Keywords: scp
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:32:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: BTR

[this is a serious invitation]

How about a party for FZ at my place? I think I will be a perfect
host for his party - since I dont know him. But seriously, a friend
of a very close friend mentioned his name to me when he was coming
to California. Too bad, i could not meet him earlier (I always wanted
to meet "legends" since my childhood).

Please RSVP if you are interested. (and if we are not out of luck, we
may even get FZ to attend too!).

When: Sat August 29 (or Sunday) [pick your pref. date (this or Sept 5,6)]
Where: Satan Clara/Sunnyvale, CA  [Near Central Expressway]

Food: Lots of munchies, crakers, snappers and similar junkies PLUS vegetables!
Drinks: Strictly non-alcoholic (as an exception we can serve Nyquil for those
        who can produce doctor's prescription).

The maximum occupancy limit is 76 persons (provided half of us can
stand on one foot). If there are more, I can reserve the club house.

Restrictions: 
  - Fire code does not allow dancing inside buildings
  - Due to the availibility of a real piano there is a serious risk that you 
    may end up listenig to FZ's "musical" talents
  - If you get intoxicated by caffine, Surgeon General will not be responsible

let's keep our fingers crossed (the way they are) and hope FZ will accept
this invit.

-ashar
a9@btr.com

Glossary:

FZ: Farrukh Zafar
junkies: An assorted mix of different substance that is almost edible
Fire Code: American interpretation of Islamic Law
SCPians: See junkies

PS: this posting is going out to everyone mainly because it will help people
    in the East Coast and Newzealand to do early travel arrangements and also
    because distribution "ba" does not always work properly.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal)
Subject: Re: Polyandry in Tibet and Islamic prohibition.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:08:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.132307.30466@davidsys.com> merchant@davidsys.com (Rukhsana Merchant) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.040128.4437@tamsun.tamu.edu>, gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:
>> 
>> "Is it true that what is NOT permissible in Islam should NOT BE 
>> permissible in other cultures too (irrespective of any conditions)??! "
>> 
>IMO, No.  But for those who accept Islam, Islam is their culture and
#########
>overlays the culture in which they grew up in or reside in.  A lot

So you agree then that what a muslim believes is true for himself, does 
not necessarily have to be true for a person belonging to some other 
culture ? IS THIS A CONCESSION TOWARDS NON-UNIVERSALISM OF ISLAM?. As a 
universal religion, all its ideals should have cut across all barriers and 
what is not permissible in Islam should not be permissible in any non
muslim culture either. 

regards,
--   
   ______ ______ ______ ______ __  |\/\/\/|
    ____/  __  /  __  /  __  /  /  |  \  /|   LIFE'S COMPLEX - IT HAS 
   / __   /   /  /   /  /   /  /   | (o)(o)   REAL & IMAGINARY PARTS  
  /   /  /   /   ___/  __  /  /    C      _) 
_____/ _____/ __/   __/ __/ ______/ | \___|  
E-mail - gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu       |   /   All Std. Disclaimers apply.
From: g9220755@cc.uow.edu.au (sanjay dani)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan has fired 687 police officers.
Keywords: Hydrocarbons.
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:36:21 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

zabdi@bucknell.edu (zakir abdi GR) writes:


>	
>	What a news guys......

>	"Pakistan has fired 687 police officers in Sind province, citing their
>	ties to criminals, the government said. The action followed a recent 										          order by Prime Minister Sharif for a crackdown on the province's police
>	force."


>	The Wall Street Journal.
>	Monday, August 17, 1992.


>	Zakir Abdi. (This time pray for Pakistan) 



Were they Sindhis or Muhajirs?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:13962 soc.culture.indian:28886
From: ashai@usc.edu (EHTISHAM AHMED ASHAI)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Cricket Matach, Pak vs. Eng
Date: 20 Aug 1992 12:47:36 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Call 818-376-0333 for the telecast of match from 2:45 AM to 11:15 AM to the United Artist Cable CH45. 

Cost $14.95 only. 

The match is on Aug 22 i-e Saturday morning.


Love to all

Ehtisham Ashai.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:14005 soc.culture.indian:28996
From: chemsn@emory.edu (Sreehari Nimmala)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: USA and the Gulf War
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:37:51 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.pakistan
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan) writes:
: 
: 
: I was pleasantly surprised to hear the Americans finally acknowledge
: that the real and only purpose for American participation in the Gulf
: war was to safeguard their source of oil by preventing one nation (one man)
Hi Javed,

it was very clear(even to a stupid) at the beginning of the war
that US was going to war ONLY and ONLY for*oil* but nothing else.
As everyone knows, USA's existance was at stake if Gulf oil was
not flowing freely to US. Lets all just wish that Saudies and
Kuwaities realize soon that they are the owners of their property
(oil), but not the Americans. Saadam was the only man who realized
this fact and acted with guts.

---sree.

: from getting control of 2/3 rd. of the world oil reserves. 
: 
: On Aug 19 the US labour secretary Lynn Martin in her speech at the Republican
: Natl. Convention said that " (the American objective was) ...stop Saddam from
: getting control of 2/3 rd of the world oil reserves..".
: 
: Again Bush, in his acceptance speech, reminded the delegates that he had 
: served American Natl. interest by preserving American access to Middle East
: oil (paraphrase).
: 
: I just wanted to bring it to the notice of those apologists who have been
: valiantly trying to defend the alleged *noble* intent of the US which guided
: their war against Iraq.
: 
: 
: 
: --Javed.
: 
: ====
: What has been the biggest joke since the birth of democracy ?
: 
:   The United Nations.
:  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian