From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:08:44 GMT


In article <1992Aug17.195658.19605@uceng.UC.EDU>, mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.151927.11957@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> Maybe when there are not enough women to go around.  

The world population has more women than men.

> Did I miss something
> when did you show that this law is not sexist. You just didn't anwser
> the question, you kept going off on a tangent(eg you defined sexism,
> talked about DNA tests and then changed your mind and said that
> was your arguement for polygamy and not God's, you said that this is
> an humanatirian issue, controlling population is humanatirian, and
> one woman married to many men allows that). This issue is extremely simple
> if you give more rights to a person and less to another, then there is
> discrimination against that other person. 

I defined sexism according to Webster's dictionary, and showed in
article <1992Aug15.225915.21643@cs.yale.edu> why the polygyny laws
prescribed in the Qur'an were not sexist.

You think this is an issue of giving one person more rights than
another?  Then please explain to me why men have different rights
regarding how to dress than women in *this* society.  God knows how
many times I have asked you this and obtained no answer.  Please
explain to me why courts generally give a mother custody over the kids
in case of divorce.  There are countless examples like that.  Let's
face it, men and women are different and there will always be some
differences in the laws.  This does not translate into sexism as long
as nobody is being exploited.  Similarly, in Islam, polygyny is
permitted under very exceptional circumstances, whereas polyandry is
not.  Nobody is exploited in this situation, and so it is not sexist.

> >Just because some leaders may misuse religion does not mean that
> >religion cannot be a significant guiding force in a state.  Democracy
> >has often resulted in disaster too, but that doesn't mean that
> >democracy cannot work.
> 
> But we have examples of democracy working, US, England, France, Japan
> Germany, India and many more. Give me one example of a religious state 
> working.

What do you understand by "working?"  There are many people in each of
the countries you list above who will differ with you on that issue.
On the other hand, there are many Iranians who will tell you that
their religious state is working.  The Islamic state at the time of
the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was a clear example of one that worked.
But tell me, what do you understand by a religious state?  You and I
may have different ideas on this.  You may point to Saudi Arabia, and
I will tell you that it is a monarchy, in direct violation of Islam,
and thus cannot be considered a religious state.

> >Saudi Arabia has had a low crime rate ever since Islamic law was
> >implemented.  So the answer to your question is "yes."
> >
> Please show me stastistics or some form of proof to the above statement.
> And if this is such a good method (this is the 4th time I am asking you
> this question, but who is keeping count), why don't states which claim
> to be Islamic follow this method, after all this punishment is in
> the Koran.

Excuse me, but you are the one who suggested that Islamic law is
obsolete.  The burden of proof rests on your shoulders.  I have
pointed to the example of Saudi Arabia where Islamic laws on crime
(one of the Islamic things that *is* implemented there) are
implemented, and the crime rate is extremely low and has been low for
a long, long time.

Now regarding your question of why other countries don't implement
them, I already answered that question, but you chose to ridicule the
answer.  One reason is that the minorities and "human rights" groups
in these countries will all riot.  Each country has its own political
system, and there are various reasons why each of them did not see it
fit to implement Islamic law.  I cannot speak for those governments,
nor is it my problem.  If you wish to ask them, you can ask them
directly.  I merely repeat that *Islamic law on crime* cannot be
obsolete because we have a very clear example of a system where it
works (Saudi Arabia).  Indeed, the same "fear" factor that underlies
the basis of Islamic punishment on crime is what is used for
implementing the death penalty in many countries such as this one.

> >This is simply not true.  Saudi Arabia became rich only in the last
> >several decades.  Before that, the country was quite poor, and still
> >had a low crime rate.  Why?
> >
> Decades ago US had a much smaller drug related crimes. Why? Is it because
> punishments were tougher then? 

This is a totally inappropriate analogy.  Drugs were not illegal those
many decades ago, and hence there couldn't be any drug-related crimes!

> >Yes.  But is that true in Saudi Arabia?  Check out the literacy rate
> >for Saudi Arabia -- you may be surprised...
> >
> I did not say that crime is low in the Asian community because of its
> level of education, but it is low as the Asians are in general much above
> the poverty level. Good education is the key to make money. You don't have
> to be educated to know that prison is not a place to be in. You have to
> be desperate, greedy and convinced you won't be caught.

If poverty level is what drives crime, then why does the US have
higher crime rates than most other countries?  Why is the chance of
getting mugged in NYC higher than so many other cities all over the
world?  Clearly, poverty cannot be the only driving force.  Again, if
the fear of punishment is large enough, crime can be lowered in almost
any environment.

> If you believe that the Koran is written by God. Don't try to rationalize it
> you cannot. But that's OK how can you know God's reasons.

This doesn't make sense.  Clearly, if what I'm saying is irrational,
then you should be able to show through rational argument why that is
so.  Something you have obviously failed to do.  Indeed, I may not
know what God's reasons for a particular statement may be.  But that
does not mean that I cannot have rational reasons of my own for
understanding that.

-- Shakil
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh