From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:16:49 GMT


In article <1992Aug12.174639.8730@uceng.UC.EDU>, mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.150802.10809@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> >There is no 100% foolproof method yet.  There is some degree of
> >inaccuracy in DNA testing.  Ask the FBI -- they're still arguing over
> >it.
> >
> Okay let us say you are right there is some inaccuracy in DNA testing(though
> people have been convicted of rape by this method), say in the future
> if they find out a 100% foolproof method then do you think 1 woman can
> have more than 1 husband, thus making this clause defunct. 

How can you say what there will or will not be in the future?  Since
we don't know, your point becomes moot.

> >Civilian areas are indeed bombed.  But by and large, the majority of
> >casualties are still on the battlefield, and the majority of those on
> >the battlefield are men.
> 
> The majority of Indian muslims, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are males,
> suppose a man loses his wife and has some children, and he cannot find
> a girl to marry him the second time and if a married woman is ready
> to marry him to take care of the orphans is it OK.

Nope.  Not according to Islam.  This is the first time I'm hearing
that the majority of South Asian Muslims are male.  Can you please
post the statistics on this with the appropriate references?

> >I will indeed say he is not a true Muslim.  When I am in trouble, and
> >I know of someone in power who can help me, I will go to him/her.  The
> >Emir has power and wealth -- obviously people will go to him in times
> >of trouble.
> 
> Israel has the most power in the Gulf region, did Saudi and Kuwait go
> to them for help. Israel would have been most happy to destroy Iraq
> for ever. 

The US has much more power, and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait did go to the
US.

> South Africa is rich because of its gold, did India ever go
> to it for a loan. 

I don't know.  But there are plenty of other states that India can and
does get loans from.  But what is your point?  Say you have an Islamic
country A which needs a loan.  Now it can go to some country B which
has an emir who isn't exactly what we would consider a good Muslim.
Or it can go to some country C which is not Islamic at all.  So we
have to choice between going to a Muslim who commits sin but is
likely to give loans, and going to a non-Muslim who is less likely to
give loans.  Which would you go to?

> Generally you do not approach a person or country
> for help if its priciples contradict your own. Do you think that you can
> tell the Emir you are misusing the Koran you will go to hell and then
> ask him for 1 billion dollars aid. The counties which go to him say that
> you are true muslim, we your muslim brothers are in trouble, please help
> us. When muslims call him a true muslim what is the world to
> think...

Do the countries really tell him that?  Or do they go to him and say,
"We are an Islamic country in need.  Please be a good Muslim and help
us?"  Do you see the difference?

> >Well, I think the analogy between staying locked up and modest dress
> >is a bit extreme...  Clearly, almost every society has some dress code
> >that is accepted as "decent."  Certain parts of the body are expected
> >to be covered.  Modest dress is a relative term -- some expecting more
> >to be covered than others.  There are obvious differences in anatomy
> >between women and men which is why, even here, men and women are
> >expected to cover themselves differently.
> >
> Yes men and women are expected to cover themselves differently every where.
> But a burkh goes overboard in its modesty, does it not impose a lot of
> restriction on the person wearing it. Modern times offers a lot of
> opportunities to women the burkha might restrict them. Also something 
> which is forced on a majority of the population cannot be right. 

Who are you to decide what is overboard in modesty and what is not?
Are you not judging according to your own standards?  Also, is it
permitted here in the US for example, to walk around stark naked in
the streets?  Clearly not, you would get arrested.  But then, isn't
the requirement for dress something which is *enforced* upon the
majority here?  Clearly, *every* society has standards for modesty in
dress.  What do you understand by burkha?  Islam does not have a veil
requirement; it does require modest dress.  

> >Well, if you look at a lot of he loans that are granted to "Third
> >World" countries and you observe how they struggle with just trying to
> >pay interest, you start wondering about the system...  My question was
> >basically why you think Islamic banking is obsolete.  What you have
> >pointed out is that other systems can work, but that still doesn't
> >answer my question.
> 
> Loans are given to the third world countries because they agree to pay
> interest. If they refused to pay interest I am sure US, Japan would
> rather invest that money in their own people. Nobody borrows money
> because he enjoys paying interest, they borrow it because it is desperately
> required. I thought I anwsered your question. A bank is a place where people
> keep their money, the more the money kept in the bank the more succesful
> the bank. This money the bank invests. Because of no interest policy
> Islamic banks cannot compete in the market, even rich shiekhs put
> their millions of dollars in foriegn banks, thus the country loses out.
> I have not pointed out that other banks work, I pointed out
> that they work better than the Islamic system. Because of the Islamic
> system money flows out of the country it does not come in, and who suffers
> due to this?

That's only because of the nature of the current banking system in the
"west."  But who says that is the way it has to be?  Why could an
Islamic banking system not survive?  As for Islamic banks not being
able to compete, there are many such banks from Malaysia to Saudi
Arabia which seem to be doing just fine.  My question was why you
think they are obsolete.  Again, their existence shows that they are not
obsolete.

> >> May be before times were desperate, and lawness could be brought into
> >> effect only by drastic measures, regardless if some innocent people
> >> suffered. What if you cut of some one's hand and then after some years
> >> you realize that he was innocent. Don't you think that he would prefer
> >> staying in jail some years than losing his hand, I know I would.
> >> Please don't claim Islamic judges are perfect they make no mistakes.
> >
> >The argument is that fear works and once implemented, crime will sink
> >to very acceptable levels (e.g. Saudi Arabia).  As for times being
> >desperate before, one look at inner cities in some of the larger urban
> >centers in the US may make you shift that statement to the present
> >tense too...
> >
> In Nigeria theives were shot dead. This did not bring the crime down, the
> theives were just more careful that they left no witness alive. 

So why would your system work any better?


-- Shakil
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan