From: mghayalo@uceng.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod)
Subject: Re: Islam Preaching Equality
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:54:10 GMT

In article <1gqfi2INNlc9@bailey.cs.yale.edu> ahmed%bailey@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.191806.8222@news.nd.edu>, milind@agni.cc.nd.edu
>(Milind Sa
>raph) writes:
>> From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
>> > The critic of Islam will argue further than Islam permits beating
>> > women.  .....
>>
>> [stuff deleted]
>>
>> > While there are many arguments on whether the word ``beat'' is
>really an
>> > appropriate translation, one need not point to that in setting the
>> > critic straight.  Capital punishment is not a foreign concept to
>> > Islam.  In fact, many punishments in Islam are physical in nature.
>>
>> So the critic of Islam is right.  Islam does permit beating wives,
>> although lightly.
>
>If you would care to actually *read* the above passage, you will find
>that I state:
>
>1) There is no unanimous opinion on whether the word "beat" is really
>a proper translation
>
>2) The question of capital punishment is something which applies to
>*everyone* in Islam, not just women
>
>3) In the case of women, if we do translate the word "beat" to be a
>proper interpretation, it is qualified by the word "lightly"
>
>From this we can conclude that it is not clear whether beating wives
>is allowed, and that if it is, it is certainly not a form of
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>discrimination directed at them.  The critic is wrong.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > 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:
>>
>> > It is quite clear from the above that the polygyny allowance is
>purely
>> > for humanitarian reasons.  The ``if'' clause above distinctly
>states
>> > that the question of polygyny only arises when there are orphans
>to
>> > take care of.
>>
>> and then later...
>>
>> > Since this is obviously very difficult to
>> > do, and the Qur'an mentions this in the same sura (see 4:129), it
>> > follows that polygyny can only occur under the most exceptional
>> > circumstances.
>>
>> In a discussion on this issue, you said that the Sura 4:129
>overrides
>> 4:3.  Ms Rukhsana Merchant posted the following from the Quran.
>>
>> ****
>>          "If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly
>>          with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or
>three,
>>          or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal
>>          justly (with them), then (marry) only one..." (Qur'an 4:3)
> ... (1)
>>
>>          "You are never able to be fair and just as between women
>>          even if it is your ardent desire...."  (Qur'an 4:129)
> ... (2)
>> ****
>>
>> Sura 4:129 seems to rule out polygamy unambiguously.  It seems
>polygamy
>> is not "very difficult" but impossible.  If I recall correctly, you
>> said that polygamy may be allowed for men with multiple wives
>converting
>> to Islam.
>
>You recall correctly.  Hence the use of the word "difficult" in this
>context.  I don't see an inconsistency.
>
>> > Needless to say, this line of reasoning fails to take into
>> > account the complex social situations under which polygyny is
>> > permitted -- it is obviously not something for everyone.  But it
>also
>> > fails to take into account the problem of infinite family chains.
>If
>> > polyandry were also permitted, it is very easy to show
>mathematically
>> > that one could end up with infinite family chains.  Given the
>> > importance that Islam places on family structure, the problems of
>this
>> > are obvious.
>>
>> I am curious about mathematical demonstration of the problem of
>infinite
>> family chains.  Can you post the analysis or some reference for
>this?
>
>Obviously, my use of the word "infinite" here is as a term of
>superlatives.  You cannot get an infinite chain when you have a finite
>number of people.  But it is mathematically very obvious that you can
>get arbitrarily large family chains which completely ruins the concept
>of family structure which Islam considers important.
>
>-- Shakil
>

Shakil,

Your articles are a waste of space.  You don't explain anything,
you only write something which is long and tiresome.  How is 
beating women lightly non discriminatary against women?


Manoj
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan