From: dogar@rtsg.mot.com (Haroon H. Dogar)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:12:47 GMT

sarkar@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Nilanjan Sarkar) writes:

>>> Now the case in hand is very clear. Remove your mental block and read
>>> this question - " a man can have more than one wife in some cases (those
>>> cases may be very rare), but, no matter what, a woman *can not* have
>>>                               --------------
>>> more than one husband - is this sexist attitude ?" . For the time
>>> being forget who said that and whether it is straight from the almighty
>>> who can not make any mistake and all those glorifying adjectives.
>>> Say, I tell you this - won't you think me sexist ? Don't twist the
>>> argument by saying it is the woman's choice whether to accept polygyny
>>> or not - the question is - why the woman will not have a choice for
>>> polyandry when man is given the choice of polygyny ? And, is not
>>> it sexist ?
>>

.
.
.

>I was NOT talking about
>biological limitations my friend - I was talking about some religious
>---------------------- 					    --------- 
>dictum. Got the difference ? I know you won't see the difference,
>------- 
>forget it - come back with some
>more such wonderful analogies - after all you have to WIN no matter
>how ludicrous your argument is !!


Islam is not androgynous. It has different rules for men and women which
apply to dress regulations, and to marriage rules and to other areas.
I do not believe that Islam is sexist as I believe that sexism entails
exploitation. Nevertheless, these labels are meaningless to me and I
don't mind if you call me sexist for believing in Islam (sticks and
stones and what not :-) ). I only ask that you apply the same yardstick
to everyone and call any others who differentiate between men and women
by the same (perceived :-) ) epithet. [eg. the LPGA, the Olympic committee
which stages separate events for women and men, the anal architects who
force us to use separate washrooms, the evil local governments who arrest
women who go topless, etc.]

I will not enter into any debate on the biological differences that 
preclude polyandry, because it is my *personal* belief that the only
reasons for the allowance of polygamy are societal--based on the maintenance
and well-being of all of the citizens in a primarily patriarchal society.
Is a patriarchal society necessarily sexist? I don't think so. It is just
one viable model [the most often used throughout history though definitely
not the only one] of society, and the one chosen as the ideal for an Islamic
society. My only point is that differentiation between the sexes is not,
by definition, exploitive. It can be, but it is not necessarily so.

In any event, I concede. If you choose to call me sexist for realizing
that there are differences between men and women and for believing that
laws [even in these secular United States] should take these differences
into account, then I won't mind. [Because as Dieter says, "This story
has become tiresome."  :-) ]


-hd
Damn. I promised myself I wouldn't post for at least a week.
Oh well. Time to try again. :-)