From: sarkar@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Nilanjan Sarkar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:20:20 GMT
Organization: GRASP Lab, University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug15.232600.21989@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
(after perceiving imaginary insults and in a desparate attempt to avoid 
a straight forward question)writes:
>
>In article <86227@netnews.upenn.edu>, sarkar@grip.cis.upenn.edu
>(Nilanjan Sarkar) insults:
>

>
>Well, I will grant you that you have a different style to Deb
>Chatterjee, but even though your style of expression is possibly a
>little more subtle, both of your arguments seem to rest on insulting
>the author you are attacking.
>


If you can not answer directly why you do not/can not see other
person's point - say that you don't know why you miss. Don't bring
someone else's name to twist the question. Whether I have a more
subtle way of expression than someone else is not the point here.
Anyway, it was not my objective to insult you - sorry if you feel so.
It was a protest against your attitude of twisting any argument which
you don't feel comfortable to confront with.



>
>Apparently, in your case, that is not necessary, as it is clear that
>your point was merely to insult.
>

Really ! I see how you avoid some questions !


>> 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 like this!  Let's continue with this brand of logic: A woman can
>have children.  Not all women can, but NO MATTER WHAT, a man cannot
>have children.  Geeez, isn't that SEXIST!!!
>


Yes, here you are showing your stupidity(it is not insult - a fact).
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 !!



>Since the stupidity which you associate with me clearly wasn't getting
>me any further, for your benefit, I decided to consult something of
                 -----------------
>greater knowledge, my worthy Webster's dictionary.  Let's see what it
>says:
>
>   sexism: the economic exploitation and social domination of members of
>   one sex by the other, specif. of women by men
>



Thanks a lot. Here is what my on line dictionary tells what sexism is
(for your benifit):[sex-ism]
 (se_k'si_z''@m)

(NOUN).
    1. Discrimination based on sex, especially discrimination against
women.
    2. Attitudes or conditions that promote stereotyping of social roles
based on gender.
[sex'ist] (ADJECTIVE & NOUN)

And I certainly DO find that granting polygyny WHEN polyandry is not
permitted IS a discrimination against women.
And to take your definition - it is indeed a social bias when man
is given the right to have more than one wife in the ABSENCE
of the right of woman having more than one husband. Please note,
CHOICE is NOT an ISSUE here.


Now, I don't see any reason to proceed any further in this thread
when you intentionally or unintentionally do confuse a biological
limitation with a religious dictum. It is quite clear that you don't
want to answer my question for you are governed by the assumption
that since it is said by god, it can not be wrong. Well, I knew that
you would find some ways to avoid the question. Assuming you are
a devout Muslim(correct me if I am wrong), I do understand that it is
very uncomfortable to admit such sexism(IMO) when your whole existence is
based on the assumption that there can not be anything less than
perfect in the scripture. Not many people have the guts to acknowledge
such obviously not_so_perfect attitude and still can say that it is
overall quite good (e.g. Naveed Sherwani; I am not used to bringing other's
name  - but since you showed the way ...). And this was precisely the
reason why I did not want to bring religion in this argument. I asked
you if *I* say that - would you think me sexist ? 


A disclaimer is in the order since another of your favourite adjective
you so often hurl towards anyone whom you can not answer properly -
Islam basher- may find its way in your reply. No, I do not have the
                                              ----------------------
slightest intention of bashing Islam. Do not get fooled by my Hindu
------------------------------------
sounding name. I only joined the debate when an obviously sexist(IMO)
English statement was being interpreted as non sexist. I could not care less
about the origin of that sentence.

Finally, I do consider my brain as a valuable organ and have chosen
to use it for thinking purpose and not just to parade -
 "... Ours is but to do or die,
      Ours is not to question why ...".  
But certainly I can not argue
that it is the best use of one's brain. For example, one can use it as
a showpiece and may not want to use it for thinking purpose. It is
individual's prerogative. And who knows that down the lane, say 50,000
years from now, the future man, after a grand evolution, will find
that the best use of brain is indeed as showpiece ! But, as of now, I
find that one can not reach any conclusion in an argument involving
the two above mentioned categories of people - one who thinks
independently and one who wishes to parrot someone else's opinion.

Please do not hesitate to bring Martillo's name and how I remind you
of him if it helps 'proving' your point ! I know you have all the
answers whether human being will ever be able to find out a foolproof
paternity test, whether Theory of Relativity was there all along in
the scripture, how allowing polyandry will destroy the family
structure ..., just I am not the right person to absorb such wisdom.

So, my friend, you have the last word.


>
>-- Shakil


Nilanjan


Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA