From: gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal)
Subject: Re: sex in hereafter (was Re: the terminator part n : )
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:46:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.063737.15264@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kmubarak@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Kamal Mubarak MD) writes:
>Gopal writes:
>
>My dear Gopal, you missed  the  point  completely.  You see, I am *not*
>interpreting the Qura'n.  Not at all.  I am only giving you a *literal*
>*translation*. It is you who is *interpreting* the Qura'n, and that too
>in a sexist manner.  Have you forgotten?  Let me quote for you your own
>writings. You begin the discussion by stating very clearly:
>
>  MEN who go to heaven will be serviced by young VIRGINs. (Seems like someone
>  was letting their sexual fantasies run awild. No mention is made if WOMEN
>  are serviced by young STUDs).

You missed out 4 very important words that preceded that above paragraph.
They were "From what I heard (or was it "read"?)" .  The fact is that i 
did not make any interpretations of my own. I used the literal translations
just as you caim to be doing. I also posted a source where the word hoor 
is reffered to as Maidens. I did mot make that translation.  

>You have not asked a question. You have made a definite *statement*. So
>I point out to you by quoting the Qura'n that this is not  so  and  you
>should not be making such statements. And Zafar Minhas points out that:

See above. I did not make a definite statement of my own. It was 
a translation I have READ. Can you get that in your head. It is 
something I did not make up. It is something my dad or uncle didn't 
make up. It is something written down by no less than the Saudi govt.
itself. 
>
>Do you accept your mistake and apologize like a gentleman? No! You must
>now go and look up a second translation of the Qura'n and state:
>
>  It seems that the interpretation that you have is actually trying to
>  hide the sexist connotations.
>
>I point out to you once again what Zafar has posted.  

So tell me. Why is the interpretation as posted by Zafar more 
acceptable than the one posted by me ? Is his source more reliable 
than mine ?. Perhaps it is. But I would like someone to point out the 
reason for that. If the reason is acceptable, then I will admit being 
a victim to false propaganda. 

You now  seem  to
>have lost the battle.  But do you apologize for you mistake?  Of course
>not! You must now try and change the  subject.  You  label  my  literal
>translation of the original as a mere new  interpretation  which  is  a
>change from "what was hitherto practiced". Well my dear Gopal, we  have
>not been discussing Islamic practices.  Only what the Qura'n says.  And
>then you go one step further and throw another  red  herring  into  the
>discussion.  You state that I am unwilling the accept "change"  because
>"admitting change is like blasphemy" to me.  Don't you  see, I  am  not
>changing anything.  I am only giving you a literal translation  of  the
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of the verses as originally revealed.

BUT SO AM I ?  I suppose that this debate is going to turn out to be 
the same as the Ahmidyat's debate of what 'khatm' means ?

>Would you be a gentleman and accept that:
>
>1.  You did not have  adequate  knowledge  on  the  subject, but  still
>resorted to making categorical statements about what the Qura'n says?

Definetely i did not have much knowledge on that subject. That is 
why I took the trouble to go through a couple of Quranic translations
and came up with what i got. Let me tell you that it wasn't easy going
though those translations since i could make no head or tails of the 
organization of the chapters verses references etc. 

I just looked up the same verse in another book. It gives the translation
as what Zafar had quoted. Isn't that sufficient proof how translations 
themsleves are changing (for the very same verse). 
>
>2.  That  you  interpretation  was  sexist  while the original Qura'nic
>verses on this subject are not?

As explained above, I have found two different translations of the same 
verse referring to 'Hur'.  While one gives its meaning as wide lustrous 
eyed PERSON, the other translates it as MAIDEN. SO WHICH ONE IS RIGHT ?
You enlighten me. 

>3.  That you have persisted in maintaining that  sexist  interpretation
>despite evidence to the contrary from both myself and Zafar?

Agreed. And I still maintain that. Given the nature of Quran, I am not 
surprised if MAIDEN is the more accurate translation than PERSON. The 
same phenonomena is taking place in Bible's translation where all "He"s 
are being replaced by "we/they" and "man" is being replaced by 
"soul/individual/person". 

>4.  That you have tried to deflect the discussion to another  topic  so
>you don't have to apologize?

I have not CONCIOUSLY tried it though I it did veer off on a tangent. But
This is nothing new in any debate. You yourself are deflecting this debate
into character assasination.

>Something tells me that you may not have the moral courage to do so.

I do. But only if it genuinely calls for an apology.

>Which brings us to the question as to why you  persist  in  maintaining
>that these verses are sexist  despite  evidence  to  the contrary.  One

Because I find conflicting evidences. 

>possibility is that you have a hidden agenda to promote (that Islam  is
>sexist).  But there is even a better one.  You have  publicly  admitted
>that your religion is sexist and that you still believe in parts of it.
>Is it possible that psyche is so influenced by your religion that  when
>you read the Qura'n you can only interpret it in a sexist  manner?  And
>even when evidence is presented to  the  contrary, you  can  not  bring
>yourself to change your interpretation?

You'll never make a Sherlock holmes if that is what your  trying to do 
above. Try harder and you might come up with something really fantastic
about my psyche. 

>But if you want to maintain this sexist stance please do so.  At  least
>this way you get to read the  Qura'n.  Who  knows  one  day  you  might
>achieve your nirvana in a Muslim heaven with multiple female  Hurs  for
>your orgiastic pleasure.
>
Thanks for the invitation. If heavens exists, I will definetely choose 
the Muslim heaven.  

regards,
--   
   ______ ______ ______ ______ __  |\/\/\/|
    ____/  __  /  __  /  __  /  /  |  \  /|   LIFE'S COMPLEX - IT HAS 
   / __   /   /  /   /  /   /  /   | (o)(o)   REAL & IMAGINARY PARTS  
  /   /  /   /   ___/  __  /  /    C      _) 
_____/ _____/ __/   __/ __/ ______/ | \___|  
E-mail - gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu       |   /   All Std. Disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:14501 soc.culture.arabic:3540 soc.culture.jewish:15426 soc.culture.turkish:9746 soc.culture.afghanistan:950