From: minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
Subject: Re: Seyyed and the Politics of Difference
Keywords: Politics, Difference
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:15:34 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <1992Nov5.173028.26655@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
>
>
>I think the discussion has moved into the logic of
>religious semantics, and I have no intention of discussing
>that, because I don't accept that God, if she exists, has
>said any of the sorts of things you claim she has.

all seyyed claimed was that women should where hijab when they go outside.
is that SO horrid? he never said anything else. 
>
>If you seriously believe that a benevolent Deity would
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>condone the cruel oppression that women suffer under Islamic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>laws, then I'd say your God has a sick sense of humour.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Where do people get these crazy ideas from?? no muslim has ever said that islam
is correctly applied in any country. it has been said in the past that women 
have been and are being opressed in muslim countries. but it is has also been
made clear that western or secular folk have no damn right to talk about it
until they have their house clean or at least get rid of the racism or other
psychological baggage that they carry to "justify" there  "objections". (i
put it in quotes because i do not feel that it is a sincere form of objection,
it is just intended to put other folk down so they do not feel so guilty
 about the problems they have concerning women's issues.)

e
>
>If instead you argue that Islamic law (as God's edict) is
>not equivalent to the imperfect approximations which are the 
>actual laws of Islamic nations, such as Iran, then I'd need to
>have you defend exactly what this distinction means for
>the possibility of realizing God's will on earth.
>
>History is replete with beautiful systems of belief which
>fail miserably in practice ... I'm not convinced that
>the oppression of women under Islamic regimes won't soon
>join the historical graveyard of defunt dogma.

Well here is something for you. Islam is the fastest growing religion in
the united states. there are now 9 million of us backward folk, this now
surpasses judaism. in rate of conversion islam is the highest in the world.
in rate of turn over islam is the least. that means that anyone who converts
to islam will remain in the religion. the rate of conversion from islam to
anotherr religion is the least. in porportion of religious folk  compared to
non-religious, islam is the highest even in the united states. in rate of number
of people becoming religious where they were not before, islam is the highest
even in the united states. (source, plain truth, a christian magazine)
so there is no evidence that islam will any time soon die out like christianity
or communism.

>
>But let's get back to the real issue here: should justice
>be based upon unchanging dogma?  It didn't work for Christianity
>in the Middle Ages, and it didn't work for Marxism-Leninism in 
>Europe.  Why should it work anywhere else? 

Who ever said that islamic society is static society? the manifestation of
how islam is practiced changes from generation to generation. the word of
god, the quran, has never changed and that is a source of our strength. 
christianity died precisely because it sold out. it changed itself because
of political or social demand, and because the christian leadership was not
honest to itself and its people.	
 What's so special
>about your "word of God" line, that everyone should listen?
>What if other people think God says different things?  What
>if those other people are also Muslims?  Shouldn't they be
>allowed to discover God in their own way?
>
>The facts are that women are human beings, that all people are
>different, and that society should embrace this plurality and
>encourage its exercise in all possible ways; the state shouldn't
>impose a party line as to what differences matter, and for whom.
>
>Why not?  Because time and time again such approaches have failed, 
>but not before hurting some people for no reason other than they 
>were different from what someone else said was normal, proper 
>and decent.  Harmless, but different.

you are superimposing the christian experience onto islam. another sci netter
made the mistake of doing that. islam does not have the history that christian-
dom had, so you can not claim that what you said is applicable to islam except
for a small point. the history you are talking about applies only to christian
europe, and we muslims..... for the most part could do without all of that.
>
>Claiming that one set of rules is the right and true set because
>God said so is a pretty lame way to impose your views on others.

he is not imposing his views he is trying to explain his views and make you
understand, i don't agree with the way he does it, but you should know that
explaining something is NOT the same thing as shoving a point of view down
someones throat?
>
>Why do you feel such a need?

why do you?
>
>If people don't interfere with each others' freedoms, if they
>respect each other as fellow rational beings, then who cares
>what they wear?  And who cares what God says?

and who cares about you say?
>
>I say let them find their own answers, their own way of living,
>and if God doesn't like it, then she can pack up and find
>another planet.

that violates the law of being at a certain point and everywhere at once.

--== not the fingernail man ==--

zafar
>
>
>
>Loren King
>MIT