From: mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:54:02 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati

In article <1992Aug14.145011.5624@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug14.021404.28377@uceng.UC.EDU>, mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug14.010131.29222@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>> You say that Islam stresses on monogamy. Due to the society now it
>> is more stressed than before, so one day it might be stressed to be
>> the only way. Thus it proves the fact that everything has to change
>> with time. So nothing is timeless.
>
>The societal behavior may change, but my argument is that it still
>falls within the bounds of Islamic law
>
But you still say that a man can have more than one wife in some
cases but a woman should have only one husband under any condition. 
Could you be termed as a sexist?
>> >Please, I *challenge* you to find me a passage in the Qur'an which
>> >says that the veil is a requirement for women.  I maintain that there
>> >is no such passage, and no such requirement.  There are many things
>> >which are required in many countries for societal reasons.  Saudi
>> >Arabia, for example, does not allow women to drive.  But this has
>> >*nothing* to do with Islam!  Again, veils are not an Islamic
>> >requirement and I request you to show me otherwise in the Islamic
>> >scriptures.
>> >
>> Okay I trust you that there is no requirement of the viel on Islam.
>> What do I conclude from Saudi, Iran and Afghanistan. Are their leaders
>> some sadistic males who enjoy opressing women on the name of Islam?
>> If so why include these countries in the broad embrace of Islam.
>
>What do you understand by the broad embrace of Islam?  If certain
>societies require veils for women, that is a societal constraint, and
>any gripes you have about that should be directed at those particular
>societal practices.  It is not an Islamic requirement.  It is also not
>prohibited by Islam, and in that sense, it is not unIslamic for either
>a man or a woman to wear a veil or not to wear one at all.  Basically
>Islam has no standpoint on veils at all.
>
By saying that Islam has no stand point on veils does it mean that
men of different countries can decide whether their women should wear
veils or not. In Saudi, Iran and Afghanistan it is the men who are forcing the
women. The Indian constitution has no standpoint on veil, by that we mean
that the women can decide what they wear.
>> What about people who want to buy cars, homes etc. Should they wait
>> their whole life trying to save that much money? Also the industries
>> will suffer because of the lack of customers, then the jobs will suffer
>> and eventually the std of living will fall down. But you brought up
>> an interesting point if the bank lends some industry money,what does
>> it expect in return. It cannot expect the same amount as money loses
>> it's value with time. Do they become share holders in that company.
>> If some investors want share holders they will go to the stock market
>> why will they go to a bank. That's why this banking system is
>> obsolete.
>
>But why shouldn't the whole system be based on share holding?
>
Why should the whole thing be based on share holding. This banking
system gives you flexibility if you want share holders, it's your
wish and if you want to be the sole owner then you can get money from
a bank. The Islamic system imposes one option on every one and this
system allows you to choose. And this system is working the other isn't.
>> Is the crime rate in Saudi low just because of these punishments?
>> Saudi is not a good example because it is an extremely rich country
>> with a small population, they do not even have to pay income tax.
>> I said that dead penalty is given in extremly rare cases is that
>> true about the hand cutting. Also a lot of innocents are bound
>> to lose limbs is that acceptable by you? I am not pointing an
>> accusing finger at anyone I only think that these steps are not 
>> required and are too extreme. Any way you yourself agree this form is
>> obselete by repeating again and again that Saudi has this punishment.
>> If this method is not obselete then why don't the other Islamic countries
>> have it(eg Pakistan). 
>
>Just because a country doesn't implement it does not mean that it
>can't be implemented.  My feeling is that the fear factor would work
>very well in scaring people away from crime.  The wealth of Saudi
>Arabia is not particularly relevant to the crime issue.  The United
>States is a very wealthy country, as is Germany or any number of other
>western countries.  And yet we find high crime rates.  I do believe
>that the low Saudi crime rate is a result of the Islamic laws that are
>implemented.  Note that Saudi Arabia was not always wealthy.
>
Is the average person as rich as an average person in Saudi. Is there
not a big gap between the rich and the poor in the West? It is these
people that break the law. An Islamic country not implementing an
Islamic law and you still claim that law is not obselete. It's like
saying that just because people do not live in cave does not mean
that people cannot live in caves and thus caves as an home is not
obselete.
>-- Shakil
From your explainations it appears that the Koran is flexibe (though a
bit sexist, but so are other religions thus some portions of them
are obselete today and are never followed word by word as a law of the land),
that is refreshing to know. But you are obviously in the minority as, if the
Koran is so misused in the world how come no muslims objects? I can also now
understand how it can be used now with noble intentions. If some one needs
money to put him back on his feet and you have money to spare lend him
money with no interest. But if someone wants money so that he can make
more money or have luxuries in life give him money but expect him to
pay interest. 
I also understand how polygamy used to work in the olden days. There
were less men due to war, and to provide security to all women it was
allowed.
Fear was used to command respect and obedience (Islamic punishments).
Now it is replaced by the carrot and stick approach.
For stealing they used to cut off your hand, for rape what? Maybe
rape was not considered a crime then, it was thought of as a natural
reaction to temptation offered by the woman. So to prevent such
incidences viel was reccomended.

Manoj
Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:4576 soc.culture.indian:28568 soc.culture.pakistan:13847