From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:19:27 GMT


In article <1992Aug16.203305.17468@uceng.UC.EDU>, mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:

> Please anwser the question. Do you think under expectional circumstances,
> like the men can women have more than one husband. If not do you think this
> is discrimination against women? I will consider it discrimination as
> you are not allowing women to participate in this humanitarion issue.

I really don't see why this is relevant to the sexism issue.  As far
as Islam goes, a woman cannot have more than one husband under any
circumstances, and I fail to see how the situation could arise that
would necessitate such action.  I have shown why the existing laws on
polygyny are not sexist.

> >Look, there are dictators and monarchs in many places in the world.
> >The King of Nepal only recently gave up a little of his power.  What
> >religion is he?  What religion did Hitler subscribe to?  Marcos?
> >Pinochet?  Honecker?  The list is endless!  Leaders in many places
> >will misuse their power, and no, they are not always chosen by the
> >people.  Like everything else, leaders can misuse religion too.  But
> >the religion itself, at least in the case of Islam, is well-defined by
> >its scriptures, and Islam does not require veils for women.
> >
> So you are saying that these are not Islamic leaders and they are just
> misusing religion to stay in power. So my statement holds that religion
> should not interfere with the state as even if the religion can do no
> wrong the ones who implement it exploit the people. 

Just because some leaders may misuse religion does not mean that
religion cannot be a significant guiding force in a state.  Democracy
has often resulted in disaster too, but that doesn't mean that
democracy cannot work.

> >Yes, that is strange.  I personally don't see an ideal implementation
> >of an Islamic society anywhere, but I do believe it is possible.  I
> >can point to isolated successes.  For example, the crime record in
> >Saudi Arabia is very low as a result of Islamic law.  That aspect of
> >it is well implemented.  Of course, their track record on other issues
> >is atrocious, but the crime deal has worked very well.
> >
> How can you say that crime is low only due to this reason. Is it because
> these methods of punishment come under the Koran.  

Saudi Arabia has had a low crime rate ever since Islamic law was
implemented.  So the answer to your question is "yes."

> As I pointed out that
> their banks do not take interest(a condition in the Koran) then why isn't
> this bank system the best in the world. Saudi is a small country with a
> small and rich population, yes the average population of Saudi is richer
> than that of Western countries, that is why the crime is low there. 

This is simply not true.  Saudi Arabia became rich only in the last
several decades.  Before that, the country was quite poor, and still
had a low crime rate.  Why?

> Also
> (supposedly) Islamic countries find this practise barbaric and hence
> have       abolished it. In the same vien, Asians are low in crime
> here, with respect  
> to their percentage, does religion have anything to do with this, or are
> Asians in general are more frightened of US jails. I think the reason for
> this is that Asians are in general more educated and thus an average Asian
> is atleast middle class here(he is higher than the poverty level).

Yes.  But is that true in Saudi Arabia?  Check out the literacy rate
for Saudi Arabia -- you may be surprised...

-- Shakil

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian