From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Followup-To: soc.culture.bangladesh
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:24:14 GMT


In article <86315@netnews.upenn.edu>, sarkar@grip.cis.upenn.edu
(Nilanjan Sarkar) insults further:
> In article <1992Aug15.232600.21989@cs.yale.edu>
> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

He begins with a disclaimer:

> Anyway, it was not my objective to insult you - sorry if you feel
> so.

> >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!!!

And yet continues:

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

Um, yes, add the "fact" clause after it (applied, of course, according
to your demonstrated standards on the issue), and that frees you of
all responsibility on insults...  If you don't have any real facts to
present, why demonstrate your ability to insult?  You've already shown
that capability, and I'm sure all those who are impressed by that kind
of thing have already been impressed beyond belief.

Now let's look at your second attempt at presenting a rational argument:

> 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 !!

Ahem.  I do believe you started off by talking about sexism, and
concluded using your own brand of irrefutable logic that Islamic laws
on polygyny were sexist.  Now tell me, is sexism limited to religious
dictum, or is it a term that could apply in any kind of situation?
What I showed above is that your logic fails on the simple grounds
that a difference between men and women, whether it is in societal or
religious laws, or whether it is because of anatomy or whatever, does
not necessarily translate into sexism.  Yes, of course men and women
are different.  Why is it that in the US, with the exception of New
York City, women have different dress requirements than men?  Would
you consider that sexist?  I'm showing you the fallacy in your logic
by pointing out why your logic simply does not hold consistently.

In the same way, Islam recognizes that there are some basic
differences between men and women.  There are many laws that favor
women -- men, for example, are responsible for providing for the
family, whereas women are free to do with their income as they please.
Is this sexist towards men?  Nope.  It is merely a delegation of
responsibilities.  These responsibilities complement each other.  They
are not *restrictive* in the sense that a woman who wants to provide
for the family is free to do so, and similarly people generally will
never encounter situations in which polygyny is warranted.  But most
importantly, the laws on polygyny do not exploit women which is why
they are not sexist.

> 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.

Why?  Given the situations under which polygyny is permitted, and
given that Islam stresses monogamy in the first place, how does this
exploit women in any way?

Furthermore, given that there are more women in the world than there
are men, if you restrict things to just monogamy (regardless of
circumstances), could one not accuse you of discriminating against
those women who are husbandless by never giving them the possibility
of getting married to non-existent men?  Could this be construed as
sexism on your part?

> 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.

Sexism is by no means limited to religious dictum.  When you apply
standards for determining sexism to one area, you have to apply the
same standards uniformly.  Your "logic" simply does not hold.

> 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.

For someone who is so eager to brand others as "stupid," you display a
particularly, shall we say, "different," style of logic.  I'm sure the
origins of your name have a wonderful history to them, but tell me,
how is that in any way relevant to whether you are engaging in
Islam-bashing or not?  You don't have to be of any particular religion
to subscribe to Islam-bashing.

> Please do not hesitate to bring Martillo's name and how I remind you
> of him if it helps 'proving' your point !

You said it, not I.  I wonder why?

> 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.

Again, you said it, not I.

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