From: mghayalo@uceng.UC.EDU (Manoj Ghayalod)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:56:58 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati

In article <1992Aug17.151927.11957@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>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.
>
Maybe when there are not enough women to go around.  Did I miss something
when did you show that this law is not sexist. You just didn't anwser
the question, you kept going off on a tangent(eg you defined sexism,
talked about DNA tests and then changed your mind and said that
was your arguement for polygamy and not God's, you said that this is
an humanatirian issue, controlling population is humanatirian, and
one woman married to many men allows that). This issue is extremely simple
if you give more rights to a person and less to another, then there is
discrimination against that other person. 

>> >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.

But we have examples of democracy working, US, England, France, Japan
Germany, India and many more. Give me one example of a religious state 
working.
>
>> >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."
>
Please show me stastistics or some form of proof to the above statement.
And if this is such a good method (this is the 4th time I am asking you
this question, but who is keeping count), why don't states which claim
to be Islamic follow this method, after all this punishment is in the Koran.
>> 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?
>
Decades ago US had a much smaller drug related crimes. Why? Is it because
punishments were tougher then? 
>> 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...
>
I did not say that crime is low in the Asian community because of its
level of education, but it is low as the Asians are in general much above
the poverty level. Good education is the key to make money. You don't have
to be educated to know that prison is not a place to be in. You have to
be desperate, greedy and convinced you won't be caught.
>-- Shakil
>
If you believe that the Koran is written by God. Don't try to rationalize it
you cannot. But that's OK how can you know God's reasons.

Manoj.