Quran, Arun, Shakil, God, Godel.
TH...@psuvm.psu.edu
Since then, I have watched the debate but did not find time to write
anything. My observations follow.
Warning: What I say below may be offensive to some people. Use your
discretion while reading this.
If the question was only of the belief in Quran required of Muslims,
I doubt much debate would have followed. I am not in a position to
tell anybody what to believe. What I find troublesome is that certain
beliefs that certain people may choose to hold are being presented
as *Facts* that everyone (not only Muslims) *should* accept.
As far as I can recall, there were two specific issues regarding
Islam: a) Slavery, and b) discrimination against women (or lack thereof).
During that debate, a very broad claim was put forward about Quran,
that it is a document that is: 1) timeless, 2) complete, 3) not subject
to interpretation (i.e. its dictates are to be taken literally),
and (this no. 4 is not crucial for some of my arguments).
4) contains some established scientific truths, and it probably contains
more science as yet undiscovered by the scientific community.
Now it is true that I have not read Quran except for the brief quotes
I found in this newsgroup, so probably I am going to be denounced for
making comments on it. I claim, however, that it is logically impossible
for ANY document to have ALL of the qualities 1, 2, 3 mentioned above.
Therefore, I assert that Quran does not have all of the properties
1, 2, and 3.
Consider a book which is a collection of Computer Algorithms (call it P),
vs. a book which teaches you how to design algorithms for specific
problems (call it Q). If you have P and if P is complete (i.e. it
contains algorithms to solve any and all problems), then you need to just
look it up when you have a problem to solve. If you have Q, then you must
apply its teachings to the specific problem at hand to design an
algorithm. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that one will be able to
carry out this task for several reasons. Hence it is better to have P
than to have Q.
From the claims made by Shakil regarding Quran, it should be clear that
he thinks that Quran is like P, rather than like Q. As far as moral,
social, ethical, religious issues are concerned, Quran has got the
answer for all time to come, and there is even no ambiguity, you don't
have to interpret it, you just have to read it (preferably in Arabic).
But I know, and I believe Shakil also knows, that P is impossible.
Yes, the lure of certainty is very seductive, hence the appeal of a
book that claims to be the Final Word from God. Nonetheless, a thinking
person must reject the notion of Quran having the properties that it
has according to Shakil.
On to specifics.
On the issue of Slavery, Arun Gupta never claimed that Islam advocated
slavery, just that Islam permitted it (or equivalently, did not forbid
it outright). But Shakil Ahmed continued to post as if Arun did claim
advocacy of slavery in Islam. Yet Islam does forbid certain things
outright, does it not? With my twentieth-century rational mind, I don't
see why having an occasional beer is worse than subjecting fellow
humans to slavery. Yet there appears to be a proscription against the
former, when freeing of slaves is only advocated, not mandated.
Shakil has already countered this by saying that no other religion
mandates abolition of slavery either. May be, but that is quite beside
the point. No one here is claiming that any of these other religions
is perfect or complete. But we have a supposedly perfect and complete
religion here, that has been already superseded in morality (at least
as far as slavery goes) by humans, many of whom are not even Muslims.
About Women in Islam. I don't see how men and women are equal when
a man can take four wives, but a woman cannot have four husbands.
Forget about witnessing financial transactions. Just tell me how
four equals one? You may be able to justify it by appealing to social
conditions obtaining at a particular time and place, but it still
won't establish equality.
About science in Islam. I have already shown that if the scope of
Quran is supposed to overlap with science, and if Quran is complete
and consistent and not too weak, then Godel's theorem is violated.
It appears that some verses in Quran are now being interpreted as
containing scientific truths, isn't is amazing that even though
Quran is freely available those scientific discoveries had to be
made through normal channels of scientific inquiry? What good are
those scientific verses if we cannot know what they mean until the
scientific truths described therein are found through normal
science? Are there verses in Quran whose meanings are not known?
If so, why aren't Muslim Scientists poring over them in order to find
'new' science there? If not, how can there be any 'new' science in
there, when the written word in Quran is supposed to be unambiguous?
Yes, Shakil can keep claiming that Quran is timeless and complete,
he may even be able to quote verses from Quran which say so, but
endless repetition does not constitute a demonstration or proof.
About Satanic Verses. Shakil claims it should be banned because it
has the potential to cause violence. He conveniently forgets that
such violence is almost always orchestrated by some people for their
own purpose. Why was Rushdie sentenced to die? Surely the believers
could have been convinced that Rushdie would receive an appropriate
punishment from God for his blasphemy? Could it be that Ayatollah
Khomeini knew very well that there is no God and that there is no
hereafter (as does Rushdie) and so blasphemy (challenge to authority)
must be prevented by a threat against one's life here and now, and
not by Hellfire in the afterlife?
About Quran being unchanged from the original. I am not sure that
this is necessarily a great virtue. I find it ironic that someone
from Bangladesh should claim that you must learn Arabic in order to
know the real Quran. After rejecting the notion that Bangla is a
language inferior to Urdu, aren't you implicitly accepting its
inferiority to another language? Are you comfortable with the notion
that Arabs are more equal because God spoke in their language and
it cannot be translated?
About the war in Iraq last year. [I raised this before and did not
get any answer]. Why did an Omnipotent and Merciful God allow so
many Iraqis to be slaughtered by an army of the infidels? The
answer: There is no God, or if there is, he is not both Omnipotent
and Merciful.
Tamisra H. Sanyal.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
> Consider a book which is a collection of Computer Algorithms (call it P),
> vs. a book which teaches you how to design algorithms for specific
> problems (call it Q). If you have P and if P is complete (i.e. it
> contains algorithms to solve any and all problems), then you need to just
> look it up when you have a problem to solve. If you have Q, then you must
> apply its teachings to the specific problem at hand to design an
> algorithm. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that one will be able to
> carry out this task for several reasons. Hence it is better to have P
> than to have Q.
>
> From the claims made by Shakil regarding Quran, it should be clear that
> he thinks that Quran is like P, rather than like Q. As far as moral,
> social, ethical, religious issues are concerned, Quran has got the
> answer for all time to come, and there is even no ambiguity, you don't
> have to interpret it, you just have to read it (preferably in Arabic).
> But I know, and I believe Shakil also knows, that P is impossible.
Ah, yes, we Computer Scientists have a tendency to try relating
everything to the Halting Problem or to P/NP completeness.
Unfortunately, life is not a binary tree, and the analogy does not
quite hold in all cases. The Qur'an is complete in the sense that it
provides guidelines to live by, and there are no self-contradictions
within it. It does not *enumerate* everything. After all, it is a
finite length book, so we cannot expect an infinite enumeration -- I'm
sure you'll understand that. Consequently, it cannot contain *all*
descriptions of *all* algorithms. It may contain high-level
references to the classes of algorithms, but for simple reasons of
space, cannot contain all the individual algorithms. Hence, your
analogy above does not hold.
> Yes, the lure of certainty is very seductive, hence the appeal of a
> book that claims to be the Final Word from God. Nonetheless, a thinking
> person must reject the notion of Quran having the properties that it
> has according to Shakil.
Implying, of course, that I don't think. Can you prove this using the
above tactics too?
> On the issue of Slavery, Arun Gupta never claimed that Islam advocated
> slavery, just that Islam permitted it (or equivalently, did not forbid
> it outright). But Shakil Ahmed continued to post as if Arun did claim
> advocacy of slavery in Islam. Yet Islam does forbid certain things
> outright, does it not?
Yes it does.
> With my twentieth-century rational mind,
Um, yes, I guess some people just aren't particularly modest.
> I don't
> see why having an occasional beer is worse than subjecting fellow
> humans to slavery. Yet there appears to be a proscription against the
> former, when freeing of slaves is only advocated, not mandated.
As I said before, it is not clear even today what a slave is. There
are many examples of industrial slavery I can think of, and I have
pointed some out in <1992Feb14.2...@cs.yale.edu>.
> Shakil has already countered this by saying that no other religion
> mandates abolition of slavery either. May be, but that is quite beside
> the point. No one here is claiming that any of these other religions
> is perfect or complete. But we have a supposedly perfect and complete
> religion here, that has been already superseded in morality (at least
> as far as slavery goes) by humans, many of whom are not even
> Muslims.
It is not beside the point at all. What I don't understand is why
people always like to single Islam out on everything. Supposedly,
every religion is the *right* religion for those who follow it. So
why single Islam out? As for whether our morality has "superseded"
what Islam prescribes or not, that is your personal view. Obviously,
I disagree.
> About Women in Islam. I don't see how men and women are equal when
> a man can take four wives, but a woman cannot have four husbands.
> Forget about witnessing financial transactions. Just tell me how
> four equals one? You may be able to justify it by appealing to social
> conditions obtaining at a particular time and place, but it still
> won't establish equality.
Four does not equal one, and the Qur'an does not state that. I
explained this one at length in <1992Feb11.0...@cs.yale.edu>.
Please refer to it. I see no reason to repeat it again. It had
nothing to do with social conditions prevailing at a particular time
and place.
> About science in Islam. I have already shown that if the scope of
> Quran is supposed to overlap with science, and if Quran is complete
> and consistent and not too weak, then Godel's theorem is violated.
> It appears that some verses in Quran are now being interpreted as
> containing scientific truths, isn't is amazing that even though
> Quran is freely available those scientific discoveries had to be
> made through normal channels of scientific inquiry? What good are
> those scientific verses if we cannot know what they mean until the
> scientific truths described therein are found through normal
> science? Are there verses in Quran whose meanings are not known?
> If so, why aren't Muslim Scientists poring over them in order to find
> 'new' science there? If not, how can there be any 'new' science in
> there, when the written word in Quran is supposed to be unambiguous?
I think you are completely missing the point. The Qur'an is not a
science book, but it does contain scientific truths. It *is* amazing
that we are beginning to understand many of these only now. I
explained this before too: If the Qur'an contains scientific truths we
do not have the capacity to understand yet, how can you make
discoveries based on it? All the stuff about embryos and all that are
in it was not understood hundreds of years ago, but we understand it
now. No amount of staring at some statements is going to do anything
to scientific knowledge if we do not have the capacity to understand
it yet. Not being able to comprehend the depth of a statement does
not mean it is ambiguous. It means that we cannot relate it to the
background knowledge that is required to comprehend it. All this
stuff about big bang theory -- people used to laugh at the concept of
the universe being created from a single cloud of dust. Are they
still laughing now?
> Yes, Shakil can keep claiming that Quran is timeless and complete,
> he may even be able to quote verses from Quran which say so, but
> endless repetition does not constitute a demonstration or proof.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's precisely what I told Arun.
> About Satanic Verses. Shakil claims it should be banned because it
> has the potential to cause violence. He conveniently forgets that
> such violence is almost always orchestrated by some people for their
> own purpose. Why was Rushdie sentenced to die? Surely the believers
> could have been convinced that Rushdie would receive an appropriate
> punishment from God for his blasphemy? Could it be that Ayatollah
> Khomeini knew very well that there is no God and that there is no
> hereafter (as does Rushdie) and so blasphemy (challenge to authority)
> must be prevented by a threat against one's life here and now, and
> not by Hellfire in the afterlife?
I've addressed this at length in my articles in response to Denis.
> About Quran being unchanged from the original. I am not sure that
> this is necessarily a great virtue. I find it ironic that someone
> from Bangladesh should claim that you must learn Arabic in order to
> know the real Quran. After rejecting the notion that Bangla is a
> language inferior to Urdu, aren't you implicitly accepting its
> inferiority to another language? Are you comfortable with the notion
> that Arabs are more equal because God spoke in their language and
> it cannot be translated?
I don't follow the logic here. Did I ever say Arabic was "superior"
in any way? Bangla is my mother tongue. But I have learned several
other languages through the years. Does that mean I consider Bangla
inferior? My English and German skills are more developed than my
Bangla. Does that mean I consider Bangla inferior? Or does it mean
that I learned more languages so that I can communicate better with
others, in environments other than the one I was born in? Clearly, we
learn more languages in order to communicate better. The Qur'an had
to be recited in a particular language. Perhaps you would have
preferred Esperanto? But Esperanto was not available at the time.
The Qur'an was revealed in Arabic and has been preserved since then.
For someone who really wants to understand it well, learning Arabic is
a must. This does not mean I am rejecting any other language as
inferior. It means I would rather understand something on my own than
have it interpreted for me by other mortals.
> About the war in Iraq last year. [I raised this before and did not
> get any answer]. Why did an Omnipotent and Merciful God allow so
> many Iraqis to be slaughtered by an army of the infidels? The
> answer: There is no God, or if there is, he is not both Omnipotent
> and Merciful.
It's interesting to see that you equate yourself with God. You see,
for a Muslim, it is not for him/her to question God's intentions.
There were Muslims in Iraq. There were Muslims in Kuwait. God asked
Muslims to always stand united, not to fight amongst themselves.
Clearly, that was violated. In such a situation, it is not for me to
start questioning why things happened as they did.
-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science INTERNET: ahmed-...@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station BITNET : ahmed-...@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158 UUCP : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================
Naeem Mohaiemen
About the war in Iraq last year. [I raised this before and did not
get any answer]. Why did an Omnipotent and Merciful God allow so
many Iraqis to be slaughtered by an army of the infidels?
--------------------
But who said, God will protect muslims at all times? It is up to us
to protect and fend for ourselves and not set ourselves up as patsies
for US foreign policy muscle flexing and machismo. Khomenini, Gaddafi,
Hussein, etc have for ages been setting themselves up to get royally
screwed over by the west-- God will not protect the stupid, unfortunately
as the leaders get blasted, so do the people under them.
--
Naeem Mohaiemen | snm...@oberlin.bitnet | na...@occs.cs.oberlin.edu
216-774-1993
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The media is controlled by white men and the first plan of action if you
can't control something, is to attack it" [Public Enemy]
____________________________________________________________________________
Naeem Mohaiemen
[Lots of brilliant insights deleted]
About the war in Iraq last year. [I raised this before and did not
get any answer]. Why did an Omnipotent and Merciful God allow so
many Iraqis to be slaughtered by an army of the infidels? The
answer: There is no God, or if there is, he is not both Omnipotent
and Merciful.
Tamisra H. Sanyal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[The following is a response from a student at Oberlin College. Please
send all responses to my account-- na...@occs.cs.oberlin.edu]
[response]
After reading this article, I can only sympathize with you Tamisra. It is
clear to me that your heathenous thoughts, blind accusations, ignorant
assumptions, and foolish criticisms are mere regurgitations of Iblis
himself. That's Satan, in case you NEVER READ THE Q'URAN!!!!
Maybe you should read the Holy Book before you come to me with such
rubbish. Although my comments are hardly constructive, I can't
understand how you can criticize Islam and God without at least reading the
Quran. I find it academically offensive for you to come up with the same
massive generalizations that the white media constantly bombards us with.
In response to your Iraqi comment ["Why did an Omnipotent and Merciful God
allow so many Iraqis to be slaughtered by an army of infidels"], I would like
to quote an anonymous muslim peasant ["Islam in Practice"--Reinhold Loeffler]:
"Because God has created [wo]man with a free will. Therefore He[God] cannot
interfere. If He were to interfere, He would be responsible for [wo]man's
acts and He could neither punish them in hell nor reward them in heaven."
Good luck with your future pursuits.
---Sham-e-Ali Nayeem.
--
anil k goel
very politely asked earlier. Nobody has cared to answer those, as far as I
know.
In article <1992Feb27.2...@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-...@CS.YALE.EDU
(Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
> About Women in Islam. I don't see how men and women are equal when
> a man can take four wives, but a woman cannot have four husbands.
> Forget about witnessing financial transactions. Just tell me how
> four equals one?
Four does not equal one, and the Qur'an does not state that. I
explained this one at length in <1992Feb11.0...@cs.yale.edu>.
Please refer to it. I see no reason to repeat it again. It had
nothing to do with social conditions prevailing at a particular time
and place.
Well, I don't have the article at hand, so I'll paraphrase. Please correct
me if my paraphrasing is incorrect. However, _do not_ accuse me of
misquoting because that is not my intention.
Shakil explained the absence of polyandry largely by saying that in Islam
it is extremely important to know the father of a child and therefore, a
woman can not take multiple husbands because there will be no way of
knowing who the father is.
In response, I wrote:
Well, this seems to be a standard excuse for explaining away the fact that
muslim women are not allowed multiple spouses. Given today's technology it
*is* possible to determine parentage of a child. I am surprised that Shakil
doesn't take this into consideration, especially given that he feels that
Quran is also a repository of scientific knowledge. Surely, it would have
been trivial for Allah to make available the means of determining parentage
and allow polyandry.
Also, can Shakil provide a quotation from the Quran which will corroborate
his explanation of why polyandry is not permitted. I have seen many
muslims assert (here and elsewhere) that polyandry is not permitted because
the father would be undeterminable. However, I have yet to see a Quranic
quotation to support this explanation. If there is no _unambiguous_ (there
have been many claims on this forum about the unambiguity of Quran)
reference from Quran to support this explanation, would it be correct to
say that this explanation itself is unIslamic because it attempts to put
words in Allah's mouth (if he/she/it has one, that is).
--
I think you are completely missing the point. The Qur'an is not a
science book, but it does contain scientific truths. It *is* amazing
that we are beginning to understand many of these only now.
Okay. One of the scientific truths is that the father of a child _can_ be
determined after its birth. So, you have to accept one of the following
statements, right?
1. Allah did not know about this truth and hence is not all-knowing.
OR
2. Allah did know this truth, but
A) by design does not allow a woman to have multiple husbands. In which
case, the statement about equality doesn't hold.
OR
B) since the explaination for not allowing polyandry is no longer valid,
and since Quran mandates equality of sexes, muslim women should now
be allowed to take more than one husband.
Another biological fact to be taken into account is that some women and men
are not capable of bearing children. What is the problem in allowing a
woman to marry multiple husbands in case all of them can not bear children?
Please don't misunderstand me. I am
_not_ trying to make fun of your faith. Accept my apologies in advance, if
I have chosen any offending words in phrasing the above. I am only
questioning one _muslim's_ interpretation of Quran on this aspect.
I don't follow the logic here. Did I ever say Arabic was "superior"
in any way? Bangla is my mother tongue. But I have learned several
other languages through the years. Does that mean I consider Bangla
inferior?
No.
For someone who really wants to understand it well, learning Arabic is
a must. This does not mean I am rejecting any other language as
inferior. It means I would rather understand something on my own than
have it interpreted for me by other mortals.
But the above does imply that an average Bangali or Pakistani or Indian
Muslim (who doesn't have the means to learn Arabic) is at a tremendous
disadvantage when it comes to reading Al-Quran first hand and thus is
likely (in a probabilistic sense) to be less of a Muslim than someone who
happens to be a native of Arabia.
Finally, there is another question that I asked (very politely) in response
to something that Shakil wrote and I have yet to see a direct response from
anyone. Once again, the following is paraphrasing; please correct me if I
am wrong.
Shakil wrote that when the wife commits an unIslamic act (disobedience?),
the husband is to first warn her softly, then (if the unIslamic act is not
stopped) punish her by first refusing sexual pleasures and finally by
"lightly beating" her. I am aware of some people's assertion that "lightly
beat" is not correctly translated. However, the translation that Shakil
posted did say "lightly beat". Also, that is not my point. Even if we
accept that Shakil's translation was wrong, the fact remains that the
husband is allowed to unilaterally act as the judge, the jury and the
executer. He is not required to prove his case before an impartial third
party (such as an Islamic court) and is not required to produce any
witnesses to the wife's transgressions. Shakil then proceeded to say that
since women are in general weaker than men, it would in her own interest
to prohibit a woman from punishing her husband (for _his_ unIslamic acts)
because that could possibly result in retaliation from the husband who
could indulge in more violence than she could handle. Therefore, when the
husband transgresses, the wife has no choice but to take the husband to an
Islamic court where presumably she would have to prove her case in some
manner. Now, I personally consider this prescription (even after taking
into account the physical differences between men and women) to be highly
discriminatory. Would it not be much more eaglitarean (sic) to require
_both_ the husband and the wife to have to go a court to prove their case
in place of allowing only one party to take the law in their own hands.
-anil
-------------------------------------------------
I hate to have to state this again and again, but I don't intend to
question Shakil's or anybody else's faith. I am totally disinterested in
what they believe in and respect their sensibilities. I also do not mean
to disrespect Allah or the Prophet (PBUH).
Mehdi Mahmud
>
>As far as I can recall, there were two specific issues regarding
>Islam: a) Slavery, and b) discrimination against women (or lack thereof).
>During that debate, a very broad claim was put forward about Quran,
>that it is a document that is: 1) timeless, 2) complete, 3) not subject
>to interpretation (i.e. its dictates are to be taken literally),
>and (this no. 4 is not crucial for some of my arguments).
>4) contains some established scientific truths, and it probably contains
>more science as yet undiscovered by the scientific community.
>
>Now it is true that I have not read Quran except for the brief quotes
>I found in this newsgroup, so probably I am going to be denounced for
>making comments on it. I claim, however, that it is logically impossible
>for ANY document to have ALL of the qualities 1, 2, 3 mentioned above.
>Therefore, I assert that Quran does not have all of the properties
>1, 2, and 3.
You attempt to put your 'analysis' in a logical frame; in fact, you
state that that is your intention. Yet, you start off with an unproven
CLAIM and use that to 'CONCLUDE' something. Is that, from you
point of view, logical?
(I apologise for not reading your posting in its entirety - it is because
I cannot accept (without valid proof) your basic premise.)
--
~ Mehdi Asif Mahmud | ~
~ P.O. Box 688 Yale Station | " He knows nothing, and he thinks ~
~ New Haven, CT 06520 | he knows everything. That points ~
~ Phone #(203) 436-1094 | clearly to an economics career. " ~
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
> Against my better instincts, I will repeat a couple of questions that I
> very politely asked earlier. Nobody has cared to answer those, as far as I
> know.
This is true -- Sorry, I did see your earlier article, but must have
gotten carried away on some other followups, and then just completely
forgot about yours. I'll try to address your questions now.
> In response, I wrote:
>
> Well, this seems to be a standard excuse for explaining away the fact that
> muslim women are not allowed multiple spouses. Given today's technology it
> *is* possible to determine parentage of a child. I am surprised that Shakil
> doesn't take this into consideration, especially given that he feels that
> Quran is also a repository of scientific knowledge. Surely, it would have
> been trivial for Allah to make available the means of determining parentage
> and allow polyandry.
>
> Also, can Shakil provide a quotation from the Quran which will corroborate
> his explanation of why polyandry is not permitted. I have seen many
> muslims assert (here and elsewhere) that polyandry is not permitted because
> the father would be undeterminable. However, I have yet to see a Quranic
> quotation to support this explanation. If there is no _unambiguous_ (there
> have been many claims on this forum about the unambiguity of Quran)
> reference from Quran to support this explanation, would it be correct to
> say that this explanation itself is unIslamic because it attempts to put
> words in Allah's mouth (if he/she/it has one, that is).
Alright, let me clarify the issue. Here is the relevant section from
the Qur'an, Surah 4 (Al Nisa), Shakir's translation:
1. O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created
you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and
spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of
(your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your
rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches
over you.
2. And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute
worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour
their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is
surely a great crime.
3. And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards
orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and
three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice
(between them), then (marry) only one
What conclusions are to be reached from this? First of all, clearly,
the passage refers to orphans and how they should be treated. It
would seem that the question of more than one wife only arises if a
man wishes to take care of a number of orphans, but is unable to do
so. In such a situation he is permitted to marry again so that the
orphans can be taken care of. It is important that the orphans can be
taken care of "*equitably*", i.e. it is a humanitarian issue. The
responsibilty of financial support still rests on the man. Second,
a man can marry a second wife only if he can treat her equally to the
first. The Qur'an itself states how difficult it is for someone to
treat two people equally (see 4:129). We can conclude from this that
the issue of polygamy should occur only under exceptional
circumstances.
Now the question of polyandry. To the best of my knowledge, the
Qur'an does not say anything about it. The statement about knowing
the father was a personal interpolation of mine from the fact that the
Qur'an places great importance on family structure. I offered it as a
possible explanation, and it is widely shared among Muslims.
Another view which many Muslims share: In times of war, it is usually
the men who are on the battlefield, resulting in interesting
demographic situations at the end of the war. At the end of World War
II, for example, a large portion of Austria's male population had been
wiped out. Vienna still has an amazingly large percentage of old
women who are alone, most of their husbands having perished during the
awful war. After any war, then, we have a situation where many women
are suddenly widows with children. Since Islam stresses the
importance of family structure, the above verses would appear to be
suited to this condition.
One more thing about polyandry. Suppose we did have polyandry, and a
woman could marry up to four men. Say man M1 is married to woman W1.
W1 has three other husbands, M2, M3, and M4. Now M1 also has three
other wives, W2, W3, and W4. But M2 also has three other wives, W5,
W6, and W7. But W5 has three more husbands, M5, M6, and M7. M5, in
turn, has three other wives, W8, W9, and W10. It is easy to show that
this can lead to a family of infinite size, and we can all be brothers
and sisters. Surely, this is not what we understand by family
structure?
> Okay. One of the scientific truths is that the father of a child _can_ be
> determined after its birth. So, you have to accept one of the following
> statements, right?
>
> 1. Allah did not know about this truth and hence is not all-knowing.
>
> OR
>
> 2. Allah did know this truth, but
>
> A) by design does not allow a woman to have multiple husbands. In which
> case, the statement about equality doesn't hold.
>
> OR
>
> B) since the explaination for not allowing polyandry is no longer valid,
> and since Quran mandates equality of sexes, muslim women should now
> be allowed to take more than one husband.
There is a third possibility which you are not considering:
3. It is not yet possible to completely determine a person's father
biologically.
You see, if these DNA comparisons were as reliable as some people
claim, the FBI would not be having such a huge controversy about
whether to use them instead of fingerprinting. It is not a proven
fact yet that we can completely determine a child's father from DNA
comparisons, although one can do it with a high probability. The
other way around, i.e. determining who the mother is, is a 100% deal.
> Another biological fact to be taken into account is that some women and men
> are not capable of bearing children. What is the problem in allowing a
> woman to marry multiple husbands in case all of them can not bear
> children?
People seem to be assuming that this multiple wives thing is like
going to the supermarket and picking a selection of items. It's not.
It is something which can only happen under extremely special
circumstances. Even under such circumstances, a man cannot marry a
second time without permission of the first wife. If the wife feels
like that would be discrimination, she can say no. If she does not,
then who are we to tell her that it is? A woman who cannot bear
children can marry whomever she pleases, and she can refuse her
husband permission to marry again, even if all the conditions for it
were satisfied. After all, it is also possible that a man could be
impotent. Does that in any way justify marrying multiple times?
Clearly not. That simply is not the issue.
> But the above does imply that an average Bangali or Pakistani or Indian
> Muslim (who doesn't have the means to learn Arabic) is at a tremendous
> disadvantage when it comes to reading Al-Quran first hand and thus is
> likely (in a probabilistic sense) to be less of a Muslim than someone who
> happens to be a native of Arabia.
The issue of who is "less of a Muslim" is something which we cannot
debate about. Ultimately, the judgement is up to God. A Muslim
believes that God is merciful and will consequently make allowances
for one's individual capabilities. Surely, many individuals have
handicaps. Many Bangalis or Indian Muslims cannot even read. In such
cases, it is not even a question of reading Arabic, but of reading at
all. Clearly, they are dependent on people who teach them how to
follow their religion. The responsibility then rests on those who
teach, and they will be held accountable. Even among those who
understand Arabic, there will be varying degrees of comprehensive
capabilities. A better educated person is more likely to understand
the complexity and beauty in the language of the Qur'an. The bottom
line is that each individual does whatever is within the possibilities
for him/her to understand Islam better. If learning Arabic is a
possibility, it is a major step. The ultimate question of how good a
Muslim someone is, is one which only God can answer.
> Shakil wrote that when the wife commits an unIslamic act (disobedience?),
> the husband is to first warn her softly, then (if the unIslamic act is not
> stopped) punish her by first refusing sexual pleasures and finally by
> "lightly beating" her. I am aware of some people's assertion that "lightly
> beat" is not correctly translated. However, the translation that Shakil
> posted did say "lightly beat". Also, that is not my point. Even if we
> accept that Shakil's translation was wrong, the fact remains that the
> husband is allowed to unilaterally act as the judge, the jury and the
> executer. He is not required to prove his case before an impartial third
> party (such as an Islamic court) and is not required to produce any
> witnesses to the wife's transgressions. Shakil then proceeded to say that
> since women are in general weaker than men, it would in her own interest
> to prohibit a woman from punishing her husband (for _his_ unIslamic acts)
> because that could possibly result in retaliation from the husband who
> could indulge in more violence than she could handle. Therefore, when the
> husband transgresses, the wife has no choice but to take the husband to an
> Islamic court where presumably she would have to prove her case in some
> manner. Now, I personally consider this prescription (even after taking
> into account the physical differences between men and women) to be highly
> discriminatory. Would it not be much more eaglitarean (sic) to require
> _both_ the husband and the wife to have to go a court to prove their case
> in place of allowing only one party to take the law in their own
> hands.
Let me clarify one thing. The Qur'an does not say that the woman
cannot beat the man. Furthermore, both the man and the woman can take
the other to court on questions of indecent behavior. As you note,
there are many debates over the meaning of the word "beat" and whether
that really is a proper translation from the Arabic. Let's assume
for the sake of this argument, that it does mean "beat." I have said
that the Qur'an does *not* specify that woman *cannot* beat a man.
Suppose she did. Given the usual physical differences between men and
women, and the generally more physical reflexes of men, it might lead
to a punishment of the wrong person! Hence, I would argue that it
would be far more in the woman's interest to take the man to court
where he would receive the appropriate punishment.
> -anil
> -------------------------------------------------
> I hate to have to state this again and again, but I don't intend to
> question Shakil's or anybody else's faith. I am totally disinterested in
> what they believe in and respect their sensibilities. I also do not mean
> to disrespect Allah or the Prophet (PBUH).
Your politeness is appreciated, and I hope I have been polite enough
in my response.
-- Shakil
anil k goel
[justification for polygyny in Islam deleted]
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I do _not_ necessarily have a
problem with polygamy. In other words, I was not arguing under the
assumption that polygyny (permitted in Quran) is bad. I am quite
comfortable with a polygamous system as opposed to a monogamous one. The
main thesis of my argument was that a system that allows polygyny but not
polyandry can not make absolute claims about equality of sexes on this
count at least.
Now the question of polyandry. To the best of my knowledge, the
Qur'an does not say anything about it. The statement about knowing
the father was a personal interpolation of mine from the fact that the
Qur'an places great importance on family structure. I offered it as a
possible explanation, and it is widely shared among Muslims.
Well, then a muslim woman _is_ allowed to marry more than one husband? It
is my understanding that if something is not specifically prohibited in
Al-Quran (and/or the a'hadith?), it is not unIslamic. It may be up for
debate amongst the Ulema, but can be done without being unIslamic.
One more thing about polyandry. Suppose we did have polyandry, and a
woman could marry up to four men. Say man M1 is married to woman W1.
W1 has three other husbands, M2, M3, and M4. Now M1 also has three
other wives, W2, W3, and W4. But M2 also has three other wives, W5,
W6, and W7. But W5 has three more husbands, M5, M6, and M7. M5, in
turn, has three other wives, W8, W9, and W10. It is easy to show that
this can lead to a family of infinite size, and we can all be brothers
and sisters. Surely, this is not what we understand by family
structure?
This one is easy. In spite of polygyny being allowed in Quran, how many
Muslim men have married more than once (simultaneously). Indeed, you
yourself have claimed that the permission to marry more than one wife does
not mean that a muslim man can go to the super-market and get four wives.
Why can't polyandry be permitted in special circumstances with all sorts of
baggage attached to it, just like in the case of polygyny.
> Okay. One of the scientific truths is that the father of a child _can_ be
> determined after its birth. So, you have to accept one of the following
> statements, right?
>
> 1. Allah did not know about this truth and hence is not all-knowing.
>
> OR
>
> 2. Allah did know this truth, but
>
> A) by design does not allow a woman to have multiple husbands. In which
> case, the statement about equality doesn't hold.
>
> OR
>
> B) since the explanation for not allowing polyandry is no longer valid,
> and since Quran mandates equality of sexes, muslim women should now
> be allowed to take more than one husband.
There is a third possibility which you are not considering:
3. It is not yet possible to completely determine a person's father
biologically.
You see, if these DNA comparisons were as reliable as some people
claim, the FBI would not be having such a huge controversy about
whether to use them instead of fingerprinting. It is not a proven
fact yet that we can completely determine a child's father from DNA
comparisons, although one can do it with a high probability. The
other way around, i.e. determining who the mother is, is a 100% deal.
Yes, of course! Mea culpa!! However, in order for the third possibility to
have _any_ substantive effect on my argument, you will have to make a
much stronger assertion. As it stands, the third possibility does not
negate my assertion above for all times to come. You will have to assert
that science will _never_ be able to come up with a 100% accurate method of
determining the father of a child. Being a scientist yourself, can you
honestly claim that such a method will never be found? That the
_probability_ of such a discovery is 0?
People seem to be assuming that this multiple wives thing is like
going to the supermarket and picking a selection of items. It's not.
....
Once again, it was not my intention to dispute the presence in Quran of
polygyny par se. I do stand by my argument that any system that allows
polygyny (even in _very_ special circumstances) and doesn't permit
polyandry under _any_ circumstance can not lay _absolute_ claims about the
equality of sexes.
line is that each individual does whatever is within the possibilities
for him/her to understand Islam better. If learning Arabic is a
possibility, it is a major step. The ultimate question of how good a
Muslim someone is, is one which only God can answer.
Fair enough.
[ .. Quran doesn't say the woman can not "beat" the man .. ]
Yes, but it does specifically say that the man can "beat" the woman.
Suppose she did. Given the usual physical differences between men and
women, and the generally more physical reflexes of men, it might lead
to a punishment of the wrong person! Hence, I would argue that it
would be far more in the woman's interest to take the man to court
where he would receive the appropriate punishment.
Shakil, I understood what you were saying. At the same time it is my
contention that such a prescription is discriminatory, extremely dangerous
and liable to be subjected to great abuse. I did _not_ intend to say that
the woman should be allowed to "beat" the man just like the man is allowed
to "beat" the woman. My objection is _not_ that the woman can not beat the
man. The bone of contention is that the man _can_ "beat" the woman without
having to have to prove his case before a judge. In other words, the
discriminating part is that one party (the stronger one) is allowed to take
the law in his hand. I hope my objection is more clear now.
Best regards,
-anil
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
>
> [justification for polygyny in Islam deleted]
>
> Perhaps I should have been more clear. I do _not_ necessarily have a
> problem with polygamy. In other words, I was not arguing under the
> assumption that polygyny (permitted in Quran) is bad. I am quite
> comfortable with a polygamous system as opposed to a monogamous one.
I confused the words "polygamy" and "polygyny" in my last article. My
mistake -- I thought the former meant the latter. If you substitue
"polygyny" wherever I used "polygamy," the meaning will be clearer.
> The
> main thesis of my argument was that a system that allows polygyny but not
> polyandry can not make absolute claims about equality of sexes on this
> count at least.
Note, however, that this is a very different statement from saying
"Islam discriminates against women." You're claiming that one cannot
claim absolute equality "on this count." Since I have shown how the
situation can only arise under very special circumstances, your thesis
then becomes that one cannot claim absolute equality on one situation
which almost never occurs. If you look back at some of my earlier
articles, you will note that I stated that there are certain laws
which favor women, and certain laws which favor men to some extent.
If you pick out just one, while ignoring the others, it is easy to
show that one group is favored. In fact, it is easier to show than
men are favored, since so many clearer laws favor women. You have to
look at the broader picture to understand why neither gender is
discriminated against.
There is also a big difference between discrimination and the claim
you are making. What we must ask ourselves is whether the law allows
women to be treated *unfairly*. I have already stated that a second
marriage cannot take place without permission from the first wife. If
the first wife feels this is unfair, she can veto it. If the second
wife feels it is unfair, she can refuse marriage. If inequalities
surface after marriage, either of them is free to file for divorce. How
is this unfair? Clearly, all possible allowances are made for the
sentiments of a women at any point.
> Now the question of polyandry. To the best of my knowledge, the
> Qur'an does not say anything about it. The statement about knowing
> the father was a personal interpolation of mine from the fact that the
> Qur'an places great importance on family structure. I offered it as a
> possible explanation, and it is widely shared among Muslims.
>
> Well, then a muslim woman _is_ allowed to marry more than one husband? It
> is my understanding that if something is not specifically prohibited in
> Al-Quran (and/or the a'hadith?), it is not unIslamic. It may be up for
> debate amongst the Ulema, but can be done without being unIslamic.
What I said is that the Qur'an does not say anything about polyandry.
> One more thing about polyandry. Suppose we did have polyandry, and a
> woman could marry up to four men. Say man M1 is married to woman W1.
> W1 has three other husbands, M2, M3, and M4. Now M1 also has three
> other wives, W2, W3, and W4. But M2 also has three other wives, W5,
> W6, and W7. But W5 has three more husbands, M5, M6, and M7. M5, in
> turn, has three other wives, W8, W9, and W10. It is easy to show that
> this can lead to a family of infinite size, and we can all be brothers
> and sisters. Surely, this is not what we understand by family
> structure?
>
> This one is easy. In spite of polygyny being allowed in Quran, how many
> Muslim men have married more than once (simultaneously). Indeed, you
> yourself have claimed that the permission to marry more than one wife does
> not mean that a muslim man can go to the super-market and get four wives.
> Why can't polyandry be permitted in special circumstances with all sorts of
> baggage attached to it, just like in the case of polygyny.
Well, that is the problem. You see, the special circumstances
attached to the polygyny issue make sense. What special conditions
would you attach to a polyandry situation?
> There is a third possibility which you are not considering:
>
> 3. It is not yet possible to completely determine a person's father
> biologically.
>
> You see, if these DNA comparisons were as reliable as some people
> claim, the FBI would not be having such a huge controversy about
> whether to use them instead of fingerprinting. It is not a proven
> fact yet that we can completely determine a child's father from DNA
> comparisons, although one can do it with a high probability. The
> other way around, i.e. determining who the mother is, is a 100% deal.
>
> Yes, of course! Mea culpa!! However, in order for the third possibility to
> have _any_ substantive effect on my argument, you will have to make a
> much stronger assertion. As it stands, the third possibility does not
> negate my assertion above for all times to come. You will have to assert
> that science will _never_ be able to come up with a 100% accurate method of
> determining the father of a child. Being a scientist yourself, can you
> honestly claim that such a method will never be found? That the
> _probability_ of such a discovery is 0?
You see, the problem is that neither you nor I can predict the future.
What I said is that until now we have no 100% safe method of determining
the father of a child. I cannot say whether we will in future or not.
Nor can you. More importantly, you cannot assert that it *will* be
possible. An argument based on that is one of pure speculation.
> People seem to be assuming that this multiple wives thing is like
> going to the supermarket and picking a selection of items. It's not.
> ....
>
> Once again, it was not my intention to dispute the presence in Quran of
> polygyny par se. I do stand by my argument that any system that allows
> polygyny (even in _very_ special circumstances) and doesn't permit
> polyandry under _any_ circumstance can not lay _absolute_ claims about the
> equality of sexes.
See above.
> [ .. Quran doesn't say the woman can not "beat" the man .. ]
>
> Yes, but it does specifically say that the man can "beat" the woman.
>
> Suppose she did. Given the usual physical differences between men and
> women, and the generally more physical reflexes of men, it might lead
> to a punishment of the wrong person! Hence, I would argue that it
> would be far more in the woman's interest to take the man to court
> where he would receive the appropriate punishment.
>
> Shakil, I understood what you were saying. At the same time it is my
> contention that such a prescription is discriminatory, extremely dangerous
> and liable to be subjected to great abuse. I did _not_ intend to say that
> the woman should be allowed to "beat" the man just like the man is allowed
> to "beat" the woman. My objection is _not_ that the woman can not beat the
> man. The bone of contention is that the man _can_ "beat" the woman without
> having to have to prove his case before a judge. In other words, the
> discriminating part is that one party (the stronger one) is allowed to take
> the law in his hand. I hope my objection is more clear now.
Well, I never said that the woman cannot take the law into her own
hands. What I explained is why it is probably not in her interest to
do so. I would argue that this scheme protects her from abuse she may
get if she does try and punish the husband. The punishment the man
would face in court is far more severe than anything the woman could
implement herself. It is also far more severe than the "beating
lightly" (a debated term) that is prescribed.
-- Shakil
anil k goel
> Yes, of course! Mea culpa!! However, in order for the third possibility to
> have _any_ substantive effect on my argument, you will have to make a
> much stronger assertion. As it stands, the third possibility does not
> negate my assertion above for all times to come. You will have to assert
> that science will _never_ be able to come up with a 100% accurate method of
> determining the father of a child. Being a scientist yourself, can you
> honestly claim that such a method will never be found? That the
> _probability_ of such a discovery is 0?
You see, the problem is that neither you nor I can predict the future.
What I said is that until now we have no 100% safe method of determining
the father of a child. I cannot say whether we will in future or not.
Nor can you. More importantly, you cannot assert that it *will* be
possible. An argument based on that is one of pure speculation.
Hold on a minute, Shakil. I find it hard to understand that you did not
follow my argument, especially given the keywords _never_ and
_probability_. You see, you are the one claiming that the Quran is valid
for _all_ times to come. Therefore, _you_ have to assert that such a
discovery will _never_ be made. Obviously, you are not willing to make such
an assertion. I do _not_ have to assert that such a discovery will
_definitely_ be made. All I have to assert is that the _probability_ of
such a discovery being made is (0 + delta), where delta is a positive
non-zero value. I _can_ make such an assertion with extreme confidence
(and I am sure you will agree). The available evidence is quite convincing
that the chances of such a discovery being made are quite good. Once I
make such an assertion it automatically negates (with a probability of
delta) at least one of the claimed attributes of Al-Quran. In other words
the claims about Al-Quran are not _guaranteed_ to be true for all times to
come.
> Shakil, I understood what you were saying. At the same time it is my
> contention that such a prescription is discriminatory, extremely dangerous
> and liable to be subjected to great abuse. I did _not_ intend to say that
> the woman should be allowed to "beat" the man just like the man is allowed
> to "beat" the woman. My objection is _not_ that the woman can not beat the
> man. The bone of contention is that the man _can_ "beat" the woman without
> having to have to prove his case before a judge. In other words, the
> discriminating part is that one party (the stronger one) is allowed to take
> the law in his hand. I hope my objection is more clear now.
Well, I never said that the woman cannot take the law into her own
hands. What I explained is why it is probably not in her interest to
do so. I would argue that this scheme protects her from abuse she may
get if she does try and punish the husband. The punishment the man
would face in court is far more severe than anything the woman could
implement herself. It is also far more severe than the "beating
lightly" (a debated term) that is prescribed.
Once again, you are not listening to what I am saying and are just
repeating your earlier argument which I said I understood in the first
place. Please read again what I wrote. Please pay special attention to the
highlighted words to get the emphasis of my argument. I have no quarrel
with whether or not the woman can "beat" the man. My quarrel is with the
unilateral manner in which the man is allowed to "beat" the women. Let me
put it this way:
Case 1: The man commits an unIslamic act.
The woman can take the man to court, because she is afraid of further
violence if she chooses to punish the man. In the court she will have to
prove that the man did indeed commit an unIslamic act.
On the other hand, the woman can decide to punish the man herself in the
face of a possible retaliation by the man. Now, the Quran is silent on this
point, therefore, the woman does not get any explicit a priori sanction
from Al-Quran for punishing the man. This alone is sufficient to restrain her
from doing so.
Case 2: The woman commits an unIslamic act.
The man can surely take the woman to court, but he is _not_ required to do
so. Instead he can punish the woman himself on the authority of the Quran
which specifically gives him that option.
I hope, _once again_, that my point has been conveyed. In any case, I have
said all I wanted to and this will be my last word on this topic...
Regards,
-anil
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
> Hold on a minute, Shakil. I find it hard to understand that you did not
> follow my argument, especially given the keywords _never_ and
> _probability_. You see, you are the one claiming that the Quran is valid
> for _all_ times to come. Therefore, _you_ have to assert that such a
> discovery will _never_ be made. Obviously, you are not willing to make such
> an assertion. I do _not_ have to assert that such a discovery will
> _definitely_ be made. All I have to assert is that the _probability_ of
> such a discovery being made is (0 + delta), where delta is a positive
> non-zero value. I _can_ make such an assertion with extreme confidence
> (and I am sure you will agree). The available evidence is quite convincing
> that the chances of such a discovery being made are quite good. Once I
> make such an assertion it automatically negates (with a probability of
> delta) at least one of the claimed attributes of Al-Quran. In other words
> the claims about Al-Quran are not _guaranteed_ to be true for all times to
> come.
I understood your argument, but I just don't think it is
mathematically sound. You claim that you can state that there is
non-zero probability of humans being able to make 100% statements on
paternity. Can you calculate this probability? Let us say we can
make statements on paternity with probability P at this point in time.
You argue that you can state with non-zero probability that P will one
day be 100%. Why? How do you know that P will not grow
asymptotically? You have no mathematical basis for this claim.
Furthermore, even if there was a 100% test, labs are likely to make
errors, and people will be dependent on the statements of labs.
Scientifically speaking, I think we all know that lab tests are
*never* 100% accurate.
My claims are more modest. I state that we cannot at present make a
100% safe statement on paternity. I don't know whether we will ever
be able to. You cannot negate that. Neither you nor I are
soothsayers. Hence, any further argument on this is one of pure
speculation. Note also that this whole argument has to do with an
explanation that *I* offered. It is not based on something the Qur'an
states.
> Case 1: The man commits an unIslamic act.
>
> The woman can take the man to court, because she is afraid of further
> violence if she chooses to punish the man. In the court she will have to
> prove that the man did indeed commit an unIslamic act.
>
> On the other hand, the woman can decide to punish the man herself in the
> face of a possible retaliation by the man. Now, the Quran is silent on this
> point, therefore, the woman does not get any explicit a priori sanction
> from Al-Quran for punishing the man. This alone is sufficient to restrain her
> from doing so.
>
> Case 2: The woman commits an unIslamic act.
>
> The man can surely take the woman to court, but he is _not_ required to do
> so. Instead he can punish the woman himself on the authority of the Quran
> which specifically gives him that option.
>
> I hope, _once again_, that my point has been conveyed. In any case, I have
> said all I wanted to and this will be my last word on this topic...
Your point *has* been conveyed. I just don't understand it. First of
all, the question here is not of "unIslamic" acts, but of "indecent"
acts which is something different. It depends on the nature of the
offense. I also do not see why this is discriminatory in any way.
Suppose the man accuses the woman of "indecent" behavior. First, he
has to warn her. Suppose the woman feels this is an unfair
accusation. The woman is free to take this up to court.
Consequently, if the punishment was unwarranted, it will already be
caught at this stage, i.e. it will never come to a refusal to share
beds, or to the "lightly beating" issue. We can see from this that
it is not a case of the man taking the law into his own hands. If the
woman is unhappy with "indecent" behavior on the part of the man, she
can also go to court -- it makes things easier for her. If anything,
I see the woman favored in this case.
-- Shakil
V Nagarajan
>biologically.
>
>You see, if these DNA comparisons were as reliable as some people
>claim, the FBI would not be having such a huge controversy about
>whether to use them instead of fingerprinting. It is not a proven
>fact yet that we can completely determine a child's father from DNA
>comparisons, although one can do it with a high probability. The
>other way around, i.e. determining who the mother is, is a 100% deal.
>
There is a difference between using DNA fingerprinting techniques
to pick someone unambiguously from a large group and a group of,
say, four people as would be the case in a paternity suit. The
latter can be done with 100% certainty.
- Nagarajan
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
While it certainly does increase the probability, I would be
interested in seeing the mathematical method you are employing to
reach this figure. You cannot prove a 100% accuracy, especially not
in a lab test of that sort.
In <1992Mar1.0...@u.washington.edu>:
> >My argument was that the true Facts will never change. We may know
> >some now, but we obviously don't know all. Until now, nobody has been
> >able to *disprove* something stated in the Qur'an.
> You cannot disprove something that is not stated in a way that
> can be disproved. Nobody I know of has been able to disprove that
> I carry around invisible leprechauns in my pockets either.
For this analogy to hold, you have to show what statements in the
Qur'an are stated in a similar manner. Big bang theory, or embryo
development have little to do with invisible leprechauns in your
pocket -- not that I'm trying to say you don't have invisible
leprechauns in your pocket... ;-)
-- Shakil
TH...@psuvm.psu.edu
(Shakil Waiz Ahmed) says:
[... my intro, where I consider books P (Collection of Algorithms)
and Q (which teaches algorithm design); deleted...]
>Ah, yes, we Computer Scientists have a tendency to try relating
>everything to the Halting Problem or to P/NP completeness.
>Unfortunately, life is not a binary tree, and the analogy does not
>quite hold in all cases. The Qur'an is complete in the sense that it
>provides guidelines to live by, and there are no self-contradictions
>within it. It does not *enumerate* everything. After all, it is a
>finite length book, so we cannot expect an infinite enumeration -- I'm
>sure you'll understand that. Consequently, it cannot contain *all*
>descriptions of *all* algorithms. It may contain high-level
>references to the classes of algorithms, but for simple reasons of
>space, cannot contain all the individual algorithms. Hence, your
>analogy above does not hold.
I am not disputing that Quran provides guidelines to live by. You
are confusing the notion of completeness with the notion of consistency.
Since you agree that Quran cannot contain all descriptions of all
algorithms, it has to be like a book that teaches you algorithm design
techniques. These techniques however, a) are subject to interpretation
so that they can be applied to the task at hand, b) are not guaranteed
to work in all situations. Because of (b), such a book can not be deemed
complete. As you have so astutely observed, Life is indeed not a binary
tree, and life's problems therefore are likely to be much more complex
than problems of computation. Now since you understand that a complete
book of computer algorithms cannot exist, why do you insist that
a *complete* book of moral, social, ethical guidelines is possible?
My Bahai friend tells me that God periodically sends prophets to us to
update his message, which I find a lot more reasonable. Don't you?
[...some stuff deleted...]
>> With my twentieth-century rational mind,
>Um, yes, I guess some people just aren't particularly modest.
Well, for you (and you only), I have a seventh-century irrational mind.
>> I don't
>> see why having an occasional beer is worse than subjecting fellow
>> humans to slavery. Yet there appears to be a proscription against the
>> former, when freeing of slaves is only advocated, not mandated.
>As I said before, it is not clear even today what a slave is. There
>are many examples of industrial slavery I can think of, and I have
>pointed some out in <1992Feb14.2...@cs.yale.edu>.
You are evading the issue here. Why no proscription against any and
all forms of slavery, when there is one against recreational alcohol
use ?
>> Shakil has already countered this by saying that no other religion
>> mandates abolition of slavery either. May be, but that is quite beside
>> the point. No one here is claiming that any of these other religions
>> is perfect or complete. But we have a supposedly perfect and complete
>> religion here, that has been already superseded in morality (at least
>> as far as slavery goes) by humans, many of whom are not even
>> Muslims.
>It is not beside the point at all. What I don't understand is why
>people always like to single Islam out on everything. Supposedly,
>every religion is the *right* religion for those who follow it. So
>why single Islam out? As for whether our morality has "superseded"
>what Islam prescribes or not, that is your personal view. Obviously,
>I disagree.
Look, I believe in the greatness of Islam as a religion. I believe Islam
has done great things for its adherents. If you and other followers of
Islam can believe what you wrote above [every religion being right],
you would get absolutely no flak from me. If it suits you, you can also
believe Islam to be complete and perfect and all that, just don't expect
other people like me to accept this doctrine uncritically. Tell me, do
you like the doctrine of the Jews being the "chosen people" ?
Or, the theory of supremacy of the white people ?
Why should I like the doctrine of *one* particular religion being *the*
perfect religion ? And just for the record, I am not claiming that
the contemporary morality has superseded Islam in *all* aspects of
our lives, only with respect to (ok, some forms of) slavery.
[...some stuff already argued by Anil Goel deleted...]
[... my argument about scientific truth in Quran, deleted...]
>I think you are completely missing the point. The Qur'an is not a
>science book, but it does contain scientific truths. It *is* amazing
>that we are beginning to understand many of these only now. I
>explained this before too: If the Qur'an contains scientific truths we
>do not have the capacity to understand yet, how can you make
>discoveries based on it? All the stuff about embryos and all that are
>in it was not understood hundreds of years ago, but we understand it
>now. No amount of staring at some statements is going to do anything
>to scientific knowledge if we do not have the capacity to understand
>it yet. Not being able to comprehend the depth of a statement does
>not mean it is ambiguous. It means that we cannot relate it to the
>background knowledge that is required to comprehend it. All this
>stuff about big bang theory -- people used to laugh at the concept of
>the universe being created from a single cloud of dust. Are they
>still laughing now?
I see that you don't realize it, but by claiming that Quran contains
scientific truths, you are playing into my hand. As long as you claim
Quran's completeness only with respect to social, moral, ethical issues,
my argument that it cannot be complete could only proceed by analogy --
but once you let Quran's domain overlap with that of science, then Quran
must encompass *all* of science, else Quran is not complete. Unfortu-
nately, that possibility (that Quran could include all science)
is precluded by Godel's theorem.
About this Big Bang theory that supposedly is in Quran -- I doubt that
a cosmologist would agree that its description in Quran is adequate from
a scientific point of view. Most religious traditions include some sort
of a creation story that you may be able (with creative interpretation)
to correspond to a cosmological theory. Are these all scientific descrip-
tions ? Newton thought light consists of particles. His theory of light
was supplanted by the wave theory. Today we have quantum theory. Can we
therefore say that Newton anticipated quantum theory ? Before Lavoisier,
there was this Phlogiston theory which held that when metals are burnt
in fire, Phlogiston is lost, and the similarities among metals could be
explained by the fact that they all have Phlogiston. Is it fair to claim
that these Phlogiston theorists always knew that they were really talking
about free electrons in metals ? In Hindu tradition, there are ten
incarnations of Vishnu, some of which are animal forms. Are you then
sympathetic to the claim that Hindu traditions incorporate the theory of
evolution, and is therefore a scientific religion ? Incidentally, there
are crackpot Hindu fundamentalists who make these types of claims.
[...more stuff deleted...]
>> About the war in Iraq last year. [I raised this before and did not
>> get any answer]. Why did an Omnipotent and Merciful God allow so
>> many Iraqis to be slaughtered by an army of the infidels? The
>> answer: There is no God, or if there is, he is not both Omnipotent
>> and Merciful.
>It's interesting to see that you equate yourself with God. You see,
There are 3 possible answers to this charge, pick one.
1. (wearing my Shakilian hat) Where/when did I say that ?
2. (wearing my atheist hat) I cannot possibly equate myself with God,
as I certainly exist (Cogito, ergo sum), but God doesn't.
3. (wearing my Hindu hat) Yes I am God, just as you are. You see, one
major teaching of Hinduism is "Tat tvam asi" (Thou art He).
>for a Muslim, it is not for him/her to question God's intentions.
>There were Muslims in Iraq. There were Muslims in Kuwait. God asked
>Muslims to always stand united, not to fight amongst themselves.
>Clearly, that was violated. In such a situation, it is not for me to
>start questioning why things happened as they did.
OK, perform the following thought experiment. You are a devout Iraqi
Muslim in today's Iraq (March 1992). Iraq has been expelled from Kuwait,
but the embargo against Iraq continues, because The Emperor Bush does
not like Saddam Hussein's face. Your friend, also a devout Muslim,
survived the bomb attacks with his family. But now his children have
all got deadly infections (because the sewage facilities, power stations
were bombed), and antibiotic treatment is not possible. The children are
all dying before his eyes. Your friend, in his hour of grief, starts
accusing God saying that he should either have arranged a heart attack
for Saddam or somehow channeled Emperor Bush's thought process towards
humanitarian directions. How will you convince him that even though God
will not do any of those things he is still Omnipotent and Merciful?
Regards.
Tamisra H. Sanyal.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <92059.14...@psuvm.psu.edu>, <TH...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Feb27.2...@cs.yale.edu>, ahmed-...@CS.YALE.EDU
> (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) says:
> I am not disputing that Quran provides guidelines to live by. You
> are confusing the notion of completeness with the notion of consistency.
> Since you agree that Quran cannot contain all descriptions of all
> algorithms, it has to be like a book that teaches you algorithm design
> techniques. These techniques however, a) are subject to interpretation
> so that they can be applied to the task at hand, b) are not guaranteed
> to work in all situations. Because of (b), such a book can not be deemed
> complete. As you have so astutely observed, Life is indeed not a binary
> tree, and life's problems therefore are likely to be much more complex
> than problems of computation. Now since you understand that a complete
> book of computer algorithms cannot exist, why do you insist that
> a *complete* book of moral, social, ethical guidelines is possible?
> My Bahai friend tells me that God periodically sends prophets to us to
> update his message, which I find a lot more reasonable. Don't you?
God *did* send many prophets to all the different peoples (it says so
in the Qur'an). But he also stated that Muhammed was the last
prophet -- it's our responsibility to ensure that the message is
preserved.
You are assuming that a book must either be a book of algorithms, or a
book that teaches algorithm design techniques. Why can't it be both?
The Qur'an is a *complete* book of moral, social, and ethical
guidelines in the sense that it contains references to any problem you
may encounter. As I have argued before, the Qur'an is a finite length
book, so it cannot contain direct descriptions of each and every
problem. But one can always find a related guideline. In that sense
it is complete.
> >> I don't
> >> see why having an occasional beer is worse than subjecting fellow
> >> humans to slavery. Yet there appears to be a proscription against the
> >> former, when freeing of slaves is only advocated, not mandated.
>
> >As I said before, it is not clear even today what a slave is. There
> >are many examples of industrial slavery I can think of, and I have
> >pointed some out in <1992Feb14.2...@cs.yale.edu>.
>
> You are evading the issue here. Why no proscription against any and
> all forms of slavery, when there is one against recreational alcohol
> use ?
That is a question I cannot answer since I cannot read God's mind.
Every religion has certain rules that people are required to follow.
The followers are never in a position to be able to answer why other
things were *not* prohibited.
> >It is not beside the point at all. What I don't understand is why
> >people always like to single Islam out on everything. Supposedly,
> >every religion is the *right* religion for those who follow it. So
> >why single Islam out? As for whether our morality has "superseded"
> >what Islam prescribes or not, that is your personal view. Obviously,
> >I disagree.
>
> Look, I believe in the greatness of Islam as a religion. I believe Islam
> has done great things for its adherents. If you and other followers of
> Islam can believe what you wrote above [every religion being right],
> you would get absolutely no flak from me. If it suits you, you can also
> believe Islam to be complete and perfect and all that, just don't expect
> other people like me to accept this doctrine uncritically. Tell me, do
> you like the doctrine of the Jews being the "chosen people" ?
Someone who knew even the basics of Islam could not possibly have come
up with this one. I guess you are not particularly well informed
about the Qur'an. I quote from Surah 2 (Al Baqarah):
47. O Children of Israel! call to mind
The (special) favour which I bestowed
Upon you, and that I preferred you
To all others (for My Message)
> Why should I like the doctrine of *one* particular religion being *the*
> perfect religion ?
Look, I have said many times before that everyone is free to follow
whatever religion they choose. I may not agree with many of the
things they follow, but that does not mean I have to criticize them,
or that I have to try and malign their religion in any way. Most
importantly, it does not mean that I will attempt to prove things about
their religion without having read their religious books or without
having made an attempt to research their religion seriously.
> I see that you don't realize it, but by claiming that Quran contains
> scientific truths, you are playing into my hand. As long as you claim
> Quran's completeness only with respect to social, moral, ethical issues,
> my argument that it cannot be complete could only proceed by analogy --
> but once you let Quran's domain overlap with that of science, then Quran
> must encompass *all* of science, else Quran is not complete. Unfortu-
> nately, that possibility (that Quran could include all science)
> is precluded by Godel's theorem.
You're insisting on taking this "completeness" issue far too
literally. Finite length books cannot contain *all* details and *all*
information. The Qur'an is a complete book in the sense that it
contains all the guidelines necessary to lead life, and does not
contadict itself at any point. It contains *many* scientific truths,
but cannot contain them all.
> About this Big Bang theory that supposedly is in Quran -- I doubt that
> a cosmologist would agree that its description in Quran is adequate from
> a scientific point of view.
You can doubt what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that many
cosmologists already *have* agreed. Your bias and the fact that you
haven't read the Qur'an clearly show here. I recommend reading "The
Bible, the Qur'an and Science" by Maurice Bucaille.
> Most religious traditions include some sort
> of a creation story that you may be able (with creative interpretation)
> to correspond to a cosmological theory. Are these all scientific descrip-
> tions ?
We are not discussing most other religions. We are discussing Islam
and Big Bang theory. The recommended reading above may be helpful.
> >> About the war in Iraq last year. [I raised this before and did not
> >> get any answer]. Why did an Omnipotent and Merciful God allow so
> >> many Iraqis to be slaughtered by an army of the infidels? The
> >> answer: There is no God, or if there is, he is not both Omnipotent
> >> and Merciful.
>
> >It's interesting to see that you equate yourself with God. You see,
>
> There are 3 possible answers to this charge, pick one.
> 1. (wearing my Shakilian hat) Where/when did I say that ?
> 2. (wearing my atheist hat) I cannot possibly equate myself with God,
> as I certainly exist (Cogito, ergo sum), but God doesn't.
> 3. (wearing my Hindu hat) Yes I am God, just as you are. You see, one
> major teaching of Hinduism is "Tat tvam asi" (Thou art He).
May I point to the statement above: "The answer: There is no God, or
if there is, he is both Omnipotent and Merciful." The implication
here is that you are either omniscient and can state that there is no
God, or that you know God's characteristics very well and can state
what he is like. Either way, I think my paraphrasing above was not
way off the mark.
> OK, perform the following thought experiment. You are a devout Iraqi
> Muslim in today's Iraq (March 1992). Iraq has been expelled from Kuwait,
> but the embargo against Iraq continues, because The Emperor Bush does
> not like Saddam Hussein's face. Your friend, also a devout Muslim,
> survived the bomb attacks with his family. But now his children have
> all got deadly infections (because the sewage facilities, power stations
> were bombed), and antibiotic treatment is not possible. The children are
> all dying before his eyes. Your friend, in his hour of grief, starts
> accusing God saying that he should either have arranged a heart attack
> for Saddam or somehow channeled Emperor Bush's thought process towards
> humanitarian directions. How will you convince him that even though God
> will not do any of those things he is still Omnipotent and Merciful?
First of all, a true Muslim would never start accusing God. To a true
Muslim, God always has a reason, and we are simply not qualified to
judge. Many good Muslims may become victims to various evils. But
the ultimate judge of good and evil is God, and a true Muslim knows
that justice will prevail in the end.
TH...@psuvm.psu.edu
Waiz Ahmed) says:
>You are assuming that a book must either be a book of algorithms, or a
>book that teaches algorithm design techniques. Why can't it be both?
No particular reason why such a thing is impossible. But if you are
interested in economy of expression...
>The Qur'an is a *complete* book of moral, social, and ethical
>guidelines in the sense that it contains references to any problem you
>may encounter. As I have argued before, the Qur'an is a finite length
>book, so it cannot contain direct descriptions of each and every
>problem. But one can always find a related guideline. In that sense
>it is complete.
What is Quran's position on polyandry then ?
Also, please let me know when you finish writing a *complete* book of
Computer Algorithms (in the sense that for any problem it will have an
applicable and effective guideline).
>Someone who knew even the basics of Islam could not possibly have come
>up with this one. I guess you are not particularly well informed
>about the Qur'an. I quote from Surah 2 (Al Baqarah):
> 47. O Children of Israel! call to mind
> The (special) favour which I bestowed
> Upon you, and that I preferred you
> To all others (for My Message)
OK, so Jews are special. Does Yitzhak Shamir know this? He would love to
be able to use Quran to get rid of the Palestinians from the West Bank
(oops, Judea and Samaria).
>Look, I have said many times before that everyone is free to follow
>whatever religion they choose. I may not agree with many of the
>things they follow, but that does not mean I have to criticize them,
>or that I have to try and malign their religion in any way. Most
>importantly, it does not mean that I will attempt to prove things about
>their religion without having read their religious books or without
>having made an attempt to research their religion seriously.
You did come up with Ollopanishad as part of Hindu Scripture. Did you do
that after seriously researching Hindu religion?
>You're insisting on taking this "completeness" issue far too
>literally. Finite length books cannot contain *all* details and *all*
>information. The Qur'an is a complete book in the sense that it
>contains all the guidelines necessary to lead life, and does not
>contadict itself at any point. It contains *many* scientific truths,
>but cannot contain them all.
Completeness is a technical term, and I am using it that way. There is
no requirement that a *complete* theory must *enumerate* everything.
You keep saying that Quran does not contradict itself at any point. If
so, that makes Quran a *consistent* document, a point I am not arguing.
>You can doubt what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that many
>cosmologists already *have* agreed. Your bias and the fact that you
>haven't read the Qur'an clearly show here. I recommend reading "The
>Bible, the Qur'an and Science" by Maurice Bucaille.
I'll see if I can dig up this reference (thanks!), but is Maurice
Bucaille a cosmologist? Has he published in (say) Physical Review?
>First of all, a true Muslim would never start accusing God. To a true
>Muslim, God always has a reason, and we are simply not qualified to
>judge. Many good Muslims may become victims to various evils. But
>the ultimate judge of good and evil is God, and a true Muslim knows
>that justice will prevail in the end.
So to be a true Muslim requires unquestioning (read blind) faith?
I guess I don't qualify...
Regards.
Tamisra H. Sanyal.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
> What is Quran's position on polyandry then ?
I said you can always find a "related" guideline. Since the Qur'an
explicitly deals with the exceptional circumstances under which
polygyny may be permitted, and stresses how all creatures were made in
pairs, and since the Qur'an stresses the importance of family
structure and we cannot have infinite family chains (as I have shown
before), it would seem that polyandry is not permitted.
> Also, please let me know when you finish writing a *complete* book of
> Computer Algorithms (in the sense that for any problem it will have an
> applicable and effective guideline).
Why do you keep bringing the Computer Algorithms issue into it?
Social, moral and ethical issues are not comparable to computer
algorithms (although I can see Lotfi Zadeh arguing that you could
apply fuzzy sets to them). A guideline to write algorithms may be as
broad as: "write a clear algorithm that is optimal in computation
and space requirements." That immediately would cover almost all
algorithms. It depends at what level you want to look at it.
> > 47. O Children of Israel! call to mind
> > The (special) favour which I bestowed
> > Upon you, and that I preferred you
> > To all others (for My Message)
>
> OK, so Jews are special. Does Yitzhak Shamir know this? He would love to
> be able to use Quran to get rid of the Palestinians from the West Bank
> (oops, Judea and Samaria).
I don't know whether Shamir knows this. And I don't see how it
justifies getting rid of Palestinians everywhere. Jews were special
in the sense that the message was revealed to them and God granted
them many favors (see the Qur'an for details). It does not say
anything about a systematic genocide against a people, e.g. the
Palestinians.
> >Look, I have said many times before that everyone is free to follow
> >whatever religion they choose. I may not agree with many of the
> >things they follow, but that does not mean I have to criticize them,
> >or that I have to try and malign their religion in any way. Most
> >importantly, it does not mean that I will attempt to prove things about
> >their religion without having read their religious books or without
> >having made an attempt to research their religion seriously.
>
> You did come up with Ollopanishad as part of Hindu Scripture. Did you do
> that after seriously researching Hindu religion?
As I said before, I was merely providing the references that someone
else had requested. I was presenting quotes, not criticizing or
mocking in any way at all.
> >You can doubt what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that many
> >cosmologists already *have* agreed. Your bias and the fact that you
> >haven't read the Qur'an clearly show here. I recommend reading "The
> >Bible, the Qur'an and Science" by Maurice Bucaille.
>
> I'll see if I can dig up this reference (thanks!), but is Maurice
> Bucaille a cosmologist? Has he published in (say) Physical Review?
Bucaille is not a cosmologist -- there are others cosmologists who
have looked into the topic. Bucaille himself was a surgeon who was a
Christian. He studied the Bible and the Qur'an in depth to see how
the religious explanations compared to scientific theory. He learned
Arabic specifically for this purpose. At the end of his studies, he
realized that the Qur'an's explanation of the creation of the universe
was in line with modern scientific theories. He converted to Islam.
> >First of all, a true Muslim would never start accusing God. To a true
> >Muslim, God always has a reason, and we are simply not qualified to
> >judge. Many good Muslims may become victims to various evils. But
> >the ultimate judge of good and evil is God, and a true Muslim knows
> >that justice will prevail in the end.
>
> So to be a true Muslim requires unquestioning (read blind) faith?
> I guess I don't qualify...
To each his/her own.
-- Shakil
V Nagarajan
In article <1992Mar1.1...@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-...@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <1992Mar1....@u.washington.edu>, ng...@milton.u.washington.edu (V Nagarajan) writes:
>> >3. It is not yet possible to completely determine a person's father
>> >biologically.
>> >
>> >You see, if these DNA comparisons were as reliable as some people
>> >claim, the FBI would not be having such a huge controversy about
>> >whether to use them instead of fingerprinting. It is not a proven
>> >fact yet that we can completely determine a child's father from DNA
>> >comparisons, although one can do it with a high probability. The
>> >other way around, i.e. determining who the mother is, is a 100% deal.
>> >
>>
>> There is a difference between using DNA fingerprinting techniques
>> to pick someone unambiguously from a large group and a group of,
>> say, four people as would be the case in a paternity suit. The
>> latter can be done with 100% certainty.
>
>While it certainly does increase the probability, I would be
>interested in seeing the mathematical method you are employing to
>reach this figure. You cannot prove a 100% accuracy, especially not
>in a lab test of that sort.
>
*as employed in criminal cases*. The foremost are poor sample
quality and low quantity. The former, one can usually do little
about and the latter can be rectified in many, but not all, cases.
Needless to say, neither of this is present in paternity cases.
Criminal defence experts have also accused the labs doing the
tests of sloppiness and oversight which complaints can be easily
ameliorated with existing technology and multiple testing.
There have been some technical objections as well to the very
high certainty rates projected thus far but, these have been, imo,
quite adequately addressed by Risch and Devlin in their 7 Feb 92
paper in "Science".
Risch and Devlin's *very* conservative estimate (for a five-locus
pattern, that is, simultaneous matching at five different locations
in the gene) is that there is a less than one in a million chance
that a given individual is non-unique. In a paternity case, where
the choice may be between two selected individuals, the chances
that they have an identical five-locus pattern is (1/million)**2
or 1/(10**12) unless they are closely related by blood. Good enough
to be a 100 % certainty, I say. For comparison, the probability
that a woman could (or did) conceive "immaculately" is larger,
assuming that the anecdotal account is true ;-) If one is still not
satisfied by the precision of these numbers, one could arbitrarily
crank up the number of loci that one chooses to analyze until one
is infinitesimally close to 100% certainty. There is a question
of cost and all that but, my point is that there are no technical
hurdles.
>In <1992Mar1.0...@u.washington.edu>:
>
>> >My argument was that the true Facts will never change. We may know
>> >some now, but we obviously don't know all. Until now, nobody has been
>> >able to *disprove* something stated in the Qur'an.
>
>> You cannot disprove something that is not stated in a way that
>> can be disproved. Nobody I know of has been able to disprove that
>> I carry around invisible leprechauns in my pockets either.
>
>For this analogy to hold, you have to show what statements in the
>Qur'an are stated in a similar manner. Big bang theory, or embryo
>development have little to do with invisible leprechauns in your
>pocket -- not that I'm trying to say you don't have invisible
>leprechauns in your pocket... ;-)
>
Suffice it to say that by identifying the verse about the origin
of the universe from a speck of dust with the "Big Bang" Theory,
Bucaille has demonstrated not only his 'free-wheeling imagination'
but also his ignorance of the theory about the early universe.
- Nagarajan
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
> Risch and Devlin's *very* conservative estimate (for a five-locus
> pattern, that is, simultaneous matching at five different locations
> in the gene) is that there is a less than one in a million chance
> that a given individual is non-unique. In a paternity case, where
> the choice may be between two selected individuals, the chances
> that they have an identical five-locus pattern is (1/million)**2
> or 1/(10**12) unless they are closely related by blood. Good enough
> to be a 100 % certainty, I say. For comparison, the probability
> that a woman could (or did) conceive "immaculately" is larger,
> assuming that the anecdotal account is true ;-) If one is still not
> satisfied by the precision of these numbers, one could arbitrarily
> crank up the number of loci that one chooses to analyze until one
> is infinitesimally close to 100% certainty. There is a question
> of cost and all that but, my point is that there are no technical
> hurdles.
Whenever people are dependent on lab results for something, there will
be problems. But let us look at things from a practical perspective.
The Qur'an has to be valid for all peoples at all times. Would you
care to convince an illiterate farmer on Bhola that he should spend
ten times his lifetime earnings on a DNA test? It simply is not
possible. You see, your argument is purely a hypothetical one that
does not take practical aspects into consideration. DNA testing is
not available to the vast majority of the world population. You may
not even be able to convince a significant portion of the population
that it works. A mother, on the other hand is easy to determine --
everyone knows it, it takes no convincing, and no complex tests that
are only available to few. These are the practical realities.
While the probablity of a failure of a test is very low, it
is not zero, so there is always the chance of a mistake, no matter how
low that chance. Determining a mother is a 100% deal, no matter what.
> Suffice it to say that by identifying the verse about the origin
> of the universe from a speck of dust with the "Big Bang" Theory,
> Bucaille has demonstrated not only his 'free-wheeling imagination'
> but also his ignorance of the theory about the early universe.
Pretty bold statements there. Perhaps you could specify:
1) Why the statements of the Qur'an do not fit "Big Bang" Theory?
2) What you think the theory of the early universe is?
3) Why it demonstrates Bucaille's ignorance and why what he said
is incorrect?
Without these specifics, the above is a simple character defamation
with no basis. Since I don't think (1) and (3) can be proved, I
personally believe that it *is* pure character defamation.
TH...@psuvm.psu.edu
is my last post on this topic. Shakil can have the last word. :-)
In article <1992Mar2.2...@cs.yale.edu>,
ahmed-...@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) says:
>I said you can always find a "related" guideline. Since the Qur'an
>explicitly deals with the exceptional circumstances under which
>polygyny may be permitted, and stresses how all creatures were made in
>pairs, and since the Qur'an stresses the importance of family
>structure and we cannot have infinite family chains (as I have shown
>before), it would seem that polyandry is not permitted.
1. Does Quran say that *all* creatures were made (created ?) in pairs
(male and female ?) by God ? [Similar to Bible's Genesis ?]
So what about those creatures who reproduce asexually ? There are
quite a few organisms, and not just amoebas, without two sexes.
2. If we are all descended from Adam and Eve, aren't we all in the big
family anyway, brother Shakil ? So what is the big problem with
infinite family chain ? Why not permit polyandry in the event a
woman's first husband is sterile (but still a good lover), and the
prospective second husband would promise not to marry a second wife ?
>Why do you keep bringing the Computer Algorithms issue into it?
As an analogical reasoning tool.
>Social, moral and ethical issues are not comparable to computer
>algorithms (although I can see Lotfi Zadeh arguing that you could
>apply fuzzy sets to them). A guideline to write algorithms may be as
>broad as: "write a clear algorithm that is optimal in computation
>and space requirements." That immediately would cover almost all
>algorithms. It depends at what level you want to look at it.
This guideline for writing computer algorithms is not "effective".
It does not tell you how to attack specific problems. Would you find
the following guideline for living one's life useful ? "You should
always do what is morally right." This is overbroad, and that is the
reason why there are more specific rulings in Bible and Quran.
The summary of my analogical argument is: A complete book of computer
algorithms is impossible. Likewise, a complete book of social, moral,
ethical guidelines is impossible. Of course, this is an argument, not
a proof.
>Bucaille is not a cosmologist -- there are others cosmologists who
>have looked into the topic. Bucaille himself was a surgeon who was a
>Christian. He studied the Bible and the Qur'an in depth to see how
>the religious explanations compared to scientific theory. He learned
>Arabic specifically for this purpose. At the end of his studies, he
>realized that the Qur'an's explanation of the creation of the universe
>was in line with modern scientific theories. He converted to Islam.
Oh boy! I feel let down already. Bucaille is not a cosmologist? He is
a surgeon. Now before he started reading Bible and Quran, he did study
the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and then the
cosmological theories, Grand unified theories etc. so that he could
appreciate the Big Bang Theory from a professional point of view, right?
No ? OK, I know little bits of Physics and Computer Science, and I think
I'll become an amateur surgeon. I'll start by performing lobotomies.
Any volunteers on whom I could start practicing ? :-)
Regards.
Tamisra H. Sanyal.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
> 1. Does Quran say that *all* creatures were made (created ?) in pairs
> (male and female ?) by God ? [Similar to Bible's Genesis ?]
> So what about those creatures who reproduce asexually ? There are
> quite a few organisms, and not just amoebas, without two sexes.
I did not say anything about male and female, or about reproduction.
The concept of sexual/asexual reproduction is something which you
brought up, and it need not relate to the issue on hand. What I said
is that everything was created in pairs. This can mean forces, even
within an atom where you have opposing forces. There are some
references in the Qur'an that talk of pairs of sexes in animals and
plants. There are other references which speak of general pairs.
The latter need not imply anything about sexes or reproduction. Here
are the relevant references in the Qur'an:
13:3, 31:10, 36:36, 42:11, 43:12, 51:49, 53:45
In soc.religion.islam, <92054.19...@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> was an
article that dealt with this topic.
> 2. If we are all descended from Adam and Eve, aren't we all in the big
> family anyway, brother Shakil ? So what is the big problem with
> infinite family chain ? Why not permit polyandry in the event a
> woman's first husband is sterile (but still a good lover), and the
> prospective second husband would promise not to marry a second
> wife ?
The big problem of an infinite family chain is that you lose family
structure. I've said over and over again that Islam stresses the
importance of family structure. How can you possibly have an infinite
family chain and still maintain a family structure that makes sense?
As for your second point, regarding marrying a second husband if the
first one is sterile, the woman is free to divorce the first husband
if she desires a child. You seem to be assuming that this multiple
marriage business is an issue of pleasure (e.g. "but still a good
lover"). It's not. I have shown that it only arises under very
special circumstances for humanitarian reasons, namely when there are
orphans to be taken care of.
> This guideline for writing computer algorithms is not "effective".
> It does not tell you how to attack specific problems. Would you find
> the following guideline for living one's life useful ? "You should
> always do what is morally right." This is overbroad, and that is the
> reason why there are more specific rulings in Bible and Quran.
You see, that is precisely why I feel social, moral and ethical
problems cannot be compared to computer algorithms. While you need
precise details for every computer algorithm, the social and ethical
issues can be derived from broader guidelines quite easily.
> The summary of my analogical argument is: A complete book of computer
> algorithms is impossible. Likewise, a complete book of social, moral,
> ethical guidelines is impossible. Of course, this is an argument, not
> a proof.
True.
> Oh boy! I feel let down already. Bucaille is not a cosmologist? He is
> a surgeon. Now before he started reading Bible and Quran, he did study
> the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and then the
> cosmological theories, Grand unified theories etc. so that he could
> appreciate the Big Bang Theory from a professional point of view, right?
> No ? OK, I know little bits of Physics and Computer Science, and I think
> I'll become an amateur surgeon. I'll start by performing lobotomies.
> Any volunteers on whom I could start practicing ? :-)
If you extend this logic to yourself, I could argue that any
statements you make on the issue are invalid for the same reason.
Furthermore, since you are not an Islamic religious scholar, your
logic would imply that any statements you make on Islam are by default
wrong and laughable. In combination with the fact that you appear not
to be a cosmologist (and if you are, then I would apply this to your
statements on computer science above), this makes all your arguments
null and void. Does that look like sound reasoning? Clearly, that
doesn't work. One doesn't need to be Sagan to understand how the
universe works. The Qur'an wasn't written for just cosmologists. It
is a message to *everyone*. You won't find equations of quantum
mechanics in it -- that's not what it was meant to be. But you will
find a very good description of the creation of the universe. It
doesn't take Einstein to see that the description matches the "Big Bang"
Theory. You don't need to be a brain surgeon to get a general grasp of
how lobotomies work. You may not be able to perform them, but then
Bucaille never said he was going to take part in the next space
shuttle excursion. Instead of making facetious remarks on Bucaille's
intelligence (many, including myself, think he is a remarkably
intelligent fellow -- I was most impressed when I had the opportunity
to speak to him several years ago), I recommend you look at his book
and at the appropriate sections in the Qur'an.