An Islamic guide on how to beat your wife
-
Dude, you're a freaking nutcase. Answer the guy's questions already rather than beating around the bush. Einstein (ya know the smart guy) said if you know something you can teach an eight year old. So, since you're the expert (as you claim) in your religion, teach us rather than be elusive. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Answer the guy's questions already rather than beating around the bush. What after I finish his 20 questions, do you have another long list that you would like me to get through? Jeremy Falcon wrote: Einstein (ya know the smart guy) said if you know something you can teach an eight year old. Yet a kid would understand what the orginal article said... Jeremy Falcon wrote: So, since you're the expert (as you claim) in your religion, teach us rather than be elusive. I don't think I ever said that. Not being elusive at all. If he came up with those 20 questions while studying Islam, I would assume he would know the basics. If he just got it from an anti-Islam website for "anti-Islam" material [they seem to be a dime a dozen with the same content] then he can go to those sites for answers. Quran Translation Intro Discover
-
kgaddy wrote: I think you miss the point. I don't want women to be beat AT ALL. Um ofcourse not, yet it is happening in mass in your backyard. Just because you dont want it to happen doesnt mean your fellow man isnt sending them to the hospital. kgaddy wrote: Time to get out of the middle ages and join the rest of civilization. I agree, give me a call when you start helping abused women. Quran Translation Intro Discover
-
kgaddy wrote: The guy is trying to sugarcoat wife beating, but still does not deny it. And what? He gave you a link that pretty much spells out the attitude towards it: allowed, but discouraged. Don't get me wrong - i'm none too impressed with this sort of thing, and there are plenty of reports of violence against women coming from Islamic countries... But sadly, there are plenty of 'em coming from much, much closer as well. The sad truth of the matter is, there seems to be plenty of enthusiasm for violence towards women all over, with or without printed "guidelines".
Shog9 wrote: The sad truth of the matter is, there seems to be plenty of enthusiasm for violence towards women all over, with or without printed "guidelines". Yes, I agree with you on this. I don't see this as a particularly Islamic problem at all. This seems to be indigenous to a multitude of cultures. Why, for that matter, you might as well blame the religion of alcohol equally. I hardly think that several (open to interpretation) lines of print in a religious book is responsible for the global epidemic of violence against women.
-
kgaddy wrote: But at least it's a choice,even if it's a bad one. Which are worse - shackles of law, or shackles of mind?
Wow, I must congratulate you on that 1 vote. Like, wtf?? :confused:
-
A.A. wrote: I guess you want the blows to show black and blue and make the face swell and do some type of permanent damage.:wtf: I think you miss the point. I don't want women to be beat AT ALL. A.A. wrote: Dont pretend you our your favorite newspaper know an iota of a thing about Islam, because apparantly your tinted glasses will make the best of things to happen to man kind into the worst of things. Do you mean there is ggod to beating a woman? Please tell me, how is beating a woman "a best of things"? I'll tell you right now, if any real man sees another man beating a woman he should beat the sh!t out him. Time to get out of the middle ages and join the rest of civilization.
kgaddy wrote: Time to get out of the middle ages and join the rest of civilization Good idea![^]
The great error of nearly all studies of war has been to consider war as an episode in foreign policies, when it is an act of interior politics - Simone Weil Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Answer the guy's questions already rather than beating around the bush. What after I finish his 20 questions, do you have another long list that you would like me to get through? Jeremy Falcon wrote: Einstein (ya know the smart guy) said if you know something you can teach an eight year old. Yet a kid would understand what the orginal article said... Jeremy Falcon wrote: So, since you're the expert (as you claim) in your religion, teach us rather than be elusive. I don't think I ever said that. Not being elusive at all. If he came up with those 20 questions while studying Islam, I would assume he would know the basics. If he just got it from an anti-Islam website for "anti-Islam" material [they seem to be a dime a dozen with the same content] then he can go to those sites for answers. Quran Translation Intro Discover
A.A. wrote: f he came up with those 20 questions while studying Islam, I would assume he would know the basics. If he just got it from an anti-Islam website for "anti-Islam" material [they seem to be a dime a dozen with the same content] then he can go to those sites for answers. Does it matter where I got them? It just matters if they are true? I would think you would jump at the chance to give me a counter point if these statments were wrong. But you have not, which makes me believe they are true. So, if they are wrong, please tell me so I can feel better about Islam.
-
Anonymous wrote: I guess if it were up to you, no women would have a chance because you lumped them all in one bin as being shacked by the mind. I did no such thing. Can you not discuss without attack/defend, or do you just prefer that style? :confused: Anonymous wrote: There are people making stupid decisions everyday. Indeed there are. Anonymous wrote: THere is nothing you or I can do to MAKE them stop. Absolutely correct. Regardless of the laws in place, law does not control behavior. All it does is highlight deviations. Read that again. Now consider: 1) a law prohibiting violence will not stop violence 2) a law allowing violence will not cause violence You might say that #1 applies to us, living here in our enlightened society, while #2 applies to those living under brutish Islamic law. The end result of both is this: there will be those who choose violence, and those who do not. What is the purpose of law, then? To define what is acceptable to society. We cannot control behavior, but we can identify it, and ostracize deviants. Who is a deviant? In this case, our deviants might include someone who slaps his wife. Under a strict application of the doctrines stated in A.A.'s first link, you might have to haul off and punch her before being considered deviant. Neither society is exactly gung-ho over the idea of violence, but one is considerably less tolerant of it, at least in law. In practice, we tolerate a fair bit of it.
Shog9 wrote: Now consider: 1) a law prohibiting violence will not stop violence 2) a law allowing violence will not cause violence We are on 2 diffrent pages here. Laws protect the right of Individuals. So If a woman wanted to to get away from a wife beater, the law will help her do that. But if you have no law that stop beatings, where is she to go? I think your making this a lot more complicted than it is is. Laws are not in pla ce to make people live right, There in place to protect people who want to live right.
-
I'm sorry, was this thread supposed to be a long string of replies pledging their loathing of wife-beating? Should i start a "Rape is Bad" thread, just so we can get that out of the way too? Don't let that knee-jerk kick you in the teeth... :| kgaddy asked a single question: "Why do these women put up with this?" I don't know - i'm not a woman, and definately not islamic. My wife, who went through a very long, very abusive relationship some years ago, generally attributes the acceptance of abuse in this country to low self-esteem, women basing their self-worth on their ability to please whatever asshole they manage to shack up with... whether that's the case or not, i can't say. My point in replying here, misunderstood though it may be, is that the behavior goes on, heedless of law and religion.
Shog9 wrote: kgaddy asked a single question: "Why do these women put up with this?" I don't know Ok Shog, now I understand your statements. I agree, now that I understand the context in which you were answering. I thought your were saying that laws protecting women were usless.
-
kgaddy wrote: Time to get out of the middle ages and join the rest of civilization Good idea![^]
The great error of nearly all studies of war has been to consider war as an episode in foreign policies, when it is an act of interior politics - Simone Weil Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
I haven't a clue who you are, but I like your style. :) And FWIW (not much, I'm not on many CPians favorites list :)), I agree with your statements. Jeremy Falcon
-
We are talking about protecting wives from beating. You want to protect murderers and rapists? Ok
kgaddy wrote: You want to protect murderers and rapists? As you do, I want to protect innocent people. It is funny how you draw the line between barbarism and civilization... I suspect it follows the same line than "us" vs "them".
The great error of nearly all studies of war has been to consider war as an episode in foreign policies, when it is an act of interior politics - Simone Weil Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
kgaddy wrote: You want to protect murderers and rapists? As you do, I want to protect innocent people. It is funny how you draw the line between barbarism and civilization... I suspect it follows the same line than "us" vs "them".
The great error of nearly all studies of war has been to consider war as an episode in foreign policies, when it is an act of interior politics - Simone Weil Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
No society is perfect. But we do what we can. My point is we take the worst problems and try to correct them. Protecting murderers and rapist is not, in my opinion, at the top of my list to fix.
kgaddy wrote: My point is we take the worst problems and try to correct them. Hence my post.
The great error of nearly all studies of war has been to consider war as an episode in foreign policies, when it is an act of interior politics - Simone Weil Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Answer the guy's questions already rather than beating around the bush. What after I finish his 20 questions, do you have another long list that you would like me to get through? Jeremy Falcon wrote: Einstein (ya know the smart guy) said if you know something you can teach an eight year old. Yet a kid would understand what the orginal article said... Jeremy Falcon wrote: So, since you're the expert (as you claim) in your religion, teach us rather than be elusive. I don't think I ever said that. Not being elusive at all. If he came up with those 20 questions while studying Islam, I would assume he would know the basics. If he just got it from an anti-Islam website for "anti-Islam" material [they seem to be a dime a dozen with the same content] then he can go to those sites for answers. Quran Translation Intro Discover
A.A. wrote: Not being elusive at all. Really? And yet, he asked you a simple yes or no question that you did not provide a direct answer to until, like, 20 posts later. That's not being elusive? Admittedly, A.A. wrote: Is your mom still in prision? Same kind of question. If it were the same kind of question, I wouldn't blame you in not answering it directly. For review, the question was, kgaddy wrote: Is this not true? A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife or wives. - Qura'anic dictum. Is it true or not? yes or no Now, relating it to you mom in prison analogy, I would rate the question more like, "Would you send your dad to prison if he beat your mom?", not, "Is your mom still in prison?" The question may still be hard to answer, but if my dad beat my mom, I would get him as far away from my mom as possible. YES, I would send him to prison. But you could not answer his question for quite some time. You call that not being elusive? Danny -- modified at 11:41 Friday 30th September, 2005
-
because totalitarianism is always imposed by force more islamic wife beating[^] I think females will be leading this next battle, look at Hughes recent trip to Saudi Arabia :wtf: :confused: :suss:
greghop wrote: because totalitarianism is always imposed by force more islamic wife beating[^] That's disgusting. :mad::mad::mad: greghop wrote: I think females will be leading this next battle, look at Hughes recent trip to Saudi Arabia Good for her! It's about bloody time somebody spoke up at Government level about the crap that women in many parts of the world have to put up with. "JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 27 -- Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes questioned Tuesday the Saudi ban on driving by women, telling a crowd of several hundred Saudi women, covered head to toe in black clothing, that it had negatively shaped the image of Saudi society in the United States. "We in America take our freedoms very seriously," Hughes said. "I believe women should be free and equal participants in society. I feel that as an American woman that my ability to drive is an important part of my freedom. Women in the audience applauded after she also mentioned that they should have a greater voice in the Saudi political system, including eventually receiving the right to vote." Hughes Raises Driving Ban With Saudis[^] Anna :rose: Riverblade Ltd - Software Consultancy Services Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. -- modified at 11:58 Friday 30th September, 2005
-
Anonymous wrote: I guess if it were up to you, no women would have a chance because you lumped them all in one bin as being shacked by the mind. I did no such thing. Can you not discuss without attack/defend, or do you just prefer that style? :confused: Anonymous wrote: There are people making stupid decisions everyday. Indeed there are. Anonymous wrote: THere is nothing you or I can do to MAKE them stop. Absolutely correct. Regardless of the laws in place, law does not control behavior. All it does is highlight deviations. Read that again. Now consider: 1) a law prohibiting violence will not stop violence 2) a law allowing violence will not cause violence You might say that #1 applies to us, living here in our enlightened society, while #2 applies to those living under brutish Islamic law. The end result of both is this: there will be those who choose violence, and those who do not. What is the purpose of law, then? To define what is acceptable to society. We cannot control behavior, but we can identify it, and ostracize deviants. Who is a deviant? In this case, our deviants might include someone who slaps his wife. Under a strict application of the doctrines stated in A.A.'s first link, you might have to haul off and punch her before being considered deviant. Neither society is exactly gung-ho over the idea of violence, but one is considerably less tolerant of it, at least in law. In practice, we tolerate a fair bit of it.
Shog9 wrote: Now consider: 1) a law prohibiting violence will not stop violence 2) a law allowing violence will not cause violence You might say that #1 applies to us, living here in our enlightened society, while #2 applies to those living under brutish Islamic law. ? I agree with you on both points here. However, a law allowing violence has no protection for the victims of violence. Shog9 wrote: What is the purpose of law, then? To define what is acceptable to society. So, violence (particularly, beating of wives) is acceptable in Islamic society? (See point 2 above) Danny
-
Shog9 wrote: Now consider: 1) a law prohibiting violence will not stop violence 2) a law allowing violence will not cause violence You might say that #1 applies to us, living here in our enlightened society, while #2 applies to those living under brutish Islamic law. ? I agree with you on both points here. However, a law allowing violence has no protection for the victims of violence. Shog9 wrote: What is the purpose of law, then? To define what is acceptable to society. So, violence (particularly, beating of wives) is acceptable in Islamic society? (See point 2 above) Danny
bugDanny wrote: So, violence (particularly, beating of wives) is acceptable in Islamic society? Looks like it (i've no first-hand knowledge, but the links from both kgaddy and A.A. pretty much admit that much).
-
Shog9 wrote: Now consider: 1) a law prohibiting violence will not stop violence 2) a law allowing violence will not cause violence We are on 2 diffrent pages here. Laws protect the right of Individuals. So If a woman wanted to to get away from a wife beater, the law will help her do that. But if you have no law that stop beatings, where is she to go? I think your making this a lot more complicted than it is is. Laws are not in pla ce to make people live right, There in place to protect people who want to live right.
kgaddy wrote: Laws are not in pla ce to make people live right, There in place to protect people who want to live right. This is where i think you're wrong. Take a law, any law. Whether that law comes from God, or that law comes from Man, the effect is the same - it protects no one. Do you think traffic laws protect you from unsafe drivers? Hardly! The traffic cops, or the State Patrol do so, perhaps. We say the law gives them power, but without them the law is powerless. Think of the laws, especially older ones, that are routinely broken in this country. No one sees that they have value, and so they are unenforcd - powerless.
-
bugDanny wrote: So, violence (particularly, beating of wives) is acceptable in Islamic society? Looks like it (i've no first-hand knowledge, but the links from both kgaddy and A.A. pretty much admit that much).
-
Shog9 wrote: The sad truth of the matter is, there seems to be plenty of enthusiasm for violence towards women all over, with or without printed "guidelines". Yes, I agree with you on this. I don't see this as a particularly Islamic problem at all. This seems to be indigenous to a multitude of cultures. Why, for that matter, you might as well blame the religion of alcohol equally. I hardly think that several (open to interpretation) lines of print in a religious book is responsible for the global epidemic of violence against women.
John Theal wrote: I hardly think that several (open to interpretation) lines of print in a religious book is responsible for the global epidemic of violence against women. Not responsible for violence against women, no, but at the very least it is allowing it, if not encouraging it. Don't you at least have any problems with that? Danny