Pakistani men can beat wives 'lightly,' Islamic council says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps it’s more like ‘People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.’
No, it’s about political correctness, fear of being called a racist islamophobe and who is on top of the ladder of perpetual victimhood in the West.
 
=ComplineSanFran;13933880]Yet Christianity has a long history of teaching that wives must be submissive and for many cultures, that means beating them. It is in our texts and it is in our Christian cultures. Islam finds itself in the same boat.
Regardless of what other cultures may have thought in the past, beating one’s spouse is not conducive with the teaching of Jesus.
Western countries - thankful to feminist advocacy - are changing, but domestic violence is still with us and intertwined with religious reasoning and belief.
Actually, many Western EU feminists are giving a very wide berth for foreign cultures that are okay with not only wife-beating but FGM as well.

Futhermore, their attacks on Christina Hof-Summers (a registered Democrat) and Julie Bindel (a lesbian feminist whose work has been labeled with “transphobic” trigger warnings) from other liberals and feminists is appalling.

Really, how on earth do these progressives and feminists even hope to have a chance in the culture war against sharia law?
 
Islam gets tons of “flak” for some of their rules re women–way more than Christianity.
From who and where?

Liberals, feminists and progressives un-apologetically defend Islam, even more conservative elements of Islam, while railing against the Catholic Church unless its helping the poor.
 
Islam gets flak from those who progressives, liberals and feminists label as Islamophobes.

It is irony bordering on sheer lunacy that people are slammed as Islamophobes by liberals for criticizing Islam for the illiberal policies that flow out of a literalist and legalistic reading of Islam, which indeed is mainstream Islam.

Such is the inanity of the social hierarchy of Identity politics that dictate all opinion on the left.
 
Islam gets flak from those who progressives, liberals and feminists label as Islamophobes.

It is irony bordering on sheer lunacy that people are slammed as Islamophobes by liberals for criticizing Islam for the illiberal policies that flow out of a literalist and legalistic reading of Islam, which indeed is mainstream Islam.

Such is the inanity of the social hierarchy of Identity politics that dictate all opinion on the left.
👍

Not to mention that the very term “Islamophobe” is nonsense. A phobia is an irrational fear (such as a fear of cats, loud sounds or crowds, which are not that dangerous in themselves). Most of what is called “Islamophobia” is actually simple truth-telling. 🙂
 
👍

Not to mention that the very term “Islamophobe” is nonsense. A phobia is an irrational fear (such as a fear of cats, loud sounds or crowds, which are not that dangerous in themselves). Most of what is called “Islamophobia” is actually simple truth-telling. 🙂
It is a term that has worked well for the Muslim Brotherhood through popularizing a term that has already been a winner at making a class of people into victim class. At least with homophobia, the term at one time was not about bigotry but about overcompensation by homosexuals who were afraid of their own desires.

Islamophobia is a nonsensical term. It is fitting I guess that such a nonsense term has been used so nonsensically. Liberals and feminists, the people who really ought to be leading the charge against the misogyny in Islam instead spend their time on counter-claims against Christianity every time these sort of conversations arise.
 
It is a term that has worked well for the Muslim Brotherhood through popularizing a term that has already been a winner at making a class of people into victim class. At least with homophobia, the term at one time was not about bigotry but about overcompensation by homosexuals who were afraid of their own desires.

Islamophobia is a nonsensical term. It is fitting I guess that such a nonsense term has been used so nonsensically. Liberals and feminists, the people who really ought to be leading the charge against the misogyny in Islam instead spend their time on counter-claims against Christianity every time these sort of conversations arise.
If the term “Islamophobe” is looked at iterally, it’s one who fears Islam. I’ll readily confess myself, then, to be one.
 
Yet Christianity has a long history of teaching that wives must be submissive and for many cultures, that means beating them. It is in our texts and it is in our Christian cultures. Islam finds itself in the same boat.

Western countries - thankful to feminist advocacy - are changing, but domestic violence is still with us and intertwined with religious reasoning and belief.

Wasn’t it the Archbishop of Toledo who recently said publicly that the reason wives are abused is because they are not submissive to their husbands? I understand there was an uproar, but no recanting from the Church.

I KNOW that Christian communities do not say, ‘Men, beat your wives if they disobey.’ But sadly that is part of Christianity’s legacy.
In you opinion but even so how does that relate to the topic at hand? We are discussing a ruling by an Islamic Council on how to properly beat ones wife. I learned the “everybody does it” excuse didn’t work when i was about 5 years old.
 
If the term “Islamophobe” is looked at iterally, it’s one who fears Islam. I’ll readily confess myself, then, to be one.
To fear something rationally is not a phobia, technically speaking.

If a wolf charges at me and attacks, I feel fear. This is not phobic.

If I feel fear on seeing a puppy or when the lights go out, that’s a phobia.

“Islamophobia”, like “homophobia”, is simply a term of abuse by the “politically correct” brigade when the unacceptable behaviours or ideology of their pet victims is pointed out, and they have no rational refutation to make.
 
This would only be fair if muslim wives were permitted to beat their husbands ‘heavily’.
 
If the term “Islamophobe” is looked at iterally, it’s one who fears Islam. I’ll readily confess myself, then, to be one.
Phobias are normally considered to be not just fears, but irrational fears.
For example, if you were to say that your heart races in panic if passing by a thirteen year old girl in a hijab, this likely would be considered a phobia.
 
This would only be fair if muslim wives were permitted to beat their husbands ‘heavily’.
:rotfl:

What if the Muslim “paradise” consisted not of 72 virgins, but 72 wives, each armed with a frying pan? 😃
 
Even on these forums you run into the “tu quoque” only when it’s appropriate.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

A white Christian man is caught on camera beating a woman and he receives scorn from every which direction, and rightfully so. Someone posts it on a message board and there is no dissent.

A Muslim man is caught on camera, with cheering onlookers, whipping and beating a woman, and you’re guaranteed to have the “well, some Christians are in favor of such things,” or “Christianity also had something similar in it’s history.”

If we’re going by that train of thought, let ISIS do what it does. So what that women, children, and men are killed indiscriminately. Christians at some point also did it.
 
:rotfl:

What if the Muslim “paradise” consisted not of 72 virgins, but 72 wives, each armed with a frying pan? 😃
A Muslim friend of mine claims that the 72 virgins is a mistranslation and actually refers to 72 grapes.
 
A Muslim friend of mine claims that the 72 virgins is a mistranslation and actually refers to 72 grapes.
Nothing against grapes, but that’s got to be a bit of a letdown. Grapes are readily available at the earthly supermarket, after all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top