Sharia Judge Says It Is OK for Husbands to Slap spendthrift Wives.

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Clumsy old SJP, there isn't as much oil in Indonesia either. Could there be a connection.

Darkbeaver, there is absolutely no connection between oil and terrorism, except perhaps in your fertile imagination. Show me who says that such a connection exists.

Countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia have no oil, yet are hotbeds of terrorism. Countries such as Jordan, Britain, Norway, Canada are awash in oil, yet there is no terrorism there.

So where is this connation between terrorism and oil? Perhaps there is some secret cabal somewhere which controls all the oil in the world and plots acts of terrorism all over the world?

The Hindu influence hasn't dampened terrorism in India to any extent.

It most certainly has. It may help to study the differences between different religions, they don’t all look alike, you know. Hindu religion (along with Buddhism, Jainism etc.) is big on nonviolence. Hindus are for the most part nonviolent people.

That doesn’t mean there is no violence, no terrorism in India, there is some everywhere. But look at India’s population (in excess of 1 billion), look at population of Islamic countries and then tell me that there is as much terrorism (or more) in India as there is in Pakistan, Somalia or Afghanistan.

As a tourist, I would have no problem visiting ‘hotbed of terrorism’ India (in fact, we did visit it two years ago), but no way am I going to visit the ‘havens of peace’ like Pakistan or Afghanistan.


"Darkbeaver, there is absolutely no connection between oil and terrorism, except perhaps in your fertile imagination. Show me who says that such a connection exists."
Awknowledgement of my fertility is a step in the right direction for your enlightenment, I owe it all to pot. You could use the help. Twenty years of non stop terrorism conducted on Iraq for the oil and the
ground, where were you? The connection is simple makeing believe there is no connection is much harder you will need a fertile imagination for that. You are out of luck SJP, do some weed man the stories will pour forth like a three hundred foot high beerfall plunging into a deep cool beer pool full of nubile ladies doing aquatic danceing in skins. India is embroiled in violence of the anti-maoist kind isn't it. India is full of religious tension and violence SJP.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Twenty years of non stop terrorism conducted on Iraq for the oil and the ground, where were you?

There was very little terrorism in Iraq, darkbeaver. What Iraq had was a brutal, murderous thug of a dictator, which is totally different from terrorism. Al Qaeda had no time for Saddam Hussein. To Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was not really any different from George Bush, he was a bad Muslim.

Terrorism in Iraq was one of the reasons Bush advanced for invading Iraq (well he actually advanced several reasons, which kept changing with time, first it was terrorism, then it was to bring democracy to Iraq, then to get rid of a brutal dictator etc.). Don’t let yourself be fooled by Bush’s propaganda.

There was very little terrorism in Iraq, you probably are confusing Iraq with Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
India is embroiled in violence of the anti-maoist kind isn't it.

Darkbeaver, India is involved in anti-Maoist violence, really? I wasn’t aware of that. If India is carrying out some campaign against Maoists, that is a good thing. Besides, by no stretch of imagination can an anti-Maoist campaign carried out by a government be called terrorism.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I will be happy to, Goober. I will consider Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, the three major religions in the world. I doubt if the minor religions (Judaism, Buddhism etc.) are much better.

Christianity regards wife as her husband’s servant, or his property. Thus in the 10th Commandant (I looked it up, I don’t know all the Commandments by heart, just a few of them) it lumps the wife together with servants, ox, donkey or any other things that belong to the neighbour. Thou shalt not covet etc.

Here at least implicitly Bible says that wife is husband’s property. Then of course, there is the advice to the wife, to be submissive to the husband. Man is the head of the household, wife is his chattel. She is expected to obey him. It is very much a master – servant relationship.

In Islam, one man is equal to two women. This irrespective of education, intelligence, upbringing etc. of the man or the woman. Thus, even the most educated, having a well paying job, somebody in position of authority, somebody who may be proficient in several languages, even such a woman is only half the worth of the village idiot, the man.

Islam regards woman as subhuman, only half human, little better than animal.

Hinduism is the most horrible of all as far as women are concerned. In Hinduism the husband – wife relationship is that between God and his Disciple. Husband is the God, wife is his worshipper, his Disciple. Let us consider the implications of this.

In Christianity, wife is husband’s servants. Now, even servants have a few rights. She is entitled to expect food from her husband, she would expect that husband provide for her, not mistreat her or beat her without just cause etc. Also, he cannot ask her to do anything against the Bible, if he does, she is free to disobey him.

In Islam, it is more animal – owner relationship. But even here, while animal doesn’t have any rights, most of us expect that animals should be treated kindly, not abused, not beaten unnecessarily etc. While wife must obey husband in every aspect without question, without hesitation, Islam would not look kindly upon a husband who beats his wife, mistreats his wife without a just cause (we don’t treat animals that way).

However, can God be ever wrong? Can any of his actions be considered wrong? No. Since husband is wife’s God, anything he tells his wife to do, she must obey, because he can never be wrong. Thus, if husband orders the wife to become a prostitute, she must obey. Here there is no question of husband ordering wife to do anything against religion, because husband's word is wife’s religion. That is Hinduism in a nutshell.

Thus, in Hinduism there are detailed instructions as to how a man should behave, how he may achieve salvation etc. To the wife, there is only one Commandment, obey your husband.

Even if wife is committing a sin such as prostitution, murder or whatever, no sin attaches to the wife if she did it in order to obey her husband. The sin will be attached to the husband, but not the wife, she is only obeying her God.

So in Hinduism, the Commandment to obey the husband is absolute, no exceptions.

Let me summarize (perhaps in a simplistic manner) the husband – wife relationship in the three religions.

Christianity: master/servant relationship.
Islam: owner/animal relationship
Hinduism : God/Disciple relationship.

You're mixing religion with culture, SJP, and they are two very distinct things. Just to take an example:

Western culture doesn't necessarily require a woman to cover her head, yet according to 1 Corinthians 11, Christian women must cover their heads. Indeed some Christian women do, especially in some Orthodox countries, but most in the West are ignorant of this commandment.

In Arab countries, many Muslims believe a man can have up to 4 wives, based on:

And if ye are apprehensive that ye shall not deal fairly with orphans,
then, of other women who seem good in your eyes, marry but two, or three, or
four; and if ye still fear that ye shall not act equitably, then one only; or
the slaves whom ye have acquired: this will make justice on your part easier.
(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 4 - Women)

But others will agree that this is to be taken in the context of:

And ye will not have it at all in your power to treat your wives alike,
even though you fain would do so; but yield not wholly to disinclination, so
that ye leave one of them as it were in suspense; if ye come to an
understanding, and fear God, then, verily, God is Forgiving, Merciful;
(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 4 - Women)

Essentially, they argue that the combination of these two verses are a subtle way to say indirectly that a man can have but one wife, subtlety having been necessary owing to the barbaric state of Arab society at the time.

So we can see from the two examples above that culture and religion are not always congruent.

Now as for Islam not recognizing women as humans is totally misleading. No, it does not grant equality between men and women, but certainly doesn't treat them as animals. That's pure hyperbole on your part. And considered within its historical context (men could kill their wives if they bore them a girl, and would bury the daughter alive too! to give an idea of the depravity of Arabia at the time), it was far advanced!

I personally profess neither the Christian nor Muslim Faiths, mainly because I believe that some of their social laws are outdated, among other reasons. However, to be fair, we have to judge these religions within the contexts of their time and place. The Mosaic Law, for instance, is right babaric by modern standards. Strictly speaking, a Jew is supposed to stone anyone who violates any of the ten commandments! How anyone can believe that in this day and age is beyond me. Yet, to be fair to the Jewish Faith, we need to consider that its is a 3,000 year old Faith, born in a context in which the concept of courts, police officers, modern amenities and technologies, etc. were non-existent in a hard world to live in. Within that 3,000 year old context, we could say that the Mosaic law may have been not only approapriate, but even ahead of its time!

We must judge every religion within its historical context to be fair to it.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
And on the issue of terrorism, Islam's concept of Jihad is very much for the protection of the Faith, not terrorism. Terrorism in Arabia is merely hiding behind the veil of Islam, but its ultimate roots are political, not religious. Religion is just an excuse, a marketting ploy to try to legitimize itself in the eyes of ignorant Arabs.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I think any behaviour which is compulsory and is different for men and women is oppressive. Even if some people do it willingly, the oppression comes from the people who are forced to do it; that they would be compelled if they chose otherwise makes it oppressive.

The real problem with Sharia law is its intangibility. Not only must one know the Quran, but also the hadith. When a question of law arises and must be decided on oral history, how can anyone have confidence in impartiality? There aren't even reasons given for the punishments, the reason is always: "It is written," or "It was said by Muhammad."
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
And considered within its historical context (men could kill their wives if they bore them a girl, and would bury the daughter alive too! to give an idea of the depravity of Arabia at the time), it was far advanced!

Within that 3,000 year old context, we could say that the Mosaic law may have been not only appropriate, but even ahead of its time!

Here I agree with you, machjo. I have said it before, Jesus and Mohammed probably were progressives for their times. In their own times, they probably would be considered liberals.

Thus, Mohammed said that a woman deserves half the rights of man. In an age when women had no rights, that must have been a progressive position indeed. Reforms usually happens a step at a time, in those days he wouldn’t have got anywhere if he had said that women deserve equal rights, same as men (even assuming he felt that way).

Similar with Jesus. He granted women liberties unheard of in his days. So I have no problem with the proposition that Koran and Bible probably espouse liberal, progressive, tolerant views in those days. I have said that before.

The problem is, things have moved on in the past 2000 years, and anybody who insists on behaving by the morality prescribed in those days is considered a right wing extremist today.

Thus, to say that a woman deserves half the rights of man was probably the proper position to take in the Middle East more than a thousand years ago. But it is totally inappropriate position to take in modern day Canada.

The problem comes when people insist that the social mores and customs of 2000 years ago must be regarded as sacrosanct and must be obeyed to the letter today.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
And on the issue of terrorism, Islam's concept of Jihad is very much for the protection of the Faith, not terrorism. Terrorism in Arabia is merely hiding behind the veil of Islam, but its ultimate roots are political, not religious. Religion is just an excuse, a marketting ploy to try to legitimize itself in the eyes of ignorant Arabs.


Jihad is a very amorphous word, machjo, it means what a person wants it to mean. One meaning of Jihad that I have come across is personal Jihad. Personal jihad is a battle waged against evil forces, evil thoughts within oneself, and is meant to improve oneself as a person. Thus reducing weight (or giving up smoking) could be considered part of personal jihad.

Then there is jihad waged for protection of faith. Presumably that would mean that if Islam is in danger (by foreign invasion, or infiltration by foreign powers etc.), then one must bear arms to defend Islam.

The problem is, different Muslims define ‘protection of faith’ in different ways. Thus to Osama Bin Laden, Islam is currently in danger from the West, from USA. So to him, flying planes into the World Trade Centre and killing thousand of innocent civilians is an act of protection of the faith.

Osama Bin Laden, other Muslim terrorists, and those who engage in personal jihad, they all claim to be Muslims. As far as I am concerned, anybody who says he is a Muslim is one (same as anybody who says he is a Christian, is one). I cannot judge what is in somebody’s heart. Then I judge Islam by the behavior of the Muslims.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I think any behaviour which is compulsory and is different for men and women is oppressive. Even if some people do it willingly, the oppression comes from the people who are forced to do it; that they would be compelled if they chose otherwise makes it oppressive.

Niflmir, many times people (especially women) are conditioned, brainwashed into accepting the oppression willingly. That doesn’t mean that it is a desirable thing.

Women are particularly vulnerable to such conditioning, they have been brainwashed for thousands of years. Thus during the suffragette movement, many women argued passionately that women do not deserve the right to vote, that if women were given the right to vote it will mean the end of Western civilization as we know it.

An even more startling example may be found in Hindu religion, in the custom of suttee. That was the custom whereby when a man dies, his wife is burned alive with him. Many times the woman had to be dragged kicking and screaming and thrown onto husband’s pyre. However, in Indian history there are plenty of examples of women willingly going suttee. There are even examples of queens, or wives of prominent people going suttee. Nobody was forcing them to do so, and if they didn’t go suttee, they would still continue to enjoy the good life (as the other wives of the man would do, only one wife was permitted to go suttee).

So social conditioning can be a strong, terrible tool in human oppression.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Yeah, that is my point. Willingness never eliminates oppression. That one person suffers because they are a woman and they have no choice over the matter is oppression. It is perfectly possible to live in jail and be content, but for the person who did nothing wrong and was forced to go there and now cannot get out, that everyone else there accepts there fate means nothing to them.

For that I stress the compulsion in difference of treatment.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Isn't that what you just did? Grouped wife beaters from Chritianity in with wife beaters from Islam. Jeeez TP. Having an off day?
Yes, I did. But that's not condeming a whole religion. That's condemning wife beaters. A subset that exists in all religions.

Wife-beating christians were no better than wife beating muslims.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Twenty years of non stop terrorism conducted on Iraq for the oil and the ground, where were you?

There was very little terrorism in Iraq, darkbeaver. What Iraq had was a brutal, murderous thug of a dictator, which is totally different from terrorism. Al Qaeda had no time for Saddam Hussein. To Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was not really any different from George Bush, he was a bad Muslim.

Terrorism in Iraq was one of the reasons Bush advanced for invading Iraq (well he actually advanced several reasons, which kept changing with time, first it was terrorism, then it was to bring democracy to Iraq, then to get rid of a brutal dictator etc.). Don’t let yourself be fooled by Bush’s propaganda.

There was very little terrorism in Iraq, you probably are confusing Iraq with Afghanistan.

That's just stinky Joe. You just can't imagine much can you. In a state of confusion it's normal to be confuse. How come you aren't?

This next bit is going to terrorable for you Joe, hold on to your breakfast man.
Is Islamic finance the answer?


BBC NEWS | Business | Is Islamic finance the answer?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
India is embroiled in violence of the anti-maoist kind isn't it.

Darkbeaver, India is involved in anti-Maoist violence, really? I wasn’t aware of that. If India is carrying out some campaign against Maoists, that is a good thing. Besides, by no stretch of imagination can an anti-Maoist campaign carried out by a government be called terrorism.

What the **** do you know about stretching imag:lol:ination.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
India is embroiled in violence of the anti-maoist kind isn't it.

Darkbeaver, India is involved in anti-Maoist violence, really? I wasn’t aware of that. If India is carrying out some campaign against Maoists, that is a good thing. Besides, by no stretch of imagination can an anti-Maoist campaign carried out by a government be called terrorism.

What the **** do you know about stretching imag:lol:ination?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
India is embroiled in violence of the anti-maoist kind isn't it.

Darkbeaver, India is involved in anti-Maoist violence, really? I wasn’t aware of that. If India is carrying out some campaign against Maoists, that is a good thing. Besides, by no stretch of imagination can an anti-Maoist campaign carried out by a government be called terrorism.

What the hell do you know about stretching imaginations? Nuremburg disagrees with you, imagine that. :lol:
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
That's just stinky Joe. You just can't imagine much can you. In a state of confusion it's normal to be confuse. How come you aren't?

This next bit is going to terrorable for you Joe, hold on to your breakfast man.
Is Islamic finance the answer?


BBC NEWS | Business | Is Islamic finance the answer?


I don’t’ see the relevance of the link, darkbeaver. However, personally I don’t have any problems with Islamic finance, if it is not done in a discriminatory way. It is just an alternate way of doing business. Now, if they said that they will give loans only to men, or that a woman must have her husband’s (or brother’s, father’s whatever) written permission to get a loan, then I would expect the law to crack down on Islamic finance.

However, provided they stay within the law, I think Islamic finance adds one more option to the financial markets, that is all to the good.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Quoting the all-knowing perfect authority on religion (and obviously, on cannibalism or kinky sex):

"There may be a few who think that Koran doesn’t give man a permission to eat his wife, ....".

Just could not resist. Too bad the spell checker only works on spelling, not on content.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I don’t’ see the relevance of the link, darkbeaver. However, personally I don’t have any problems with Islamic finance, if it is not done in a discriminatory way. It is just an alternate way of doing business. Now, if they said that they will give loans only to men, or that a woman must have her husband’s (or brother’s, father’s whatever) written permission to get a loan, then I would expect the law to crack down on Islamic finance.

However, provided they stay within the law, I think Islamic finance adds one more option to the financial markets, that is all to the good.

Honest upfront credit, twit. Please accept my heartfelt apology in advance and allow me to express my deepest wishes for continued success to you and your family and investments and associations, but I had assumed that someone who made lots of money on bankdeals would see this as threatening. Without loads of munitions and delivery systems capitalist pig banking dogs would loose to the competition in 38 seconds. I'v heard of banking laws from the old days, which ones are you speaking of. You just don't want to admit that you lost your eggs at the thought. I'd be terrified if I hadn't diversified into chicken and turnips.