Yes. Abuse should be banned from the universe.
Oh wait... you weren't asking me.
Carry on!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Yes. Abuse should be banned from the universe.
Oh wait... you weren't asking me.
Carry on!
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't understand why you persist on "soft beat" to be not assault or violence?
And how would one measure what is "soft" or "hard"?
In the case of marriage or live-in couple arrangements, any form of assaults is considered to be domestic violence and abuse. That you would try to justify beating wife using religion only make you and your religion to be nothing more than misogynistic and violent barbarian and faith.
And how would one measure what is "soft" or "hard"?
In the case of marriage or live-in couple arrangements, any form of assaults is considered to be domestic violence and abuse. That you would try to justify beating wife using religion only make you and your religion to be nothing more than misogynistic and violent barbarian and faith.
Ssainhu
let's suppose that of one of them told you i accept to live with him even he soft beat me !!!
honesly i know some muslim wives beat their husband !!
I believe the mariage is saint relation should be built in respect , the verse talking about especial statut of the wife Nashiz wife
which had no respect to her husband ...etc , it's not talking about the normal mariage .
btw : what is your explain to the word "Nashiz" ?
view ,especialy the first scholars interpretation (Ibn Kathir and Tabari) , and especialy when it's support by correct hadith .
NO it's not abuse when it's good using ,and it's abuse when it's bad using , i can compare it's like a patient need to medical stinger , no one can said it's painful and hurt,to the doctors !!! .
mariage problems need sometimes to this medical stingers ( advise her ,don't touch her in bed -soft-beat - made congress)
if the medical not work the divorce is the final solution .
we all need sometimes to medical stingers , then should be ban it ?
the line is very clear :
abuse is make hurt pain and mark in the body
the soft beat is almost don't hurt and don't make marks in the body .
i want to ask you ,what is your exact meaning to word "Darba" in that verse of Quran ?
i advise you , to make a deal (condition) with your futur husbands of your daughters to don't softbeat them .
let's suppose that of one of them told you i accept to live with him even he soft beat me !!!
honesly i know some muslim wives beat their husband !!
I believe the mariage is saint relation should be built in respect , the verse talking about especial statut of the wife Nashiz wife
which had no respect to her husband ...etc , it's not talking about the normal mariage .
btw : what is your explain to the word "Nashiz" ?
it's not suppose and not necessery to insult the other islamic
view ,especialy the first scholars interpretation (Ibn Kathir and Tabari) , and especialy when it's support by correct hadith .
NO it's not abuse when it's good using ,and it's abuse when it's bad using , i can compare it's like a patient need to medical stinger , no one can said it's painful and hurt,to the doctors !!! .
mariage problems need sometimes to this medical stingers ( advise her ,don't touch her in bed -soft-beat - made congress)
if the medical not work the divorce is the final solution .
we all need sometimes to medical stingers , then should be ban it ?
the line is very clear :
abuse is make hurt pain and mark in the body
the soft beat is almost don't hurt and don't make marks in the body .
i want to ask you ,what is your exact meaning to word "Darba" in that verse of Quran ?
Last edited:
It's pathetic that one would have to make a "deal" so the husband doesn't (soft) beat my daughter(s).
I don't think anyone would justify a woman beating her husband either.
Then he should leave her. At least that's more dignifying than beating her.
I believe it is a highly subjective term, and leads to horrible confusion like we're seeing in this thread.
I'm not insulting it, I just think it's WRONG.
Nope, still abuse. What are medical "stingers"? Shots? Are you really comparing beating a woman to medical treatment??
YES.
Beating is abuse.
"to forsake or to leave"
If you wanna participate, you need to find a willing partner.
BDSM
Aspects B&D, B/D, or BD Bondage and Discipline D&s, D/s, or Ds Dominance and submission S&M, S/M, or SM Sadism and masochism Roles Top/Dominant/Sadist partner who carries out the activity Bottom/Submissive/Masochist partner who receives the activity Switch switches between roles Prevalence Participation/tendencies 5–25% of general population[citation needed]
BDSM
Aspects B&D, B/D, or BD Bondage and Discipline D&s, D/s, or Ds Dominance and submission S&M, S/M, or SM Sadism and masochism Roles Top/Dominant/Sadist partner who carries out the activity Bottom/Submissive/Masochist partner who receives the activity Switch switches between roles Prevalence Participation/tendencies 5–25% of general population[citation needed]
Thanks, Nix.
Personally, it's vital to understand the nature of consenual BDSM, rather than an institutionalized BDSM. The former being far ethically superior than the latter.
Personally, it's vital to understand the nature of consenual BDSM, rather than an institutionalized BDSM. The former being far ethically superior than the latter.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I won't vote here in this thread because I don't think it is fair to ask me to choose between being called a religious person _or_ an atheist; I'm both.
That said, I sure disagree with such a prohibition. It is no business of the UN (or of any government) to decide which groups should be considered religious and deserve special protection as such. That way unfair repression lies. And there is really no benefit to such a proposal.
That said, I sure disagree with such a prohibition. It is no business of the UN (or of any government) to decide which groups should be considered religious and deserve special protection as such. That way unfair repression lies. And there is really no benefit to such a proposal.
gnostic
The Lost One
What if the Muslim husband is stupid and incapable of determine what is right and wrong? And say the woman is far intelligent and wiser than her husband.
If a husband is wrong, but refused to recognise that he is wrong and beat his wife for arguing with him - to discipline her, because he blindly followed your interpretation of that Quranic verse or Hadith, then how could the husband be right in exercising his duty as a husband?
Your interpretation is utterly moronic, oppressive and abusive. Doing 2 wrongs, don't make it right. (The husband would not only be wrong in their argument or disagreement, he would also bearing to hit her, even lightly.)
If a husband is wrong, but refused to recognise that he is wrong and beat his wife for arguing with him - to discipline her, because he blindly followed your interpretation of that Quranic verse or Hadith, then how could the husband be right in exercising his duty as a husband?
Your interpretation is utterly moronic, oppressive and abusive. Doing 2 wrongs, don't make it right. (The husband would not only be wrong in their argument or disagreement, he would also bearing to hit her, even lightly.)
Last edited:
Rakhel
we are disagree in no matter is hard .
the submission in Islam (and other religions ) of the wife to her husband is religious issue .
it's kind of respect and show love , it's wrong if you understand that she had not an opinion or control or treat her like a slave or abuse her ...etc
for me the feminity of the woman is in her submission ,for me the woman who are not submission to her husband it's lose her feminity. "HE treat HER like man !!! ".
for me " i would not maried a man in shape of woman "
which mean I would not NEVER ever maried a woman did not submission to me .
i can bit 99% of muslims women submission to their husbands here in Algeria and many other muslim countries.
in the end :
it's specific relation and treatment inter female and male in all the creatures (not only the human being ), it's rarely when the female get the control over the male .
we are agree indeed it's coward a man who beat his wife , or let his wife beat him ,
we are disagree in no matter is hard .
the submission in Islam (and other religions ) of the wife to her husband is religious issue .
it's kind of respect and show love , it's wrong if you understand that she had not an opinion or control or treat her like a slave or abuse her ...etc
for me the feminity of the woman is in her submission ,for me the woman who are not submission to her husband it's lose her feminity. "HE treat HER like man !!! ".
for me " i would not maried a man in shape of woman "
which mean I would not NEVER ever maried a woman did not submission to me .
i can bit 99% of muslims women submission to their husbands here in Algeria and many other muslim countries.
in the end :
it's specific relation and treatment inter female and male in all the creatures (not only the human being ), it's rarely when the female get the control over the male .
It's pathetic that one would have to make a "deal" so the husband doesn't (soft) beat my daughter(s).
it's justified in the Quran , when the wife becomes "Nashiz"
we are talking about soft beat .
yes , the mariage problems need treatment.
Darab mean in that verse leave . ok
in which translations of Quran you find it ?
and what mean" noushouzhona" ?
"then if they obey you "
they mention to whom ?
you mention to whom ?
Did you seriously just
about the ridiculousness of asking for a deal to not beat one's wife? I will repeat myself: If my husband or I ever got wind that any man (husband or otherwise) even THREATENED to strike one of our daughters, he would have an army of angry men and women on his doorstep.This sounds so childish it's sickening.
No, you're talking about soft beat. The title of this thread is about banning the mocking/insulting of a religion.
Perhaps, but not "soft beat" or any other physical attack.
Who decides what "obey" means? Who decides what "nashiz" is?
Let me guess: the husband.
That sounds fair. :sarcastic <------ sarcasm
Draka
Wonder Woman
Argh. There is no freakin such thing as "soft beat"! "Soft" is how you describe something gentle or fluffy. You have soft sweaters. Your daughter's Teddy bear is soft. Your mattress is soft. Hitting is NOT soft! From a light slap to a knockout punch hitting is hitting, beating is beating, abuse is abuse. Stop putting "soft" in front of "beat"! You might as well call a brick fuzzy for as much sense as it makes.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
FTR, 95% of the respondents to the poll are against such restrictive free speech laws.
I think this is a misrepresentation of Islam, and it doesn't seem that the majority of Muslims would agree with your position either. Submission implies one gender's superiority over the other; is that what you are saying — that males are 'superior' to females and so should control them?
Thankfully, the majority of Muslim men don't seem to share that view that has led to the dehumanization and exclusion of women from public life for a long time.
It seems to me that you don't consider women to be equal human beings and therefore feel that you have some kind of privilege to control them. I personally find that idea to be disgusting and vile.
Female tarantulas sometimes eat the males once they're done mating, but somehow I doubt that what happens in nature in that case would be so inspirational to you.
Female tarantulas sometimes eat the males once they're done mating, but somehow I doubt that what happens in nature in that case would be so inspirational to you.
Last edited:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I didn't vote because of the simplistic assumption that one is either 'religious' or 'atheist'. But I'm against such a law. Someone else in the thread said the same thing, I think.