It seems to me that it is all about authority. Women despising men, and refusing to obey them
Women have no need to obey men, including the men that they love, and men have no authority over women that women don't give them. Your holy books and clergy say otherwise, but they're for you and anybody else willing to submit to them. The whole concept is primitive. You might as well be wearing animal skins and clubbing your wives.
I've watched a few reruns of The Honeymooner's lately. Ralph gives Alice orders, and she scoffs at him. She's a modern woman and he's with you, that her proper place is to obey him, which is what makes it funny.
I think that the concept of "respect" is lost on some people.. They seem to think that they only have to respect people "if they've earnt it".
We use the word to mean more than one thing. There is respect that one earns by being human, which is automatic but can be lost, such as respecting a person enough to be polite to them. This is different from respect earned by meeting some standard, which must be earned. So, one of these is earned, the other a default position.
rebellion against God and husband, cannot bring success and contentment.
I can falsify that with a counterexample. What you call rebellion has brought me and my wife contentment. We don't give orders to one another, and we have no god or religion. We're atheistic humanists.
You wouldn't need forum rules, if you had respect for God.
You have respect for the god you believe exists (why not G-d this time?) Didn't you say that the mods have corrected you a few times?
If you think that I said such a thing, you have completely misunderstood me.
That was in response to, "He further proclaimed that wives not complying with spousal rape was an example of this "immorality," which was directed at a poster new to the thread. You don't call what you describe rape, but others do including the law where you live, and that is likely why he chose that word.
I assume that people bashing me on that topic are purposely misconstruing what I am saying
People understand you clearly, and nobody is misrepresenting you except you.
I think that we would probably find Muhammad a less chauvinistic or misogynistic man than would be assumed by a reading hereof.
Probably, if we only went by his spoken words, which I presume would be much different face-to-face than what we read here, but maybe he'd be as frank then as here. My judgment of him like everybody else commenting is based in his expressed opinions, without which I'd have no reason to judge him negatively.
I highly doubt that Muhammad believes that husbands should be able to rape their wives without consequence.
He does, only he doesn't call nonconsensual sex rape unless there bruising or bleeding. His values maybe reprehensible, and his use of language private, but I believe that he has been sincere in the expression of those values. As Maya Angelou famously said, “When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.” I think she meant believe them when they show you themselves unflatteringly.
I assume that he is part of a Muslim community. You know as well as I do the doctrinal position taken within Islam on this. For him to express whatever inner misgivings he might harbor would be tantamount to causing an initial psychological separation between himself and the Ummah. Most Muslims keep any misgivings that they have to themselves.
So you think his religion teaches him things about which he may have misgivings, but pressures him to remain silent? That's credible with any Abrahamic theist, but he doesn't conceal his misgivings, which aren't about Islam, but about secular society and atheism. It's not hard to tell what does and what does not bother him, and I don't think he is trying to conceal it. He just wants it accepted on RF.
