No, because the husband raping his wife leads to her getting a divorce (something you keep saying she can do) then the family is ruined. Theres your single parent family and due to an abusive husband who lacks respect for women.
-
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!
Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Violent assault is violent assault.
It is usually proved by witnesses and physical examination.
..and has nothing to do with consent.
As if a piece of paper makes any difference. No piece of paper? Then flogging or execution. Barbaric. Nothing says family values like executing dad for an affair.
My attitude is that marriage is optional and only advantageous for economic and tax purposes. Marriage doesn’t guarantee any fidelity or happiness. One thing for sure, it doesn’t justify rape. Even your system allows divorce so not exactly perfect.
In civilized societies it is zero. Look at a calendar, its the 21st century and your beliefs are lost a thousand years in the past. Time to mature. On the plus side your crimes in the UK won’t lead to cruel punishment or execution, so the law protects you. And the women you don’t think are worthy.
I've been trying to assess that myself with questions to @muhammad_isa, which he either disregards or answers ambiguously by using words atypically (abuse, mistreat, violent).
Here's what we have to work with, and why I'd suggest that his posting means that Muslim men with that attitude are very common. He probably didn't come up with this idea on his own, meaning it is likely a common Muslim teaching. He feels pretty comfortable expressing it, which suggests to me that he has social support for his views - a community that agrees with him and reinforced his beliefs.
I practiced medicine in rural Missouri, where there were several Muslim physicians that I worked with, but they were pretty clannish, and we didn't socialize, so I had no idea what went on in their homes. Now I'm wondering. How many of these men were raping or otherwise manhandling their wives? How many were second-class citizens without rights in their own homes, and nobody knew, because they don't talk about it?
Anecdote. When it my time to go off to university, Dad recommended I get a remote-controlled zipper for my pants to make my dating life easier. When my younger sister's time came, he pointed to her lap and told her, "If I hear that you're using that thing for anything other than to pee out of, I'm coming after you."
You're moving the goalpost. We're talking about husbands forcing sex on unwilling wives. And I'll bet that your definition of abuse changes when applied to a man versus a woman.
There is no other side to the story when rape occurs.
Agreed. I'm a humanist and you're a Muslim. We seem to agree on very little.
That's MY culture, but apparently not yours.
OK. So what? This whole family thing (meaning child rearing) is a red herring from the religions looking for a role for themselves in our lives. It's what they can address, but it just isn't important to most of us including most of those families. They care about paying the bills, not what fraction of their neighbors are two-parent households with children.
And more religion won't help those people. It never does, but the argument is made time and again anyway despite the absence of supporting evidence. I come from such a home. My parents divorced when I was 4, and my mother raised my sister and me. We both did fine, becoming productive members of our communities.
Furthermore, apparently, they are the minority of households - 40%. These are American numbers: "The percentage of U.S. families with their own children under 18 in the household declined from 2002 to 2022. In 2002, 48% of all families lived with their own children under 18, compared to 43% in 2012 and 40% in 2022." source
And apparently, 1/3 of households have just one person living in them. From the same source: "There were 37.9 million one-person households, 29% of all U.S. households in 2022. In 1960, single-person households represented only 13% of all households."
The institution of marriage doesn't prevent rape.
I think you have your own definition of seduce here, too. Let me guess. If she looks like a woman, she's a seductress. If her husband experiences lust, it was because she cast some kind of spell on him and stripped him of whatever self-control he might have had.
Neither is the rape of their mother by their father.
You're making a case against marriage if you think it ought to give the husband the right to rape his wife. Why would any woman want to be such a relationship? To have children? You don't need to be married to do that. To have a husband? She's better off never getting married than marrying a man who feels that he has the right to rape her.
It's an option. And what's in it for the woman if she cannot be an equal in the marriage?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Oh, I dunno .. if I were a woman, I would like to be a queen.
..not just get inseminated, and have to worry about paying all the bills.
Why is it our nature?
That is something to think about.
Are you immoral?
I don't see myself as immoral.
“Immoral” isn’t something you are or are not. It’s not a characteristic of people but of actions. Everyone performs immoral acts on occasion. (“For all have sinned and fallen short”, etc. etc.) Yet, immorality is an attribute of the occasional actions of a man which attribute, because of its inapplicability, cannot be transferred to the man, except by the impractical idealist.
The husband is guilty of rape if he forces her to have sex when she doens't want it.
HE was the one that acted against the institution of marriage by desecrating it.
The mere concept that only one sex wears the trousers is repugnant.
No, it certainly has not. Most people get married in the west.
It depends. If the husband is abusive, then the 2 parent family is less desirable than a single parent family.
So if he is abusive to his wife (by forcing her into sex she doesn't want), the only punishment for *that* is that he will die lonely?
That sounds like a repulsive system to me.
If they force *any* woman (whether or not she is their wife) into having sex, then they *are* a rapist.What are you trying to say .. that more and more men are becoming rapists?
Is that what is happening to society?
Let's hope that more and more men learn to respect women and NOT rape them.
Nobody says they do it because they are Muslim. But according to you, Islam fails to condemn those husbands who rape their wives. And that is a problem.
So what actions have you done that you see as immoral?
Myself I see as amoral, meaning I don't believe that there exist a universal moral standard.
So someone could see my actions as immoral but I don't see them that way.
For example I occasionally see lying as good behavior. IOW when I lie it is not bad behavior.
I don't steal. I mean maybe their might be times I'd see it as good to steal, or at least I could imagine circumstances were I'd see stealing as good.
I don't really count what happens before people are 20yo. People's brains are not fully mature before then.
At some point people mature and stop bad behavior. Maybe not everyone but some do.
Unless you count something someone did when they were young. Do you think a person does one or two things wrong when they were young and that makes them immoral for life or can they just stop doing immoral actions at some point?
Then you would avoid Muslim men who have your learned attitudes that disrespect women.Oh, I dunno .. if I were a woman, I would like to be a queen.
Then you had better not marry a Muslim man that has your interpretation of the Quran, as she would have no such freedom from being raped and perhaps impregnated against her will. It would be hard to be forced to give birth, get divorced, and find work to pay the bills. Better to find a man, even an atheist, who respects women and sees tham as a life partner to cooperate with, not a slave that you suggest has the right to divorce. Somehow I find your claim about this dubious. Women don't have the right to deny sex from their husband but have the right to divorce?
To out of curiosity forget about Islam/religion,
Is it wrong for a man to force his wife to have sex if she doesn't want to in your opinion?
Last edited:
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
That is correct.
The Qur'an is explicit about men not keeping wives against their will.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Yes. It is not cherishing and loving your wife to behave like that.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Personally, I find the idea that men behave like women, and women behave like men
more repugnant.
There’s the rub…the “fifty thousand dollar question”. Philosophers have been asking this for thousands of years, and nobody has come up with a verifiable answer. I have my own theories, based largely in human psychology, sociobiology and evolutionary theory. My thoughts are, briefly, as follow.
We are mammals, particularly social mammals. We have inherited the nucleus of our psyche, that part which predates the higher, idealistic mind, (what Freud called the “id”) from our mammalian ancestors. If you observe our cousin social mammals long enough, you will see that there appear to be three imperatives that control most of their behavior. Those are, in order of importance: the imperative to survive, the imperative to continuance through breeding, and the imperative to enjoy and exhibit status and dominance within the group (to be the “Alpha”). As one would expect of a descendant, it is so with man, as well. It is the third of those imperatives, buried deep within each human id, that impels man to most of his immoral behavior. If you think about it, most of modern human desires, be it for attractiveness, physical strength, greater intelligence, wealth, or whatever else, are aimed at rendering social dominance to the individual person, which he hopes to pass on to his progeny by breeding well. We humans do immoral things in service to our mammalian id, which instructs us that this or that is imperative. Now, we are not always acting immorally, if fact we generally do not surrender ourselves to the commission of immoral acts because our brains have developed well beyond that of our animal forebears. We now have developed a brain capable of producing another, different aspect of the human psyche: the idealistic “superego” portion of our psyche, which serves to counter the instructions of the primitive id, and this allows us to avoid immorality most of the time. The naturally selective pressure which led to this evolution of the human brain is, obviously, because such a psych facilitated living communally within an increasingly crowded world.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What does that mean?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I was replying to @Polymath257 , with his criticism of my stereotyping of men and women.
..taken to extreme, we have political correctness that girls should play with tin soldiers,
and boys play with dressing up barbie dolls.