Violence to girls and women.

[daneha]

There's a lot of evidence linking violence towards women via religion, in fact there's a lot more evidence showing links outside of religion.

 

 

I agree, and based on that either God doesn't exist or God is happy for men to beat women in order to keep them in line, I would go with the former.

 

---------- Post added 10-06-2014 at 14:40 ----------

 

 

Once again though you've failed to notice that these figures include the (mostly male) migrant worker populations of these oil rich nations.

 

They simply do not back up the point you are trying to make, not at all. Bounce is right on this one, you are wrong. Sorry.

 

I haven't tried to make a point or failed to notice anything, I have simply provided evidence to counter Bounce's incorrect claim that there are more women than men in Pakistan.

[longleyman]

Probably this will not make for a discussion but I have to make a statement. It makes me sick on reading reports of women and girls being violated,raped and killed in countries where Police stand and watch without taking any action. God! We are in the 21st century.

 

As this action was taking place outside the Lahore high court, could it not have been recorded on CCTV, or perhaps they don't have CCTV. I shudder to imagine the time of 15 minutes it took to stone the woman to death by her family and the police standing and watching the incident for around 15 minutes. It got to me when I saw, in a photo, her crumpled body on the floor.

[skinz]

So just to be clear, you don't think that religion or culture has anything to do with the incidence of violence towards women?

No more than the lack of violence towards men by women through religion. If anything women have a greater defence to reciprocate with violence considering their history as victims without the protection of law..

 

For realsies? Is that your position?

 

Are you suggesting that it's our (Western) culture, religion promoting violence towards women? If not why is violence towards women so prevalent, even though protection through law has improved? You can change culture, you can suppress religion only to find that other concepts will evolve to fulfil man's needs...unless you believe that man isn't fundamentally violent. Religion and culture are concepts designed and evolved by men for men. Wrongly women's involvement is token and tolerated..hence women's rights groups fighting for basic rights, even in the here and now..

 

Or is it just that you think its insignificant?

The significance is men predominantly and overwhelmingly attack women with violence, not words..words are just a tool to justify the violence..

 

Also, how is 'men' a defining factor? You can't get rid of men, you can't change the ratio of men to women. All you can do is try to change men's attitudes which are.... shaped by their culture, upbringing, religious views, and personal traits.

 

And yet the "attitude" still carries on regardless of trying through enlightenment. Changing attitudes IS changing culture and we've been "changing attitudes" for centuries..yet women are still on the receiving end of men's fists.

 

Remember my first words..men, not ALL men...otherwise you and I would be beating our partners, or every Muslim would be cutting their female child as a cultural/religious generalisation...which is preposterous.

[erebus]

Men rape women, girls, children, boys and other men, its a male problem, sexual violence is a male thing, something men do much better than women. So men specialise in sexual violence, and love a bit of violence, in the street, within the family, but best of all in war, where they can really let rip.

 

So sod the facts that men and sexual violence are apparently wedded, the question is not about pointing fingers as we know the main culprits, the question is WHY? Its a global issue, and the silly brigade on here think its religion that causes it, whereas men use religion to gang rape, practice sexual violence as all religions suppress female sexuality to varying degrees.

 

All religions today are the preserve of men. Men wrote the lies, men sold the lies, men justify behaviours through the very words other men wrote.

 

Its a male world with predominant and dominant male values are the norm. It was devised by men to dominate females, through using religious ideology to justify supression of female sexuality. This started almost 2000 years before Islam was invented, like Christianity by males. So religion is and has always been a male construct, and it obliterated all previous female led religions.

 

So wake up the racists, to facts, something most do not like to hear, as it exposes psychopathic tendancies that some try and pretend they do not have.

 

So Why are men sexually violent to women, why is it a universal practice, why do they rape anything they can, including quadrupeds in some cases. So any ideas or does the daily Mail for not provide answers to such taxing questions?

[flamingjimmy]

<snip>

 

If you're going to respond to my post piece by piece like that it would be nice if you actually answered any of the questions I posed to you, instead of just using each as a jumping board to go off on tangents. They were all a rephrasing of the same thing actually, I asked it like three times with different wording. You responded to each individually but at no point actually answered any of them. I'll try again. Just two questions this time, but they're kind of the same one again.

 

So just to be clear, you don't think that religion or culture has anything to do with the incidence of violence towards women?

 

Or is it just that you think that religion and culture are insignificant factors when it comes to violence against women and can therefore be ignored?

 

The reason I've asked again is that I really would appreciate you clarifying your position so i know exactly where you're coming from on this.

 

If you do me the courtesy of answering then I'll come back and make a substantive response to the post I've snipped if you like.

[Baz1]

There is evidence which links Islam to violence against women, it is written in you holy texts and if we assume that the Quran is the word of God, then God must have intended men to be violent against women. So the Quran is either proof that God wants men to be violent against women, or it was written by men that want to justify their violence against women by claiming that it is the will of a non existent God, I would go with the latter.

 

No there is no evidence to link Islam and violence against women- and the Quran would not contradict itself.

 

Both in the Qu'ran and authentic narrations, harshness against women in general is condemned.

 

I don't like to quote verses- but from an Islamic point of view, will do, as it should answer your post.

 

Talking about rights:

"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women."

2:228]

 

On treatment:

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good."

[4:19]

 

Muhammad saying:

"Among my followers the best of men are those who are best to their wives, and the best of women are those who are best to their husbands

 

There is a whole chapter on women in the Qu'ran- actually called Al Nisa (The Women).

 

“Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity.

(Al Nisa)

 

So to state that Islam, via the Qu'ran is a hub for mistreatment of women is a false assertion- you are (like some others) going by the one verse which mentions the (English) word 'beating'. This has always been misconceived by many- non Muslim as well as Muslims.

 

The over riding factor is that Islam does not permit any mistreatment of women in general- both the above verses and Muhammad's narrations and 'seerah' prove this.

 

The word' beat' has often been misquoted and mistranslated- first and foremost it refers to the woman who is rebellious, wicked, deceitful/immoral- and if you read the verse, there are guidelines on how to deal with this. Steps include separating of bed, not speaking etc.

 

It would take a mammoth amount of time and space to explain- and it is no good if someone like you is only coming in to the argument with one view- suggest you look in to some education material if you want to learn- or google Islam and Women.

 

I have come across many like you who possess no Islamic knowledge or any command of Arabic (to even undertand the meaning of Quranic terminology, or have any education of Quranic exegesis).

 

Then these very people try to tell Muslims what and how their religion is!

[daneha]

No there is no evidence to link Islam and violence against women- and the Quran would not contradict itself.

 

Both in the Qu'ran and authentic narrations, harshness against women in general is condemned.

 

I don't like to quote verses- but from an Islamic point of view, will do, as it should answer your post.

 

Talking about rights:

2:228]

 

On treatment:

[4:19]

 

Muhammad saying:

 

 

There is a whole chapter on women in the Qu'ran- actually called Al Nisa (The Women).

 

(Al Nisa)

 

So to state that Islam, via the Qu'ran is a hub for mistreatment of women is a false assertion- you are (like some others) going by the one verse which mentions the (English) word 'beating'. This has always been misconceived by many- non Muslim as well as Muslims.

 

The over riding factor is that Islam does not permit any mistreatment of women in general- both the above verses and Muhammad's narrations and 'seerah' prove this.

 

The word' beat' has often been misquoted and mistranslated- first and foremost it refers to the woman who is rebellious, wicked, deceitful/immoral- and if you read the verse, there are guidelines on how to deal with this. Steps include separating of bed, not speaking etc.

 

It would take a mammoth amount of time and space to explain- and it is no good if someone like you is only coming in to the argument with one view- suggest you look in to some education material if you want to learn- or google Islam and Women.

 

I have come across many like you who possess no Islamic knowledge or any command of Arabic (to even undertand the meaning of Quranic terminology, or have any education of Quranic exegesis).

 

Then these very people try to tell Muslims what and how their religion is!

 

The right to be hit by their husband if they disobey him.

 

http://quran.com/4/34

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

 

 

Which part of God telling men to strike women don't you understand?

Why does God say that men are in charge of women.

Why do women have to obey men?

Why didn't God make men and women equal?

Why didn't God say that women can strike men if men misbehave.

 

The only conclusion I can come to is that God is sexist, or the Quran isn't the word of God but is the word of a sexist man that thought he was superior to women.

[flamingjimmy]

No there is no evidence to link Islam and violence against women- and the Quran would not contradict itself.

 

And that is how a completely closed mind operates, yay for religion.

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2014 at 13:51 ----------

 

The word' beat' has often been misquoted and mistranslated- first and foremost it refers to the woman who is rebellious, wicked, deceitful/immoral- and if you read the verse, there are guidelines on how to deal with this. Steps include separating of bed, not speaking etc.

 

How can women be rebellious, if they are equal partners and not subject to the desires of their husband?

 

You can only rebel against someone or something with authority over you.

 

Where is the verse instructing women what to do when their Husband is rebellious?

 

Also, I would contend that pretty much the only justification for violence is to prevent other violence, so regardless of how rebellious, wicked, decietful/immoral someone's wife had been, it is never OK to hit her for that. That your holy book says it's OK, even under those restricted circumstances, is to me and many other people entirely reprehensible.

[Bounce]

Killing new born baby girls in Pakistan is violence towards girls no matter what the reason.

 

Infanticide can be killing of boys or girls. Female infanticide is the selective killing of girls. When drawing the comparison between India and Pakistan I was talking about Female infanticide which is why your point is meaningless.

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2014 at 13:47 ----------

 

Which part of God telling men to strike women don't you understand?

Why does God say that men are in charge of women.

Why do women have to obey men?

Why didn't God make men and women equal?

Why didn't God say that women can strike men if men misbehave.

 

The only conclusion I can come to is that God is sexist, or the Quran isn't the word of God but is the word of a sexist man that thought he was superior to women.

 

Just out of interest what are your beliefs?

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2014 at 13:59 ----------

 

And that is how a completely closed mind operates, yay for religion.

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2014 at 13:51 ----------

 

 

How can women be rebellious, if they are equal partners and not subject to the desires of their husband?

 

You can only rebel against someone or something with authority over you.

 

Where is the verse instructing women what to do when their Husband is rebellious?

 

Also, I would contend that pretty much the only justification for violence is to prevent other violence, so regardless of how rebellious, wicked, decietful/immoral someone's wife had been, it is never OK to hit her for that. That your holy book says it's OK, even under those restricted circumstances, is to me and many other people entirely reprehensible.

 

To the modern secular athiest/agnostic world view all religions would appear sexist. However there is also just as much male domination and even more sexism in secular modern societies. We live in a male dominated world and always have done. I think your attempt to judge Islam from western liberalist view points is where you're going wrong.

 

If the average guy with no religion came home to find his wife in bed with someone else he would quite rightly display anger and more than likely become physical in some way or another. This is a natural human instinct. Most people who go on about violence in religion seem to forget some of the worst violence and indeed violence towards women have been committed by those without religion.

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2014 at 14:11 ----------

 

Nope It came from here, http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/sex_ratio_total_population_2013_0.html

 

Your figures are not exact numbers they are estimates. The source for the estimates are the CIA world factbook 2013. A quick search of google shows totally different estimates by the same CIA world factbook 2013 to the estimates on the website you have linked to. I also provided you with World Development Bank estimates putting India ahead of all the countries you have listed which you have conveniently chosen to ignore so here they are again.

 

sex ratio estimates by WDB: male to female

 

India 1.08

Qatar 1.04

Bahrain 1.05

Kuwait 1.03

Maldives 1.06

Oman 1.05

UK 1.05

Saudi Arabia 1.03

 

Far from being in the top 7, all lower than India and 3 lower than the UK.

[longleyman]

Infanticide can be killing of boys or girls. Female infanticide is the selective killing of girls. When drawing the comparison between India and Pakistan I was talking about Female infanticide which is why your point is meaningless.

 

Just out of interest what are your beliefs?