Women Protection Bill protested by religious leaders as 'un-Islamic'

I don't even think the sweet analogy makes much sense considering that you have to unwrap a sweet to eat it. No one buys sweets to keep them in their wrapper indefinitely.

To prove your unsubstantiated claim that God doesn't exist, you make another unsubstantiated claim that the Quran is imperfect; would have expected better from you.

Anyways, it's best to get back on topic because I don't want you to be reported by anyone for being off-topic because it seemed it upset you quite a lot for impinging on your human rights last time.

To prove your unsubstantiated claim that God doesn't exist, you make another unsubstantiated claim that the Quran is imperfect; would have expected better from you.

Anyways, it's best to get back on topic because I don't want you to be reported by anyone for being off-topic because it seemed it upset you quite a lot for impinging on your human rights last time.

Their argument is that the new law would remove aspects of sharia law which they support - the ability to physically chastise women. Why don't you condemn them and support the women? They look pretty united, to me, on this matter.

Would you support a law in any Muslim-majority or Islamic state that prohibits men from physically disciplining women in any way?

It is entirely possible, and reasonable, to both support the struggle of the oppressed, and at the same time oppose the ideology that is causing the oppression. In fact, it is kinda pointless doing one without doing the other.

Where did he "belittle" her cause, exactly?
He commented on the unhelpful attitude of some people towards the problem, and the perceived cause of that unhelpfulness.

And could you explain where it was "patronising", while you're at it?

Finally, explain what the "ulterior motives" of these people who you would rather not have on Ruby's side, are.
(BTW, don't you think it's a little patronising to be telling Pakistani feminists who they need and don't need on their side? )

"The last thing she needs"? Really? And there you go again, actually patronising her by telling her what she does and doesn't need. From her post, it sounds like she's more than capable of figuring that out for herself .

He didn't say "nothing is going to change because...", he said "the situation will continue while...", two very different concepts. Yours denies the possibility of change. His explains the changes that need to be made in order for change to happen.
At least GoodBloke's comment addressed the reality of the situation. Any real progress requires a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between state and religion. To claim otherwise is to deny reality. All you seem to be doing is "throwing her a bone" of support without actually considering what the issue involves. You seem more concerned with sniping at other people on here and airing your "holier than thou" liberal feminist credentials. It's not a competition, you know.

Show me where anyone said you shouldn't?

There are plenty of people who will attempt to claim that violence against women in Islamic countries is nothing to do with Islam.

Both your, and Ruby's posts were taking issue with people criticising and opposing the ideology that is partly the cause of such violence, rather than, well, I'm not sure what actually? What is it that you think that we should be doing?

Look, I know that you think that people who criticise Islamic ideology are bigots, but you simply can't address this issue without addressing the nature of some passages in the Quran and sunnah that relate to women.

Read my replied to "Good Bloke" and "BaconandSauce", I do not like repeating myself.

Again I already addressed this in my replies to him and will not repeat myself. I am sure that Pakistani feminists are more aware than anyone else of the obstacles that they face and how to promote change in their own country, would you not agree? So why on Earth would they need random Westerners on an online forum telling them what needs to be done?

Sorry, but your "explanations" didn't really seem to explain anything.
You attacked a straw man. (I seem to remember you having a penchant for this) and you failed to expand on what the "ulterior motives" that some of us have, are.

You also went on to claim that many of the atheists here are "Insincere". Care to expand on that little assertion?

You addad "a thread in which people joke about domestic abuse against "other" women". Who was joking about domestic abuse? Could you post a link? And if someone did (and I missed it) why is this a legitimate complaint against everyone else. I'm sure you're well aware of the fallacy of guilt by association.

Well, this is an open debate forum. The discussion was going along the lines of the underlying ideology that is responsible for the attitudes that leads to much of the violence against women.

Ruby decides to make a comment about the work she is doing in that area (I'd better not say that I support her or I'll just get another tongue lashing from you), and makes a somewhat vague point about not attacking the ideology.

Others, already involved in the ongoing discussion, respond to her post with what they consider to be pertinent and appropriate comments, this being a free debate forum, after all.

You then jump down people's throats and accuse them of everything from being patronising (which was ironic because you telling us all what Ruby needed), to being insincere, half-baked, shoddy, and having unspecified "ulterior motives". You even have a go at school-building programmes FFS! (What was that all about?)

To top it all off, after a string of posts telling us what Ruby needs and doesn't need, you wreck my recently repaired ACME Irony-o-Meter™ by glibly saying "I'm sure that Ruby can speak for herself"!

I seem to remember out previous discussions going a similar way. Lots of straw men and non-sequiturs with a generous helping of suggestions of bigotry and the like, and an underlying sense of smug superiority.

I look forward to our next encounter!