Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    He made many, but his belittlement of Ruby's cause is the exact reason why feminists in Pakistan do not need many of the people who replied to this thread on their side (if they even are). So it in fact proved my point on what I said about them earlier.
    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? )
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    For a girl struggling for change and risking her life the last thing she needs is to be told "nothing is going to change because your country is such and such" by a patronising outsider.
    "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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    If you are talking about the god of Islam, then you can.

    1. Allah is perfect and infallible.
    2. Allah wrote the Quran.
    3. Therefore, the Quran must be perfect (ie. cannot be improved in any way).
    4. The Quran is not perfect.
    5. Therefore it was not written by Allah
    6. Therefore the god it describes does not exist.
    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.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.
    The husband/owner gets to unwrap it (although thinking about it, I'm not sure if slaves are required to cover up).
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    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.
    The Quran is demonstrably imperfect. Any statement therein that has more than one interpretation can be improved by removing the ambiguity.
    More specifically, in 86:7, I would have said that sperm originate in the testes (there is a specific Arabic word for them), rather than a non-specific area in the lower torso.

    So, there it is. The Quran improved.
    Therefore it cannot be perfect.
    Therefore it is not the work of Allah.
    Therefore Islam is not true.
    Therefore the god it describes does not exist.

    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.
    :confused:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    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.


    The Qur'an is about as perfect as Muhammed is educated.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)

    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Simple argument against the religious parties involved in Pakistan is that the people who argue against this bill are themselves being un-Islamic for 1. Not protecting the rights of women 2. Being divided into factions and parties, so they shouldn't exist in the first place.
    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.
    (Original post by Ascend)

    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Simple argument against the religious parties involved in Pakistan is that the people who argue against this bill are themselves being un-Islamic for 1. Not protecting the rights of women 2. Being divided into factions and parties, so they shouldn't exist in the first place.
    Would you support a law in any Muslim-majority or Islamic state that prohibits men from physically disciplining women in any way?
    Are we to take your silence on this as a no?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    Show me where anyone said you shouldn't? If you read my posts from the beginning you would see that I was opposed to opportunists who turned this into a ranting arena on a different topic as opposed to sticking to the subject matter at hand. If you read hers you would see that she is taking issue with people mocking what is the reality for a sizeable number of women in her country. And if you read her post history it would become obvious why she would take an issue to such a things. Funny how supposed champions for women's rights let this go unchallenged.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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? )
    Read my replied to "Good Bloke" and "BaconandSauce", I do not like repeating myself.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    "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.

    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?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    You're going off on a tangent. I want to know who on this thread besides the Muslim apologists said that you should not criticise a religion or an ideology, not what some Muslims in other parts of the world would do. Can you show a quote which indicates how either of us took an issue with "people criticising and opposing the ideology"?

    It was clear from her posts and mine that we were against those who pretend to care about women's rights mocking real issues that women in some countries go through. Not only that but all of this was going unchallenged by pretty much everyone else. People were very good at destroying every argument brought by Muslim apologists and said all that needed to be said yet there was complete silence from these same people when certain users made those distasteful jokes.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Read my replied to "Good Bloke" and "BaconandSauce", I do not like repeating myself.
    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.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    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?
    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!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    Where did I call them "explanations"? I already made it clear that I do not feel the need to "explain" myself and am not answering to anyone. I simply challenged his patronising tone and stated why.

    The third paragraph you are asking about is an example of such insincerity. And your rants about moderate Muslims not doing enough to unite against terrorism is guilt by association, is it not? If it's such a fallacy then why do you do it? Is this hypocrisy or do you not even realise that you contradict yourself? The same way you like to rant about the silence from Muslims on issues within their communities, I was questioning why some people here are happy to stay silent about questionable individuals who are supposedly supporting the same cause as them. I quoted the post from the start, did you miss it or did you wilfully overlook it? It's post number #180.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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!
    Where was this "vague" comment about not attacking the ideology? Seems that you are prepared to make excuses and overlook everything distasteful coming from those with views who you happen to agree with, yet when someone that makes a comment that you do not agree with you'll read in between lines and twist what they said without evidence.

    Yes, it's a free debate forum. So I am just as free to voice my disagreement with posts that I disagree with.

    Where did I say anything about what Ruby needed? I mentioned one thing that the girl probably does not need (not the same thing) because it was the opposite of being supportive (and she already stated that what she needs is support). I have experienced patronising outsiders firsthand while living in a heavily patriarchal country, people who thought that they were such do-gooders and knew better than the local feminists. So I am more than familiar with the mentality of selfish altruism and it is one that I despise very much. I felt I was stating the obvious.

    The point I was making was that she had already stated her opinion, most of which was dismissed. So how supportive people who just brush away most of what she said?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.