Feedback on the Islam forum.

Hobbes

Fuhrer wrote: »

You cant even correct anyone who is quite clearly lying without Hobbes giving you an infraction.

As far as I recall I have only given you one infraction which asked you to follow the charter regarding quoting the Koran out of context. You had also cut and pasted the quotes straight from an anti-Islam site.

So you broke two rules of the charter, yet you were not banned, only asked to follow the forum rules. Neither did you incur any infraction points, and your post still remains in the forum.

Is that heavy handed?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

looksee

There was a longish discussion a little while ago - I can't find it now - because some RC posters wanted a site where they could discuss Catholicism without anyone disagreeing with them. The concensus seemed to be that this was unreasonable and they could not have it. (I agree with that attitude). How is that different from the Islam forum being allowed to have a forum where no-one can disagree?

Hobbes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See this is where we suffer with out of context. Reading the whole thing, he isn't saying that it is acceptable to beat your wife at any point. What he is saying is that if a person was to beat their wife, then the marriage is over (and probably has been for a long time). He also pointed out if such an incident happens his wife would divorce him and would be well within her rights in Islam to do so.

And personally I agree with that. If someone has resorted to violence in a marriage, it is no longer a marriage, and it is better the abused person gets out sooner then later.

Of course people with a beef with Islam quote 2-3 lines from the Koran and use that as an argument, totally ignoring the full context, the history and the current interpretation of Imans around the world.

They also continue this every few months, even after the subject has been debated in full.

Hobbes

Seriously my last post on this thread and to put the whole thing in context

I went back and checked a number of things. There is a misconception that the Islam forum is heavy handed. This is totally false.

1. The number of people banned since Feb is 7 people total temp banned. Of that.

4 = Anti-Muslim posts.
1 = Anti-Catholic posts.
1 = Frequently warned to stop breaking the charter.
1 = Spammer.

There are other forums on boards, who have banned more in a day then the Islam forum has in a couple of months.

2. The last time we had a similar blow up on the forum (in feedback) was over a year ago. If you go back and check, you will see it is the same handful of people who have an issue with Islam, complaining. Before that another 2 years or so. (all posts, infractions, bans, etc are still in the system).

3. The handful of people who are unhappy. Not because they are being stopped from writing what they like on boards.ie, but because they believe a forum charter, that everyone follows needs to be rewritten for them, so they can attack peoples beliefs.

4. At no point does IC condone violence. He actually says he would not do it. In fact if you go through the forum posts you will see he says this more then once, even over a year ago when the same handful of complainers brought the exact same subject up before.

5. I did a check on megathread suggestion and I don't think it will work (but that is just me). I see a thread from a few weeks ago people were complaining that they were only allowed to dissent in the megathread and not the forum.

Lastly, I am not Muslim. I am not any religion and I don't intend to convert to any. I will defend a persons right to speak their mind (even dlofnep).

But I will also defend a communities right to thrive and not to have to suffer attacks that would destroy that community. Even if I do not agree with that community.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Hobbes wrote: »

See this is where we suffer with out of context. Reading the whole thing, he isn't saying that it is acceptable to beat your wife at any point. What he is saying is that if a person was to beat their wife, then the marriage is over (and probably has been for a long time). He also pointed out if such an incident happens his wife would divorce him and would be well within her rights in Islam to do so.

And personally I agree with that. If someone has resorted to violence in a marriage, it is no longer a marriage, and it is better the abused person gets out sooner then later.

And it is - and this is the vital point - illegal and entirely unacceptable. Not "a last resort" - illegal and entirely unacceptable. "I wouldn't do it myself" and "my wife would divorce me" aren't defences against a charge of condoning an illegal action.

You could equally well say that it's clear a marriage has broken down if you're at the stage of murdering your spouse - and describing that as "a last resort" is the stuff of satirical shows.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hobbes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What part of quoting out of context did people not understand?

He is actually stating Islams comment regards to hitting your wife, not his personal opinion. It was after that people started goading him to try and find out when he would hit his wife, and the answer was he wouldn't.

You might not agree with Islams stance on it (I certainly don't), but people wanted the clarification. They got it. End of story.

However, moderators are infracting posters who simply quote such statements and say "I can't believe what I'm reading."

After an earlier post warning people to get back on topic. Ignored the warning, got an infraction for doing so. If a moderator tells you to stop doing something in a thread, and you continue, then action is taken.

dashboard_hula

Dav wrote: »

I'd like to just leave a note to say I'm actually in discussions with the mods of the forum and their CMods about how it ticks and all the rest, so its entirely possible that may result in some changes. I'm not hugely familiar with how the forum ticks, so I need to learn that first in order to make a fair assessment of it. So I'd greatly appreciate it if people kept that in mind when they post here. This isn't a thread for talking about what you agree or disagree with in terms of the Islamic Faith, this is here to talk about the Boards.ie Forum and they are two very, very different things.

So with that in mind, please carry on folks.

As an aside, dlofnep, why feel the need to "attack" anything? Why not just debate against it? Choice of language sets tone and tone sets the flow of a thread and when one party on a thread is "under attack" then they "fight back" rather than debate. Just a thought worth keeping in mind...

Part of boards terms and conditions of use state that illegal acts are not to be encouraged, discussed or condoned. If the specific wording is required, I'll dig it out.

Physical violence towards women in Ireland is illegal. The Islam forum is hosted on an Irish forum, in Ireland, subject to Irish law. My opinion is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if the Islam forum wish to maintain their own standards for discourse which are considerably tighter and less tolerant of debate than other religious fora, then they should ban any discussions of physical violence towards women as acceptable, normal or part of every day life. It doesn't matter that it's part of the Islamic religion, it is not part of our legal system, boards.ie abides by Irish law and that should override religious considerations.

I would also note that Christianity itself has had at least as much crap thrown at it lately as Islam, and yet the Christianity forums are able to absorb and manage debate and frustration and emotive subjects far better than the Islam forum, because they have adapted to deal with the topics instead of outright refusing them airtime.

-Chris-

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Part of boards terms and conditions of use state that illegal acts are not to be encouraged, discussed or condoned. If the specific wording is required, I'll dig it out.

Physical violence towards women in Ireland is illegal. The Islam forum is hosted on an Irish forum, in Ireland, subject to Irish law. My opinion is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if the Islam forum wish to maintain their own standards for discourse which are considerably tighter and less tolerant of debate than other religious fora, then they should ban any discussions of physical violence towards women as acceptable, normal or part of every day life. It doesn't matter that it's part of the Islamic religion, it is not part of our legal system, boards.ie abides by Irish law and that should override religious considerations.

I would also note that Christianity itself has had at least as much crap thrown at it lately as Islam, and yet the Christianity forums are able to absorb and manage debate and frustration and emotive subjects far better than the Islam forum, because they have adapted to deal with the topics instead of outright refusing them airtime.

I doubt Dav needs reminding on the rules of posting on boards tbh...



Also, there's a massive between difference between the questions:
Does Islam allow men to beat their wives?
Does the poster who factually answers "Does Islam allow men to beat their wives?", condone wife beating?
Does boards.ie condone wife beating by allowing a poster to factually answer the question "does Islam allow men to beat their wives"?

That distinction is pivotal to the whole discussion tbh. A factual discussion of what's allowed and disallowed in Islam is not the same as condoning or encouraging those practices.

dashboard_hula

-Chris- wrote: »

I doubt Dav needs reminding on the rules of posting on boards tbh...



Also, there's a massive between difference between the questions:
Does Islam allow men to beat their wives?
Does the poster who states "men are allowed to beat their wives under Islam", condone wife beating?
Does boards.ie condone wife beating by allowing a poster to factually answer the question "does Islam allow men to beat their wives"?

That distinction is pivotal to the whole discussion tbh. A factual discussion of what's allowed and disallowed in Islam is not the same as condoning or encouraging those practices.

I wasn't reminding Dav of the rules, I was opening my post. As he stated himself, this discussion isn't about the ins and outs of the Islamic faith, which is why I wanted to speak about boards.ie rules and regulations themselves.

My point was that: "they should ban any discussions of physical violence towards women as acceptable, normal or part of every day life." This issue is a part of the Islamic religion, I don't deny it or want to ban discussion of it. What I do feel however is that it should be acknowledged that just like filesharing for instance, it is a practice that is illegal in Ireland.

-Chris-

dashboard_hula wrote: »

I wasn't reminding Dav of the rules, I was opening my post. As he stated himself, this discussion isn't about the ins and outs of the Islamic faith, which is why I wanted to speak about boards.ie rules and regulations themselves.

My point was that: "they should ban any discussions of physical violence towards women as acceptable, normal or part of every day life." This issue is a part of the Islamic religion, I don't deny it or want to ban discussion of it. What I do feel however is that it should be acknowledged that just like filesharing for instance, it is a practice that is illegal in Ireland.

Where have you ever seen someone say that it was legal (and not instantly be "corrected" by a million angry posters)?

dashboard_hula

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74123971&postcount=50

Last resort still implies that it's a viable resort. Which in Ireland it isn't. Again this comes down to:

Discussion of Islam that includes this practice falls under the remit of discussing an illegal act. Boards can choose whether or not to allow it, and it is completely up to them, however in all situations (file sharing etc) boards does at least make their position clear in either forum charters or terms and conditions.

My overall point though is not to jump on that one particular topic (although yeah, it does anger me), it's to point out that if the Islam forum find it necessary to keep up the stricter rules on acceptable discussion then the Islam forum should also accept that certain things need to be acknowledged as part of the religion only, and if it does upset people to see statements like that made by IrishConvert above, they should acknowledge that it's an emotive subject and allow for frank conversation instead of closing up shop entirely.

Hobbes

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Last resort still implies that it's a viable resort.

Again, out of context. He is referring to the rules in Islam. Not his personal opinion, nor does he condone that. You also failed to quote the part where Islam actually allows the woman to divorce/report it. But it is easier to ignore that when you quote out of context.

dashboard_hula

Hobbes wrote: »

Again, out of context. He is referring to the rules in Islam. Not his personal opinion, nor does he condone that. You also failed to quote the part where Islam actually allows the woman to divorce/report it. But it is easier to ignore that when you quote out of context.

No, not out of context. It would have been out of context if I stated that the user thinks that hitting his wife is acceptable and that's illegal and how dare he. He didn't and I didn't.

My statement and opinion is that for instance:

"I stress that hitting a wife is to be regarded is a last resort. Also, it's illegal" is a better acknowledgement of the situation than "I stress that hitting a wife is to be regarded is a last resort."

To be fair, I understand that what I'm stating might come across as nitpicking in the extreme. However, I still stand by my point that if the Islamic forum wish to maintain their own preferred standards for discussion, which do not permit robust and healthy debate from all angles, that is your decision. I won't participate because I don't want to in those circumstances, but I'll pick up my toys and go elsewhere. But an acknowledgement of the differences between Islamic doctrine and civil law would be considerate.

And not to deflect from the original topic, which is widening the rules on regards debate, but the second thing I said was that the Christianity forum had managed to run the gauntlet of highly emotional threads without imploding, why isn't it possible on the Islam forum?

coffee_cake

Hobbes wrote: »

Again, out of context. He is referring to the rules in Islam. Not his personal opinion, nor does he condone that. You also failed to quote the part where Islam actually allows the woman to divorce/report it. But it is easier to ignore that when you quote out of context.

Being allowed to report physical assault doesn't make the assault any less illegal in the first place.

Scofflaw

Hobbes wrote: »

Again, out of context. He is referring to the rules in Islam. Not his personal opinion, nor does he condone that. You also failed to quote the part where Islam actually allows the woman to divorce/report it. But it is easier to ignore that when you quote out of context.

As has been pointed out, it's not being quoted out of context. The full context doesn't make those posts any less of a problem - at no point does irishconvert allude to the illegality or repugnance of the act, and the "last resort" appears to be his unsupported personal opinion.

I don't see any problem describing that as condoning the act. The best one could say is that irishconvert would probably be more disapproving of someone who had used it as a first resort rather than a last one.

To allow that to stand, while infracting posters who expresses their disapproval of it, I regard as unacceptable.

regards,
Scofflaw

-Chris-

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Last resort still implies that it's a viable resort. Which in Ireland it isn't. Again this comes down to:

Discussion of Islam that includes this practice falls under the remit of discussing an illegal act. Boards can choose whether or not to allow it, and it is completely up to them, however in all situations (file sharing etc) boards does at least make their position clear in either forum charters or terms and conditions.

I'm just wondering, if he had said "I stress that hitting a wife is to be regarded is a last resort for a muslim.", would that have made a difference?

If he had said "I stress that hitting a wife is to be regarded is a last resort for a muslim, where local laws permit it", would that have been acceptable?

I also don't want to get bogged down in this one question, but I'm curious to get your take on it.

Hobbes

As has been pointed out, it's not being quoted out of context.

It is if you are not taking the whole thread into account.

bluewolf wrote: »

Being allowed to report physical assault doesn't make the assault any less illegal in the first place.

Then report it, although TBH I have no clue what you are talking about.

I said was that the Christianity forum had managed to run the gauntlet of highly emotional threads without imploding, why isn't it possible on the Islam forum?

I guess you missed my earlier post pointing out that the level of people banned is minute compared to other forums, that we don't get a lot of hassle nor explosions except from a small handful of the same people every few months. The last time we had this kind of thread here was over a year ago, and it was the usual people complaining. The forum has it fair share of emotional threads.

But clearly no amount of pointing that out is going to change your opinion vs reality. So I am done here.

dashboard_hula

-Chris- wrote: »

I'm just wondering, if he had said "I stress that hitting a wife is to be regarded is a last resort for a muslim.", would that have made a difference?

If he had said "I stress that hitting a wife is to be regarded is a last resort for a muslim, where local laws permit it", would that have been acceptable?

I also don't want to get bogged down in this one question, but I'm curious to get your take on it.

I partly wish that I had chosen to make a more general instead of specific point, as it does seem like I'm picking on that particular poster, and I'm really not. I'm picking on the statement that he made, which is true and factually correct. In Islam, hitting your wife is to be regarded as a last resort. However, it is still an acceptable practice in Islam, and it is not an acceptable practice in Irish law. I'm not even stating Irish culture, because that's a whole other pile of trouble, but Irish law.
I don't want people to pepper their posts with "....but that's illegal, as we all know" or ".....we won't get into that because it's illegal". But, when I look at posts in any forum, on any subject that state that in certain circumstances, it's okay to hit me, then yes, my back is going to go right up. And some acknowledgement from the people running the forum that while it is part of their religion, it is also unequivocally not acceptable in this country would go a long way towards perhaps me (or others) engaging in what's a really interesting topic for me. Unless the forum doesn't want that, in which case, I've given my feedback and I'll bugger off somewhere else for discussions on Islam.

Hobbes wrote: »

It is if you are not taking the whole thread into account.



Then report it, although TBH I have no clue what you are talking about.



I guess you missed my earlier post pointing out that the level of people banned is minute compared to other forums, that we don't get a lot of hassle nor explosions except from a small handful of the same people every few months. The last time we had this kind of thread here was over a year ago, and it was the usual people complaining. The forum has it fair share of emotional threads.

But clearly no amount of pointing that out is going to change your opinion vs reality. So I am done here.

No, it's not my opinion versus reality. It's my opinion versus your opinion. I hate it when feedback threads get ratty, and I have done my level best to be impersonal in all of my posts, but comments like that do not help.

It boils down to what another poster said above: Is Islam a religious forum, or is it a forum about that religion? If it's a religious forum, grand, thanks for your time, but make it clear. If it's a forum about that religion then the rules should mirror the Christianity forum in the freedom that users have to give their opinion (and to have it handed right back to them if necessary).

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Scofflaw wrote: »

To allow that to stand, while infracting posters who expresses their disapproval of it, I regard as unacceptable.

I think as a way forward that quite a few of those infractions should be removed from posters profiles. People naturally expressing surprise at some of the statements(many by a moderator) were slapped with red cards, yet another poster who goes on about "homos" destroying the family(among other things) gets a yellow card and that yellow card took it's time coming. This is simply unfair. End of. Mistakes were made and that's cool, we ALL make them, but some effort to rectify them should be in evidence. If they remain, then Scofflaws "unacceptable" covers it very well.

If we're in a situation where the ethos of this site and those charged with upholding it, from mods cmods to admins are OK to let otherwise good posters get punished defending the rights of women not to be struck in marriage, hell even expressing surprise that this may be OK then that's a pretty large fcuking shark that has been jumped. I reckon quite a few Muslims would agree with me too.

*CORRECTION* It's been pointed out to me that the poster who got the yellow card got it a few minutes after he posted. I got confused by his earlier post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74147620&postcount=70 where he was first in with the "homo" reference that was missed..

irishconvert

dlofnep wrote: »

One thread in question was discussed the concerns of one poster who was worried that her homosexual brother might be outcast, after her sister married into Islam and that her role would be subservient.

When I highlighted that intolerance of homosexuality and subservience was high in Islam and that my cousin was treated as subservient in her marriage and beaten routinely, I was accused of stating that all Muslims were wife-beaters, despite the fact that prior to the accusation I had expanded on my post to clarify that I did not think that all muslims beat their wife, but rather that it was permitted to hit one's wife in Islam.

I personally feel that IrishConvert is incapable of moderating the Islam forum in a fair and balanced manner, and that the Islam forum as a whole is intolerant to valid and meaningful criticism.

I'm sure some will agree, and some will disagree - But let's at least have a debate and resolve this once and for all.

Thanks.

Ok, can i ask you all to tell me what you think dlofnep meant in his respose to the OP's post, in particular the part I have bolded:

dlofnep wrote: »

Women are most certainly treated as subservient to men in Islam.



Intolerance towards homosexuality in Islam is also high. Many Islamic states proscribe from lengthy prison spells to the death penalty for those found guilty of homosexuality.

Qur'an 4:34: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard."

She should not have to convert for him. Your fears are well justified. My cousin recently moved back to Ireland from England. She was married to a Muslim, and he beat her routinely and treated her like an animal. She was expected to be subservient to his every need.

My reading of this is that dlofnep's cousin was beaten by her husband and treated like an animal, therefore his opinion is beating and treating wifes like animals is common practise by Muslim men. This is a wild generalisation of Muslim men and one I find very insulting. It is equivalent to me saying my cousin was married to an Irishman, he regularly came home drunk and sexually abused his kids, therefore people should be very careful about marrying Irishmen. Totally unacceptable.

What do YOU think the bolded part of his post means?

Rev Hellfire

I think it implies that Muslim men feel it is permissible to beat their wives, which is strangely familiar.

irishconvert

Scofflaw wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whooooooah, if you guys are going to resort to tabloid style debate and quoting me out of context, then I have no time for you. At no stage did I condone wife beating. I was answering questions on Islamic Teaching. As I stated on thread, I don't hit my wife so it pretty obvious I don't agree with it. You lot need to get a grip. You are really clutching at straws now.

Wibbs

irishconvert wrote: »

Whooooooah, if you guys are going to resort to tabloid style debate and quoting me out of context, then I have no time for you.

Quoting you out of context? I quote again;

irishconvert wrote:

Yes it does, under certain limited circumstances. It doesn't allow severe or regular beating of women. Women are allowed to divorce their husbands so if they are being abused then they can take this right.

I don't know, I haven't been in a situation where I felt it was appropriate. I stress that hitting a wife is to be regarded is a last resort.

Look, to be honest I am not the type of person who goes around hitting anyone, my wife included. To get to the stage of hitting your wife, you first have to be in a position where you are so annoyed you are no longer sleeping in the same bed as her.

Those quotes gained a user an infraction for their disblief.

At no stage did I condone wife beating.

At no point did you damn it either. At best you state that it can happen under some limited circumstances/last resort according to Islamic teaching. You had enough time to clarify and at no point do you state spousal abuse is beyond the pale. Merely the degree of it and the degree of provocation/circumstance.

I was answering questions on Islamic Teaching.

In which case it does beg the question why a belief system that has as one of it's teachings wife beating regardless of circumstances should have a place in this community in its current form. That's for others to mull on and work out.

As I stated on thread, I don't hit my wife so it pretty obvious I don't agree with it.

Nobody has claimed you have. Infracting posters who simply and quite understandably said "I can't believe I'm reading this" is where people take issue(above and beyond the lack of clear condemnation of illegal acts in this country).

Scofflaw has put it best

Scofflaw wrote:

However, you raise a point which urgently needs consideration, which is where, for example, Islamic doctrine conflicts with the law of the land. In the case of the domestic violence question, for example, beating your wife is not acceptable in Ireland, and is not legal in Ireland. It is irrelevant, therefore, what Islamic law or doctrine says on the question, because no matter what it says, beating your wife is illegal, and for boards.ie mods to condone or support illegal acts is something that needs to be entirely ruled out as a possibility.

To b fair, I do agree with you on this point of moderation;

My reading of this is that dlofnep's cousin was beaten by her husband and treated like an animal, therefore his opinion is beating and treating wifes like animals is common practise by Muslim men. This is a wild generalisation of Muslim men and one I find very insulting. It is equivalent to me saying my cousin was married to an Irishman, he regularly came home drunk and sexually abused his kids, therefore people should be very careful about marrying Irishmen. Totally unacceptable.

irishconvert

Wibbs wrote: »

Quoting you out of context? I quote again;





Those quotes gained a user an infraction for their disblief.
At no point did you damn it either. At best you state that it can happen under some limited circumstances/last resort according to Islamic teaching. You had enough time to clarify and at no point do you state spousal abuse is beyond the pale. Merely the degree of it and the degree of provocation/circumstance.

I was explaining Islamic teaching, I wasn't asked nor was I giving my personal opinion. In fact I was correcting dlofnep's interpretation of a passage from the Qur'an.

Wibbs wrote: »

In which case it does beg the question why a belief system that has as one of it's teachings wife beating regardless of circumstances should have a place in this community. That's for others to mull on and work out.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Wibbs wrote: »

Nobody has claimed you have. Infracting posters who simply and quite understandably said "I can't believe I'm reading this" is where people take issue(above and beyond the lack of clear condemnation of illegal acts in this country).

Well I didn't infract the poster.

Wibbs wrote: »

Scofflaw has put it best

Scofflaw wrote:

However, you raise a point which urgently needs consideration, which is where, for example, Islamic doctrine conflicts with the law of the land. In the case of the domestic violence question, for example, beating your wife is not acceptable in Ireland, and is not legal in Ireland. It is irrelevant, therefore, what Islamic law or doctrine says on the question, because no matter what it says, beating your wife is illegal, and for boards.ie mods to condone or support illegal acts is something that needs to be entirely ruled out as a possibility.

Well actually I agree with him. I am not a scholar so a lot of time I take the advice of Imams or other knowledgeable Muslims and I have always been told that the law of the land has to be followed, so it would be disallowed to hit one's wife. However as I said, the discussion was in relation to Islamic teaching, not how Islam is practised in Ireland.

dlofnep

irishconvert wrote: »

My reading of this is that dlofnep's cousin was beaten by her husband and treated like an animal, therefore his opinion is beating and treating wifes like animals is common practise by Muslim men. This is a wild generalisation of Muslim men and one I find very insulting.

You obviously missed the post which I clarified that. I stated that I don't believe the vast majority of Muslim men beat their wives. I appended that Islam permitted hubands to beat their wives. That is the problem - The religious doctrine that you follow states that you have the right to beat your wife. Not once did you attempt to state that such a practice is immoral, and wrong.

irishconvert wrote: »

It is equivalent to me saying my cousin was married to an Irishman, he regularly came home drunk and sexually abused his kids, therefore people should be very careful about marrying Irishmen. Totally unacceptable.

No, it's not - because I never once stated that all Muslim men beat their wives. And there is no Irish doctrine that permits Irish men to beat their wives. That's the difference.

It's clear you pick and choose what posts to read because I clarified everything in a follow-up post stating:

dlofnep wrote:

I never stated either way. However - Islam allows for a man to hit his wife. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslim men do not beat their wife.

So I'm quite bemused as to how you managed to take it that I stated that all Muslim men beat their wives. It's clear that you wilfully ignored that post that clarified my position on the topic. So now perhaps you can answer me as to why you ignored that post?

irishconvert

dlofnep wrote: »

You obviously missed the post which I clarified that. I stated that I don't believe the vast majority of Muslim men beat their wives. I appended that Islam permitted hubands to beat their wives. That is the problem - The religious doctrine that you follow states that you have the right to beat your wife. Not once did you attempt to state that such a practice is immoral, and wrong.



No, it's not - because I never once stated that all Muslim men beat their wives. And there is no Irish doctrine that permits Irish men to beat their wives. That's the difference.

It's clear you pick and choose what posts to read because I clarified everything in a follow-up post stating:



So I'm quite bemused as to how you managed to take it that I stated that all Muslim men beat their wives. It's clear that you wilfully ignored that post that clarified my position on the topic. So now perhaps you can answer me as to why you ignored that post?

Clarified, clarified, clarified. Why did you need to clarify the post if there was nothing wrong with it? Let the other posters be the judge of what you wrote, let's sit back and see what they think.

dr.bollocko

irishconvert wrote: »

Clarified, clarified, clarified. Why did you need to clarify the post if there was nothing wrong with it? Let the other posters be the judge of what you wrote, let's sit back and see what they think.

I think your tacit indication that domestic abuse is permissable (even if as a last resort) is disgusting.

It should have no place on boards.ie.

Regardless of any context you want to point to those are your words.

dlofnep

irishconvert wrote: »

Clarified, clarified, clarified. Why did you need to clarify the post if there was nothing wrong with it? Let the other posters be the judge of what you wrote, let's sit back and see what they think.

People clarify their posts all the time. I was responding to a post which stated:

Do not for a second think wife beating is common place with Muslim men.

To which I agreed that such a thing is uncommon. Despite clarifying my views - you went on to accuse me of stating that the majority of Muslim men beat their wives. This was not only disingenuous, but completely inaccurate.

You were conflating two issues - one which advocated hitting one's wife in Islam, and another (which I did not state in anyway, shape or form) - that hitting one's wife is a common practice in Islam. I think most reasoned posters know very well that I was never attempting to make the assertion that most Muslim men beat their wives.