Pakistani Islamists Lightly beat women & detect 12 yr puberty signs thru a burka

[Pete at Home]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36413037

The council has also been campaigning to lower the marriageable age to 12 and nine for males and females respectively, "provided there are visible signs of puberty".

Visible through what clothing?  Isn't the whole point of Sharia draping of women to shield their modesty and sexual characteristics from the drooling male eye?

The CII has also thrown its weight behind groups that have discouraged parliamentarians from amending Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law.

Ah yes.  And depicting ISIS badly is "blasphemy."  Got to love our Pakistani and indonesian allies.

Portions of the draft leaked to the media recommend a husband should be allowed to "lightly" beat his wife if, among other things, she refuses to dress properly or turns down overtures for sexual intercourse.

It also prohibits female nurses from taking care of male patients, and bans the presence of women in receptions held for visiting foreign dignitaries.

Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah rejected the proposals, saying: "Islam does not allow any violence, whether against women or children."

Lawyer and human rights activist Asma Jahangir told Geo TV that the proposals amounted to "the humiliation of women".

The independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan termed the proposals "ridiculous", and recommended the abolition of the CII.
So why did they come up with the recommendations?

The CII proposals were a response to a women's protection law passed by the Punjab government in March.

That law wanted to make it easier for female victims of domestic violence to report abuse, and introduced procedures to keep the perpetrator away from the victim until the dispute was resolved.

The CII was opposed to the law, and declared it un-Islamic.

The Punjab government has delayed enacting the law - even though the CII's rulings are not binding.

Lightly beating someone who isn't ready for sex isn't NECESSARILY a bad idea since light spanking, if consensual, can work great as foreplay, but CII's fatwas seem to miss the whole consent point.  Perhaps they should be encouraged to issue instructional videos on how good Pakistani husbands should "lightly" beat their wives in order to get laid.

[D.W.]

Somehow I don't think adding a chapter on BDSM to nationally mandated sexual education classes is what they had in mind.

[Pete at Home]

I think the best way to fight these bastards is to make clear in social media that their statements make a mockery of Islam.

[D.W.]

Has that tactic historically been effective against any religious "bastards"?  I'm not saying it isn't a good idea and won't help in some cases, but a large part of faith is being able to mentally smooth over contradictions and inconsistencies.

[Pete at Home]

If that's what "faith" does, then one might infer that ideologies that make blasphemy a death penalty crime, are lacking in the faith department.  It's a flag that the culture is vulnerable to mockery.

[D.W.]

The only true blasphemy is believing the divine needs you to defend them.

I suppose the only caveat to that would be belief in a pantheon of gods in conflict; with mortal strife as the measure of the battle.  To a monotheist any suggestion that a mortal is a threat to God, or his will, serves only to weaken that God in the eyes of the faithful and nonbelievers alike. 

"Obedience or death" has always been the last resort of the fearful and unpersuasive.  Power is easy, faith is hard.

[Fenring]

"Obedience or death" has always been the last resort of the fearful and unpersuasive.  Power is easy, faith is hard.

Yes. But - there is a difference between a pure faith and between a theocracy which employs religion to control the population. In such a scenario the force is employed not to promote faith but to promote compliance, when the faith alone won't achieve that entirely.

[D.W.]

More than a difference.  I believe they are mutually exclusive.  For a religion to be useful in a theocracy it must be framed as infallible, absolute and unquestionable.   Our natural curiosity makes us want to test claims like this.  If something is proven wrong when questioned you erode the entire foundation of that theocracy.  The entire concept is doomed for failure (and/or utter brutality) right from the start.

A theocracy requires a constant threat of force to keep it's people in line.  The only way to forestall that is to make people more afraid of the outsider than the state. 

Any religion that WAS infallible would invite questioning.  Then again, maybe I'm the idiot and in the afterlife our ability to follow rules when our every fiber screams to reject what we are experiencing is invaluable.  Maybe our existence here as mortals right now is the only reprieve / training we get from an eternity of unhesitating obedience without terrible repercussions.  Kinda a *censored*ty boot camp design if you ask me.  Which, for the record, no god, angel or prophet ever did...

[Pete at Home]

The only true blasphemy is believing the divine needs you to defend them.

Well-said.  I think that was the point of the Torah passage regarding "steadying the Ark." 

I suppose the only caveat to that would be belief in a pantheon of gods in conflict; with mortal strife as the measure of the battle. 

Another caveat would be the belief that God wants us to help the poor and to help establish justice for our fellow men.  But that's because he's delegated those tasks to us, and will judge us on how we carry them out.

[D.W.]

Pete, I didn't mean to suggest God doesn't need / desire our help, or for us to act as his agents.  I think that is a fairly universal feature of all religions portrayal of the divine.  I meant defend them from harm or to punish others for hurting God's feelings.  If a divine being has an ego problem such that his own creations make him feel bad about himself then... 

Hold on a second.  Maybe I just missed that many holy texts, interspersed with their other moral training parables are teaching us valuable life skills for dealing with erratic, potentially violent mentally ill people?

[Pete at Home]

Pete, I didn't mean to suggest God doesn't need / desire our help, or for us to act as his agents.

I know you didn't.  I expected you would agree with my qualification.