Yuyutsu,

"Honour killings and wife bashing are not mandated by the Koran, but are optional and culturally-based.
Even if you cannot change the Koran, you can still change the culture"

How about killing or beating homosexuals?
How about killing infidels if they refuse to convert?

What do you find optional about,

""The Quran, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 34:
Men have authority over 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; "The Quran, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 34:"

Men have authority over women; doesn't have an option.

".... [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them."

You are right in that there are two options there, but if they don't work then there is no option but to belt them around a bit.

LEGO,

People generally rest their case once it’s been made.

<<I rest my case, Mlud.>>

It’s a mighty early departure for you, though, isn’t? I thought you’d be here for at least another couple of weeks repeating the same asinine assertion over, and over …

<<I have done a very good job of explaining what prejudgement and stereotyping is to our readers.>>

Yes, LEGO. I’m sure you have.

<<I have explained how everybody judges individuals by their group associations, and there is nothing wrong with that.>>

So long as they have adequate information, yes.

<<I have explained how no group of people … can be exempted from that principle.>>

So long as a universally-held belief is present, yes.

<<I think that our readers can understand the logic of what I submitted.>>

As do I. Some may have spotted the flaws I pointed out too.

<<I will leave it to the judgement of our peers as to whether they agree with me, or agree with you.>>

Well, I don’t think anyone else would be qualified to do that.

<<I can't keep restating the obvious just for you to keep coming back at me with [self-evident] double standards which you simply refuse to recognise.>>

So instead of conceding that you were wrong, you’re just going to insist that this alleged double standard really was there and then slink off?

<<For you and I to keep at this is to just keep repeating "tis", "tisn't", "tis", "tisn't".>>

No, one of us is actually demonstrating that the other is ducking and weaving, and it isn’t you.

<<… every time you [prejudge and stereotype], I am going to point out to our audience that you are doing it …>>

Is this another way of saying that you’ll never speak to me again? That you’ll never use me as a means to bignote yourself in a self-congratulatory display of grandiose narcissism?

I hope not.

I look forward to going around in circles with you again as you try desperately to not understand why you are wrong.

Until next time, LEGO. Until next time…

Hi Foxy

Looks like you're in an unhappy minority and getting more out of step with the truth of woman bashings by protected minorities. Checkout ABC's Media Watch program tonight 27 February 2017 http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4627197.htm

"Keysar Trad flies under the ABC radar"

"Keysar Trad’s comments on domestic violence goes uncovered across Fairfax, The Guardian and ABC [and Foxy].

But now to a headline story about wife beating, that as far as we can see was completely ignored by the Fairfax big city papers, by the Guardian and most of the ABC.

Keysar Trad: ‘violence is a last resort’

A prominent Muslim leader has apologised for statements conceding his religion allows for a husband to beat his wife as a “last resort”, saying he was “clumsy” in a television interview.

— The Australian, 23 February, 2017

Last Wednesday night, Keysar Trad, who is the president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, went on Sky’s Bolt Report and told his host:

KEYSAR TRAD: Before you even consider using your hand, before you consider any act of violence, have you checked box number one which is counselling have you checked box number two. So what does counselling entail, well maybe next time you should bring her a bunch of flowers, maybe next time you should bring her a box of chocolates, maybe next time you should take her out for dinner.

ANDREW BOLT: And beat her if she still won’t see sense. Beat her. That’s what this says.

— Sky News, The Bolt Report, 22 February, 2017

Now, anyone condoning domestic violence, even as a, quote, ‘last resort’—should get called out for it.

And next day Trad was, on News.com.au, the Daily Mail and the Herald Sun to name a few.

Debate also raged on morning TV, where Trad was live on Studio Ten.

MORE TO FOLLOW

FROM ABOVE

ABC's Media Watch program tonight 27 February 2017 http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4627197.htm continued:

"And it continued that evening on A Current Affair where Trad was again under fire:

TRACY GRIMSHAW: Not surprisingly the Muslim community and domestic violence advocates have been outraged, and today he’s been forced to backtrack.

— Channel 9, A Current Affair, 23 February, 2017

As indeed he had on Facebook and on Twitter. Which of course gave way to another round of headlines, including at SBS Online and even the New York Daily News.

So, the story unfolded over two days and, according to Isentia, generated more than 100 stories.

But the Fairfax metro papers and The Guardian appear to have ignored it completely. As did almost the entire ABC, where it was:

Not on the 7 o’clock News.
Not on 7.30.
Not on Lateline.
Not on The Drum.

And not on the big radio current affairs shows, AM, PM, The World Today and RN Breakfast.

And this strange lack of interest was much as Immigration Minister Peter Dutton had predicted on 2GB when the story first broke.

PETER DUTTON: Well, where are the feminists? I mean, where is the ABC on this, Ray? The ABC presumably are running this at the head of their bulletins, this will be on the seven o’clock news, it will be on the 730 Report tonight. I mean the ABC and Fairfax will be outraged by this. But, you know what, I suspect they’ll have nothing to say about it, because they’re hypocrites. If it was you or me or somebody else who made such an outrageous statement they’d be calling for us to be taken into the town square and dealt with.

— 2GB, The Ray Hadley Morning Show, 23 February, 2017

And he’s got a point. The national broadcaster should have been all over this story, as should The Guardian and the Fairfax papers.

But they were all very busy looking the other way."

Looks like some "feminists" will stand up for anti-Western religions before they stand up for women.

Dear Is Mise,

«Men have authority over women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other»

One doesn't own something until and unless they can do what they like with it, including to gift it to others. If you have something that you are not allowed to pass on, then it cannot be a gift from Allah.

If a man has authority over a woman, still he could order her: "do what you like"!

That certain Arabs fail to do this, is only a cultural matter, not a religious injunction.

«How about killing or beating homosexuals?»

The bible (Leviticus 20:30) indeed commands the Jews to kill any two males who engage in sexual intercourse. It cares not for their sexual orientation, only about the act. I don't know that much about Islam, but Jewish Rabbis find 1001 legal excuses to bypass this commandment and others. I believe that Islamic Sheikhs can and do the same when they do not wish to kill. Such Jews that interpret the Torah literally are called 'Karaites' and are ostracised from Jewish society.

«How about killing infidels if they refuse to convert?»

The Koran only mandates killing idol-worshippers as opposed to Christians and Jews who may be kept alive. As a Hindu, I worship God alone, but it may look otherwise to the untrained eye. We Hindus understand that when we worship the multitude of different deities, we only see them as representations of the one God, Allah in Arabic. Whether Muslims believe us or not depends on many factors, essentially cultural.

Overall, with good lawyers - and there ARE some excellent Islamic lawyers, you can do whatever you like within the vast umbrella of the Koran. Lay Muslims can do so by selecting to hear and obey either violent or non-violent Imams and Sheikhs: both are available and with the prevalence of the internet, one no longer has the excuse of not being able to find them, so at the bottom line it comes down to personal choice.

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« … your … asserting that the "Abrahamic" religions introduced retributive justice into the world … »
.

No, I did not assert that, Graham. If you care to look back over my posts, you will see that I have constantly maintained :

« The adversarial form of retributive or punitive justice, practiced in most parts of the world today, was largely favoured and influenced by the Abrahamic religions which permeated and denatured justice, deflecting it away from its primal objective of pacification and reconciliation and reorienting it towards the pursuit of vengeance, retribution and punishment : “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” »

It is quite possible that the Code of Hammurabi which you cite, was known to some, if not all, of the authors of the Abrahamic religions.
To quote the Wikipedia article for which you provided the link :

« The Code of Hammurabi was one of several sets of laws in the ancient Near East and also one of the first forms of law … Earlier collections of laws include the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (circa 2050 BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (circa 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (circa 1870 BC), while later ones include the Hittite laws, the Assyrian laws, and Mosaic Law. These codes come from similar cultures in a relatively small geographical area, and they have passages which resemble each other »

None of the more ancient laws mentioned have exercised anything like the influence that the Abrahamic religions have on justice throughout the world – except, perhaps, indirectly, in that they may have influenced the authors of the Abrahamic religions.

Again, you mention Roman Law and provide a link to a Wikipedia article on retributive justice.

As I indicated in my previous post, Roman law, which dates from the same period as Abrahamic law and justice, also had an influence, as you seem to suggest. We obviously agree on that.

.

(Continued …)

.