It is a concern to everyone, and as a president he took a right step to giver a verdict about such kind of "cultural invasions". Valentine day does not belong to East and more importantly, it's whole idea is strongly forbidden in our religion too. We need a national level awareness regarding the issue as all the media houses are shamelessly promoting this stupid event. International media response is not our concern and tell me what kind of response that so called media gave ?
So let me get this straight, you classify Valentine's day as some part of a cultural invasion? Look, even you must understand to that not even to liberals like me, but to the neutral ear, it sounds conspiratorial and far fetched.
If we were to oppose anything foreign because of its origins and not embrace other cultures, we'd be the most backwards country on earth. Valentine's day doesn't add anything of value to Pakistani progress, so it's a poor example, but it also taken nothing away from our progress. Only, opposing it as some bit of hostile foreign influence, cultural invasion points to other problems to do with opposition to progress, globalism, change and getting with the times.
It's how we get from real progress to this:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1225815
The class 9-10 physics book takes the cake. This book is so comprehensive, it says, that a student doesn’t need another. A couple of pages later the reader is told that uttering just one word brought this universe into existence “kuch lakh sal pehlay” (around 100,000 years ago). This misses the correct age of the universe by a whopping 13 billion years — so it’s wrong by more than one hundred thousand times.
And remember, ignore the religious angle for half a millisecond and consider all other worth.
All this isn't necessarily relevant to Valentine's day, I'd ask you, besides it being foreign what else might it do besides upset some people who care enough to be bothered by it? What's the tangible reason to oppose it?
Yes, I picked the quotes which are religious because why 1, 4 and 5 sounds stupid, I still dont understand. Why dont you can come up with that list of million and surprise us ?
This was my point all along, you've let pass most the other points in the list, picked out the religious ones and taken issue with them being put on the list, why you've done that is not because the quotes couldn't objectively be thought of as stupid from the neutral perspective, but you took issue with the religious angle.
My point being, you should go ahead and announce the religious angle from the start, we'd save time going through this laborious process just to reach that conclusion. Also, I don't mean to sound belittling, but you know full well just as I do that a list of millions is impractical and silly. It's why top 10 lists of films and largest bridges and other top tens exist, and not in their millions or thousands.
And apologies about the article, I did not recognise it for satire, I barely skimmed through it without checking.
You have right to level the charges and I have a right to level the charges on the author. Out of 10 most stupid quotes, 4 are directly related to culture and religion and there is no general consensus that they are "incredibly stupid".
Ditto.
I always play on front foot, it is you who is trying an unsuccessful googly with your words and perceiving not what I am saying.
Brother, I don't post here much these days, I'm far too busy. Believe me, it is not worth my time to try and weave words to bamboozle strangers on the internet while we argue about petty things. Your opinions are your own and that's fine, but I only take issue which how many times I had to ask before I got some clarification.
I finally have some below:
No, I dont defend it, I mentioned in the first post that this is debatable.
No, I dont agree with use of any form of verbal or physical abuse against your spouse, specially wife.
According to Holy Quran, a light physical punishment is allowed in the extreme cases where one thinks that his spouse is involved in extreme kind of unfair behavior e.g. disloyality and other such things. And that too, is allowed after you have tried all other options. Read post 28. Or let me put it here.
3. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance
what classifies arrogance? so if we literally take arrogance as the word then if she isn't arrogant than the condition isn't meet. But if we take the previous part of the verse as reference then it could mean that she is not guarding her modesty.
4. [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them
So you can't just strike her, first you need to give them advise, then sleep separately in different beds and if she still doesn't mend her ways then you can strike her. But question here arises, how hard are you allowed to strike? and what is actually considered a strike? Is pinching considered a strike?
So in conclusion and in short, a husband can only strike a wife if she has not been protecting her modesty and the husband has already taken steps for her to mend her ways.
----------------------------
Now as far CII chairman and number 9 is concerned, I think that being head of an Islamic institution and well-informed scholar, definitly Maulana Shirani would have said those lines according to above mentioned context. He, obviously, did not meant to beat wife exclusively when you deem necessary and have a bad day at office. So, I think that media created a hype by quoting a single statement out of a full proposed bill and, that too, without giving and discussing a proper background.
Okay.
Finally you've arrived at the point of your thinking.
So you agree that wife beating is wrong, that you would personally never do it. Which I believe and respect your opinion on. But you also say that it can be justified Islamically, with the qualifying term of a 'light' beating and only given sufficient motivation? You've also then taken issue with how this was reported and why it's on the list.
Fine, I'd say that's sufficient, but if I was a pedant (and I am), I would then also ask, what you found 'debatable'? The Islamic validity of the interpretation? And if there is any validity as you pointed out, do you disagree and not follow the Islamic guidance which you yourself cited?
The way I see it, you've said you wouldn't follow the quote from number 9, but you're still justifying it Islamically, which would only make sense if you did indeed only believe that wife beating is unacceptable, except for the rare circumstance where it fits the Islamic criteria to do so. And remember, I fully believe you when you say that you don't agree with violence and wouldn't do it. I just can't see how that works when you've also justified it elsewhere and then talked about it being debatable.
