Conorco: and that self righteous sermon only serves to polarise people further. Why do people tell other people what they "need" to do, is it only me or does anyone despise that approach?
No doubt about it, you have problems with several words.
If wife's are entitled to half a family's wealth (irrespective of whether they directly accumulated any of it themselves) on the basis that they provided the environment for their husband to thrive then when a husband earns his living from crime and the wife knows that shouldn't she be put away as well?
Conorco: I'm not joking at all, I don't condone violence of any kind but maybe the muslim system is more practical and favorable to women than ours in that they recognize that some men will beat their wife's and legislate to control the level of that beating. If a man breaks their laws maybe (i don't know) they enforce the penalty for breaking the law.
If as it seems they adhere to the Koran then they probably do punish men or men who do beat their wife's do it by the book i.e a humane beating (maybe the word beating is not appropriate maybe its akin to how kids are chastised). How many western women still beat their kids and feel justified in doing so?
On the other hand the west outlaws it completely yet it still goes, again I don't know but I imagine when it does go on its a full blooded assault and i'd say very few cases end up in court.
So if I was a woman living with a wife beater i'd prefer to be a muslim or that he was.
If something is wrong , it's wrong. Would you actually like it if the law said that you are allowed to be beaten lightly and only where it doesn't show?
Conorco: If wife's are entitled to half a family's wealth (irrespective of whether they directly accumulated any of it themselves) on the basis that they provided the environment for their husband to thrive then when a husband earns his living from crime and the wife knows that shouldn't she be put away as well?
She is, if it is proven that she is an accessory after the fact.
Conorco: If wife's are entitled to half a family's wealth (irrespective of whether they directly accumulated any of it themselves) on the basis that they provided the environment for their husband to thrive then when a husband earns his living from crime and the wife knows that shouldn't she be put away as well?
Sunnydaze14: If something is wrong , it's wrong. Would you actually like it if the law said that you are allowed to be beaten lightly and only where it doesn't show?
II'd prefer that to no law if it meant i was unlikely to have the crap beaten out of me (as is the case where no law is in place)
Conorco: If wife's are entitled to half a family's wealth (irrespective of whether they directly accumulated any of it themselves) on the basis that they provided the environment for their husband to thrive then when a husband earns his living from crime and the wife knows that shouldn't she be put away as well?
I agree, howevre a wife is only entitled to 50-70% of the accumulated wealth since marraige( depending on circumstances), what you came in with you leave with... this is from a constitutional expert collegue of mine
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).