These are from
If the instruction to not beat women is true, although, in the Quran you are allowed sex slaves
then why is it contradicted here:
en.wikipedia.org
and that a husband shouldn't hit his wife "on the face":
The husband has to treat his wife in a good and kind manner, and to spend on her food, drink, clothing and accommodation. Whoever wants to be one of the best of the Muslims should be kind to his family, which includes being kind to one’s wife, children and relatives.
islamqa.info
Ah reddit, that fine source of material that's not all problematic.
You want to know why it's contradictory? Because all religion is, and Islam doesn't have anything close to a monopoly here, the Bible give instructions to protect house guests by allowing people wanting to attack them gang-rape your daughters, has instructions on the correct way to treat slaves, commands death for kids you bad-mouth parents, and Jesus clearly stated he wasn't here to get rid of these rules, but to uphold them (and Jesus was particularly clear that he was happy to pit families against each other if they didn't follow him). Your 'but Islam' argument holds no water, well unless you cherry-pick and want to engage in bad-faith arguments, which you clearly do, and don't give a damn how problematic your sources are.
How is that bad faith?
You've said I can't rely on posters to look things up and so have to properly cite claims and since I knew you might not know about the coconut case I edited it in.
Of course I apologise for assuming it was readable
Yeah, that's not an apology, but don't worry, I didn't expect a genuine one from you.
but where did the "Christian Concern" thing come from?
You posted a video by them, when I quoted you it was the linked content immediately following the piece you quoted, but I do note that you are still avoiding explaining why you think they are a suitable source to cite. As so far your 'vetting' of sources for bias is clearly non-existent, which leads one to assume you're not looking for accuracy, but for those that confirm the bias's you have,
Also, for at least the third time, what is the Islamic argument against the Taliban banning those images?
Third what, I don't recall you asking me for that once, let alone three times?
I posted saying there was a link?
After you'd edited in the link a good 20 minutes after the original post. Good faith would be to reply and say something along the lines of 'I edited in a link, you may have missed it, here it is again, let me know what you think'.
I'm supposed to work out that when Scaff made the post it was before it was edited? If I'm remembering rightly I didn't get an alert saying there was a post after when I had finished editing it. I think this can be put down to a mistake, as in fairness I could have remembered that the link was added as an edit. I will say it wouldn't have hurt to check for links after I said "did you click the link", as I really got lost when Christian Concern came up.
Ah, I see, it's actually a combination of the site software and myself that's at fault.
So again, sorry. But it really isn't bad faith.
Normally I would give people the benefit of the doubt, but that moment has now well and truly passed.
