Jihad on a woman's face IS permitted.

"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil." -Nietzsche Through this quote, Nietzsche begins to acknowledge another shift away from a good/evil binary - love is more than a definable event. One cannot measure love as a 'yes' or as a 'no,' one cannot say love lies further towards one end of the good/evil spectrum or that it is simply an abundance of life. I once heard it put, by a friend, as Derridean sur-vival: the flourishing and proliferation of life. If anything, this emphasized an inquiry into the motivations behind and the responsibility regarding this 'act of love' coupled with religion that, according to Nietzche, has died in the hearts and minds of its adherents. However, the religious unaccountability issue raises another interesting question: who defines the "mutually agreed upon" religion's rules? Who, exactly, explained the verse to whom? And how does a mutually agreed-upon religion result in a transfer of intent or even of meaning between two individuals on either end of the communication model? Specifically, we are given the example of pre-event consultation: "I told her my interpretation of that verse and she understood and consented to marry me under that condition." How does this account for his action? Who really made the decision to strike their wife? My opponent's only justification for his actions is a line that grants him power over his wife. While in a position of power, my opponent chose to act in a violent manner. It was not commanded of him, it was not expected of him. He simply chose to act. Next, in response to my question concerning perceptual differance (spelling correct), my opponent asserts his control over his wife. This does not answer the question, however: What, exactly, gives my opponent the ability to decide what is and is not acceptable? What makes his wife unable to do so? Is it religion? No. It is not religion: if it were, his wife would have been unable to agree with him over his perception of the verse. Was the wife initially aware of her 'transgression of the law?' She was not: he "made [the action] egregious to her" in the moment of the event: when he hit her, she was made aware that her action was unacceptable. This leaves one plausible option: my opponent took it upon himself to define and connotate, to disseminate and interpret the text, in a didactic fashion: he expressed this through violence when his wife attempted to leave his purview. Next, my opponent blames his wife for the events that transpired, transferring the burden of responsibility to her - the question changes from "Do you accept my actions?" to "Am I to blame for my actions? Is the fault not my wife's?" In response, I'd like to re-examine (if not partially deconstruct) the opening speech. "The noble Qur'an permits us to beat our wifes, surah 4:34." Notably, this does not say the noble Qur'an commands us to beat our wives, or recommend we do so. It simply allows for the possibility of the act. The subject in question took it upon himself to actually carry out the beating. His interpretation of the text justified this, while to his wife, the text simply permitted it - the lack of a clear dividing line on what justifies use of force led to this conflict of interpretation. "This evening my wife rebelled against me. She actually tried to leave my house without my permission." There are several interesting points to this construct: First, the word choice of the first sentence: "my wife rebelled against me:" this implies several characteristics we unconsciously apply to the event: first, the wife felt the need to take action in her own favor. Either this has been disproven through reference to agreement, or the wife actually had reason to disobey her husband. If this is the case, we should certainly disagree with my opponent's actions. Second, the possessives used in the second sentence - use of 'my' could imply several things. First, in terms of the agreement, it could (and, in this context, does) imply a prioritization of one interpretation. This means the wife's self-permission, the ipse, the 'I myself can" is disregarded - to my opponent, his partner had no input. Second, in the context of the home, it implies a singular ownership - 'my permission, my perception, my interpretation, my opinion, all that is mine is more important than what is hers: this is what the book tells me'. Noticeably not, 'this is what I believe the book means.' In the context of this interaction, the husband is a passive actor, simply acting according to code - is that any reason to accept his actions? Is a self-inflicted 'following of orders' reason enough to eschew responsibility? It is not. " I ran out the door and confronted her about her abhorrent misconduct." The first half of this sentence is not emphasized: attention is drawn to the modifier, abhorrent, and the focal point of the sentence, misconduct. These terms were chosen for shock value: to convince the reader that the husband's actions were, in his opinion, justified. However, the first half of this sentence is also reasonably interesting: "I ran out [of] the door" implies the wife's absence, her leaving, the negatie of abandonment, is the inciting incident. It appears the action of leaving, of exiting "my house," is enough to inspire a confrontation. This is a strong example of perceptual differance. "I grabbed her and screamed into her face, 'what? Did I give my consent without knowing?'" This line is especially interesting: look closely. "I grabbed her and screamed into her face" seems to imply a heated exchange. The prioritization of the husband "[giving his] consent" is especially emphasized, as is the terrifying potential of "not knowing." The main point of departure during this interaction is control. Who controls the actions of whom? Does the wife control her actions? Does she control her subjective paradigms, her ideologies? It would appear not. Both the husband's prior assertion that "Her act was egregious to [him]. [He] made it egregious to her." and "Our mutually agreed upon religion grants my perception: " Men are in charge of women...."" do more than imply a prioritization of thought - they directly state that the husband, the patriarch, is responsible for his thoughts, and that his thoughts, perceptions and interpretations should be mirrored by those of his wife. The fact that his wife did not initially perceive her act as egregious proves this further: regardless of her beliefs or their merit, according to the husband, she was to repress them in favor of her husband's. However, her actions prove that this was either not effectively communicated or was footnoted following an interaction not specified. Now, back to the last speech. We're told "Our mutually agreed upon religion grants [him] priority." Notice the change in possession - emphasis of an equitable agreement may reveal its absence. If we grant he holds priority, he still decided to act as he did. Regardless of the wife's consent, regardless of textual interpretation, and regardless of religion, I don't accept my opponent's justification for his actions. As this debate closes, I would like to leave all readers with a few quotes. "Before you speak/ Think about what you're trying to say/ Who else is there to blame for miscommunication?" -Tegan Quin and Laura Jane Grace "No, you don't have to fight to stay in control of the situation" -Tegan Quin and Laura Jane Grace "Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep." -Eric Hoffer And to Fred: I've tried to vary my pronoun use in my last speech. Hope that's acceptable. I hope there can be empathy - whether merited or not - and that empathy can extend to both sides of an interaction. Thanks for the debate - as far as thought experiments go, it was fascinating