Jihad on a woman's face IS permitted.

I would like to begin in saying I do not condone or accept your actions, especially under the false justifications of religious motivation. I suppose I'll start with a few questions before I discern whether or not I understand your situation - I would appreciate it if you could answer them for me in your next speech: 1. Where do you live? 2. Why did you feel it necessary to hit your wife? 3. Was there no other means of conflict resolution? To begin, the Pro's insistence on use of religion brings an interesting question into debate: adaptation of religious law to suit one's own wants. It also raises the question of procedurals - in quoting the specific verse and line from which the Pro has been able to ascertain beating his wife is acceptable, I have gained the ability to quote for you this verse. "Yusuf Ali: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)" The pro did step one and three, but failed to give his wife the proper warning clause as is specified by the refusal to share beds. Now, the Pro's use of violence was not necessary under any means. The previous verse which I have quoted to you proves that his act of violence was an example of religion molded to his own will. Thus, in accusing him of reifying patriarchal aspects of society, I am not engaging in critique of his religion but rather his justification of the event in question - the topic of racism only seeks to cloud this and make it harder to see the truth. The pro describes himself like this: "I grabbed her and screamed into her face." "I smacked her, "hard enough to feel, but light enough to heal." This use of violence against one's wife is simply another example of patriarchial dominance by the Pro. "El Saadawi (1980) said that religion is not oppressive itself. It is the male dominance of religion that is the problem. This is due to the rise of monotheistic religions which are male dominated and where scriptures are interpreted/written by men."[1]. This applies specifically to the actions of the Pro - in defining the scripture for his wife - in yelling into her face and hitting her - in declaring Jihad on her face without consultation over what Jihad entails - he adds a new, original layer to the religion - one of patriarchial dominance. As the Con, my job is to prove the Pro cannot justify his actions. Upon the removal of religious connotation from the first speech, it seems apparent that the Pro is engaged in a masculine, dominating role against the feminine body represented by his wife. This is compounded if one realizes that Jihad does not entail violence: "Jihad of the heart/soul; in Arabic: jihad bin nafs/qalb. It is referred as "the greater Jihad" (al-jihad al-akbar). It is one"s inner struggle of good against evil; refraining oneself from the whispers of Shaitan (Satan). This process involves allowing Islam to transform one"s soul to achieving internal peace; and forgoing the hatred and anger. [2]" In fact, jihad of the heart entails a struggle AGAINST violence, in no way justifying the Pro's violent actions against his wife. Had he been civil about the matter and discussed it with her, the situation would not have happened. The final point I would like to make is that the entire scenario presented by the Pro - the containment of the feminine body, the abuse and violence directed towards her as she attempts to escape, and the subsequent publication of this, shaming her via her own religion - all of these points are reflective of a Foucauldian 'control society.' First, the body is captured, meaning contained in an area. This area may be physical, such as one's presence. It may be emotional or ideological, like one's beliefs, interpretations or dreams. It may, like the Pro's scenario, be all three. Next, the body is subjected to humiliation or other forms of disempowerment intended to cement the State (in this case the Pro)'s control over the subjectified body. This can take the form of a structurally violent, needless act, such as the one the Pro presents. Finally, the subject internalizes their subjectivity - instead of realizing the micro-politics of their interactions, they begin to blame the effects of oppression on themselves, creating a cycle of passivity.[3] Specific to the Pro, the abused wife begins to doubt herself: Is she really worthless? Is she a traitor to her religion because her husband said so? Did she deserve abuse? A radical restructuring of the way one views the feminine body's interaction with the masculine Other is absolutely necessary to end this cycle of internalized subjectivity. "History provides us with countless examples of those who have been subjected to terrible crimes resulting from their dehumanisation. Domestic violence is a very extreme but very real example which threatens women... She is vulnerable. Objectification justifies her submission.[4]" ----------------------------CITES------------------------------------- [1] https://sociologysaviour.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.justislam.co.uk... [3] Foucault, Michel: Discipline and Punish (print version) [4]Gregory, Katy: 1-22-2014, "Simone de Beauvoir and Page 3: Why Banning the Degradation of Women Still Matters," Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ to reiterate: I do not accept your actions or the hollow justifications you attempt to justify them by.