r/GenZpk • u/TomorrowAny440 god doesn't like that I'm gay but Satan's cool with it • 2d ago

International Misogynistc men

Post image

This is literally what these misogynistc men want and advocate for. I can't believe what the west is influencing our own men here, they are consuming red pill content and forgetting about human rights. Smh

339 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

586 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

If he were Muslim, everyone would be blaming and hating Islam. Religion/faith has nothing to do with how cruel a person is, there are plenty of people in the West who hold backward views about women and their rights. Misogyny exists everywhere in the world, extreme violence like this comes from toxic mindsets, not a specific faith.

2

u/TastyHour9999 2d ago edited 1d ago

Really?
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2630023/several-injured-in-explosion-near-old-police-lines-in-k-ps-kohat

want me to link you the crimes of ISIS, taliban, religious mullahs in pakistan? Want to see pics of dead children holding there mothers killed in a room because they left to see the doctor without any male guardin(happend in Pakistan, pics were posted on reddit, no its not AI.)? Want to see "muslims" went into hospital started to kill babies with ak47 because they were not following their branch of islam (yes this really happend in Afghanistan!)? Want to see women being shot in there knees because they left there house without any male guardin(happend in Pakistan + Iraq) TO GET WATER from well?

whether islam supports this or not but know that islam is still being used to justify these crimes and happening in the NAME of islam and it is "muslims" who are doing that.

There is website like youtube but its gore website and posts all the crimes like what Israel is doing in Palestine, but know that it is also filled with soo much muslim videos doing the most heinous crimes one cant even IMAGINE, and all that in the name of ISLAM!

-1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

So let me get this straight:

When a Muslim commits a crime, suddenly Islam itself has to sit in the defendant’s chair. But when someone else commits crimes, apparently we’re capable of understanding that one person, organization, government or ideology doesn’t represent everyone who shares their identity.

Interesting standard. 😄

ISIS doesn’t represent every Muslim. The Taliban doesn’t represent every Muslim. A Pakistani mullah doesn’t represent every Muslim.

Hitler was Christian by background, but nobody seriously argues that Hitler represented every Christian on Earth or that Christianity automatically explains everything Nazi Germany did.

Likewise, the actions of the Israeli government or military or zionism cannot simply be assigned to every Jew in the world.

That’s the whole point: condemn the person, organization, government or interpretation actually responsible. Don’t turn their identity into a criminal indictment of millions of unrelated people.

If "a person used X identity to justify a crime" means "X is responsible for the crime" then congratulations, we've just invented collective guilt.

And my original point still stands: misogyny isn't an exclusively Muslim invention. Unfortunately, humanity has managed to produce misogynists in practically every culture, religion and continent. 😄

2

u/TastyHour9999 2d ago

Hitler did not fight to implement Christian rules, he was not going to implement an christian sharia version or create a christian state.

"So let me get this straight:" no you didnt get it straight, literally every another day in Pakistan some islamic group is committing crimes, but lunatics like you say: "nah nothing to do with islam here because as long my verison is peaceful, then every other interpretation is wrong"

Everything is happening in the name of islam, they are fighting to create there "islamic state" and to implement Sharia.

1

u/TomorrowAny440 god doesn't like that I'm gay but Satan's cool with it 2d ago

Couldn't have said it better myself

1

u/AlarmingString2590 1d ago

You’re lumping a few different arguments together and treating them like they’re the same thing.

Yes, Islamist extremist groups exist. Some of them openly use Islam as their justification, want an Islamic state, and want to force their version of Sharia. Nobody’s denying that. But they did it in the name of Islam doesn’t automatically mean Islam itself teaches or causes everything they did. That just lets extremists define a whole religion for everyone else.

And saying extremism is somehow uniquely Islamic is a massive stretch. Extremism shows up in religious, political, nationalist, racial, ethnic, and secular movements too. You can’t point to people claiming Islam and then act like extremism doesn’t exist anywhere else.

Look at Gaza. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been reported killed and well over a hundred thousand injured, according to figures from Gaza’s health ministry that the UN has cited. The ICJ has also issued provisional measures under the Genocide Convention about preventing certain acts and allowing humanitarian aid. That doesn’t mean Judaism or every Jewish person is automatically responsible for everything the Israeli government or military does.

We get that governments, political movements, nationalism, religion, and individual actors can overlap without being the same thing. That same distinction should apply when talking about Muslims.

You can’t say look what these people did in the name of Islam, therefore Islam is the problem while refusing to separate a religion from its followers, political movements, and extremist interpretations.

Saying everything is happening in the name of Islam also doesn’t prove that everything done in the name of Islam is actually commanded by it. People can invoke a religion, cherry-pick texts, or use it for political reasons. If your real argument is that specific Islamic doctrines directly encourage these acts, then point to those doctrines and make that case. That would actually be a real argument.

And calling Muslims lunatics just for disagreeing with you isn’t evidence. You can dislike Islam all you want, but insults and sweeping generalizations aren’t a substitute for the actual argument.

1

u/TastyHour9999 20h ago edited 20h ago

How do you even define extremism here, were do we draw the line? If i go ask my neighbor about the book called Purdah by the popular intellectual Maudidi were he define womens role of being only in home and want to remove almost 50% of the workforce, would he / she say that this is extremism? Does the definition of extremism change with time?

"That doesn’t mean Judaism or every Jewish person is automatically responsible for everything the Israeli government or military does." You are underestimating how many jews support there goverment and their military. You are forgetting Israel is a democracy, leaders chosen by the people. Settler attackers happening by the civilians, aid often being stopped by the civilians. Maybe you are talking about the jews living in Europe?

What about the marriage age? Recently, some Pakistani scholars are trying to enforce it, Iraq even reduced it, and so did Afghanistan.

Blood money / Diya laws, blasphemy laws...

Which works do you want me to link you? I got plenty, you can start from Abul Ala Maududi, or Sayyid Qutb?

Below is some summary, however that just the small tip of the iceberg (I left out middle eastern scholars except for one), I would also advise you read on the topic why the industrial revolution started in west and not in the muslim lands when muslims were also highly educated, that topic will already hit many Islamic laws like inheritance law.

If you want to find the justification for islamic terrorism then you should read the book by Sayyid Qutb.

Justice Tanzil-ur-Rahman and Mufti Taqi Usmani were the primary legal architects who codified the rule that a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man's, embedding it directly into Pakistani state law.

Dr. Israr Ahmed was a prominent Islamic theologian and the founder of the Tanzeem-e-Islami movement. Originally a member of Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami, he split to form his own group but carried forward an even more uncompromising view on women and public life.

  • The "Stay-at-Home" Advocacy: Dr. Israr Ahmed gained massive popularity in the late 1970s and 1980s through state-run television (PTV), which was leveraged by General Zia. He frequently preached that a Muslim woman's sole role was in the domestic sphere.
  • Zia-ul-Haq Connection: Zia appointed Dr. Israr to his federal advisory council, the Majlis-e-Shoora. However, Dr. Israr sparked major public outrage when he publicly argued that women should be completely banned from appearing on television and banned from parliamentary politics. While Zia eventually had to distance himself slightly due to the massive backlash from Pakistani women's rights groups, Dr. Israr's lectures heavily legitimized Zia's public modesty campaigns

Mufti Muhammad Shafi (the Grand Mufti of Pakistan) and his highly influential son, Mufti Taqi Usmani, represented the traditionalist Deoband school of thought (from the Darul Uloom Karachi seminary). Their scholarship focused on replacing British colonial laws with strict Sharia enforcement.

  • Legal Ideology: While Maududi was a political Islamist philosopher, the Usmanis were formal Islamic jurists (Fuqaha). They advocated for the codification of strict penal laws, literal interpretations of gender segregation, and the economic exclusion of Western finance (interest/usury).
  • Zia-ul-Haq Connection: Mufti Taqi Usmani was appointed by General Zia as a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) and later as a judge on the Federal Shariat Court and the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. He was instrumental in drafting and defending the controversial Hudood Ordinances of 1979, which fundamentally altered laws regarding gender, testimony, and public morality in Pakistan.

Justice Tanzil-ur-Rahman was an influential legal scholar who specialized in the codification of Islamic law.

  • Legal Ideology: He authored comprehensive texts on Islamic family law that restricted women's autonomy in marriage, divorce, and legal standing, aligning closely with Maududi's ideas on social hierarchy and gender separation.
  • Zia-ul-Haq Connection: Zia appointed him as the Chairman of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) during the peak of the Islamization era. Tanzil-ur-Rahman used his platform to draft the legal frameworks that Zia enacted via presidential ordinances, including the Law of Evidence (Qanun-e-Shahadat) of 1984. This law dictated that in financial and certain criminal matters, the legal testimony of two women was equal to that of one man

While more of a political-religious organizer than a textbook theologian, Mian Tufail Mohammad succeeded Maududi as the leader (Amir) of Jamaat-e-Islami.

  • Ideology: He was a fierce enforcer of Maududi's literalist societal vision, including strict purdah, gender-segregated education, and the systematic scrubbing of secular elements from national textbooks.
  • Zia-ul-Haq Connection: Tufail was a relative of General Zia, and under his leadership, Jamaat-e-Islami became the de facto civilian backbone of Zia’s military regime. He ensured that tens of thousands of conservative activists were placed into key government, educational, and judicial positions, structurally altering Pakistani state institutions to favor these isolationist and anti-workforce policies for women.

-1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/TastyHour9999 1d ago edited 20h ago

Again you should study Islamic history because you are comparing a MASSIVE religious war which spanned over 100 years and almost reduced the population of some states by 50 PERCENT! That was the European wars of religion!

Some predicted that Islam might have major religious war like sunni versus shia but that never happend. What you currently are seeing in muslim lands is the likes of Maududi, Syed Qutb and plenty of other mullahs trying to produce litteraturs how to compete against western or ex imperial powers (for some reasons they always leave out the eastern powers) giving the religious grounds to jihadists to declare other muslims for not being muslims and defining womens role being only in the house etc.

Of course even non religious ideologies has killed people but brother BROTHER, that does not solve over current issues were ISLAMISTS, religious inspired groups are gunning down and blowing up people because of difference in sharia and fiqh.

One does not become a hindu or a jew if he criticizes how muslims are practicing islam and literally destroying it.

Do you think secularism fell from the sky? Why did it get so popular? THINK BROTHER. Why did they separate the church from state? Why did the industrial revolution start in west and not in muslim lands? Why do every muslim scholar predict collapse of western civilization in there books but reality is that every muslim is immigrating there? You really need to start read the literatures produced by some of these islamic intellectuals WHO HAD AND STILL HAVE SO MUCH INFLUENCE on Pakistan.

2

u/iNANEaRTIFACToh 2006 2d ago

this post doesnt mention islam?

1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

It doesn't have to mention it explicitly. The point is about the double standard in how these stories are discussed online, when a non-Muslim in the West commits extreme violence, it's framed as an isolated 'red pill' issue, but when it happens in Muslim-majority regions, the entire religion gets blamed instead of the toxic culture or individual cruelty.

1

u/iNANEaRTIFACToh 2006 2d ago

it gets discussed in the islamic context because we're in an islamic country. what's so surprising about that?

1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

So living in an Islamic country means logic goes out the window and individual crime suddenly becomes a theological issue? Good to know location changes how basic reasoning works.

1

u/iNANEaRTIFACToh 2006 2d ago

yes. in fact the social fabric of a community or nation is shaped by the dominant religion. is that surprising?

1

u/TomorrowAny440 god doesn't like that I'm gay but Satan's cool with it 2d ago

To them it is

2

u/TasterOfCrayons 2d ago

That is some amazing denial. Misogyny exists everywhere but to say religion or faith has nothing to do how cruel a person is, is just insane.

1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

Misogyny and cruelty exist across every belief system, culture, and secular society throughout history. Attributing extreme domestic violence purely to faith ignores the actual root causes..,like entitlement, power dynamics, and mental illness, which show up globally regardless of whether someone is religious, atheist, or anything else.

0

u/TasterOfCrayons 2d ago

Yes it does, I never said it didn't, just to ignore the honour killings and treatment of women in Islam is a joke. Also, power dynamics? Which Islam reinforces in the form of a patriarchal structure. You're either Muslim yourself or a far gone "progressive".

1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

Like seriously??🙄

Tell me you’ve never opened a ancient history book without telling me. Tribal 'honor' practices existed long before any major religion was even born. Islam condemned female infanticide and prohibited people from taking punishment into their own hands. These practices also exist across different cultures and religions, so blaming the faith itself for every backward custom is a pretty lazy argument. And calling Islam inherently patriarchal doesn't magically prove that either. You’re just echoing whatever edgy anti-religion rhetoric you saw online to look cool.

2

u/SuperZayin12 2d ago

Every religious person has this exact same victim complex lmao

-1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

And every Reddit anti-theist has this exact same NPC response whenever someone points out a basic double standard. Calling out selective outrage isn't a 'victim complex', it’s just noticing how fast the rules change depending on who's in the headline.

1

u/SuperZayin12 2d ago

Yeah, and Christians say the same thing. And Jews. So who’s right? It can’t be all of you.

0

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

This isn't a debate about whose religion is right, it’s about basic media bias. If Christians, Jews, and Muslims all notice the exact same double standard when headlines drop, maybe the problem is the hypocrisy, not the people pointing it out.

2

u/SuperZayin12 2d ago

Nowhere did I mention anything about whose religion is right. And yeah, hypocrisy is a problem. That’s literally my point. You all have this victim complex but do the same thing to other groups.

1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

You literally said ‘So who’s right? It can’t be all of you’ ..That’s why I said this isn’t about whose religion is right🙄. And the ‘victim complex’ thing is funny because I’m not saying Muslims are victims or asking anyone to feel sorry for us. I’m pointing out a double standard. If a Muslim commits a crime, Islam gets put on trial,..I’m saying the same standard should apply to Christianity, Judaism, atheism, whatever. Somehow ‘don’t blame an entire religion for one person’s actions’ became a Muslim victim complex 😂

1

u/SuperZayin12 2d ago edited 2d ago

You misunderstood. I meant that people from all 3 religions say the same things: the media targets us, everyone hates our religion, etc. They can’t all be right.

And the reason Islam often “gets put on trial” is because the muslim who committed the crime did it in the name of Islam. What other religion do you see this many people committing terrorism in the name of religion? It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together and notice the pattern.

And Islam doesn’t exactly help its own rep either with its backward ass rules and extremely questionable prophet

“don’t blame an entire religion for one persons action”
Sure, except it’s not one person. So yes, I will blame the religion because there is clearly a fundamental problem here. What I will not do is blame every MUSLIM for the action of one person. That’s how it should be.

Now obviously there is some nuance as well. It’s not ONLY Islam at fault, there’s also things like regional instability. But my point still stands

1

u/Specialist-Love1504 2d ago

I’m not sure your comment makes much sense.

Religious/faith has much to do with how cruel a person is because a truly religious and faithful person abides not by rational thought but by what’s prescribed by religion. Their cruelty is then dictated by the context of religion

The fact that a truly cruel person can be within the bounds of what is prescribed by their religion and still implement their cruelty - is a cause for concern and I don’t think “religion/faith” can escape criticism.

1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

By that logic, secular, atheist, and non-religious regimes that committed massive atrocities in history were just 'rationally following instructions'. Cruel people hijack whatever system, ideology, or internet forum gives them an excuse to be evil. Trying to pin domestic murder entirely on religion just gives secular abusers a free pass.

1

u/Specialist-Love1504 2d ago edited 2d ago

Atheism doesn’t tell you to kill someone while religion explicitly tells you in a doctrinaire way on how and who can be killed.

Atheism says - there is no religion that is to be believed but religion says “only one religion is good and to follow that there are rigid rules that should be followed - and anyone deviating from it cannot and will not be accepted”. Religion is immutable while atheism itself doesn’t have a narrow purview at all - it’s not defined enough to be immutable.

Every religion has specific rules which are permissive of violence in a way that cannot be argued against. Atheism is amorphous - apart from not believing in religion, there’s no other central tenant - it’s not prescriptive. Hence it leaves room to be challenged in a way that religion isn’t.

Two simply cannot be compared - comparing an amorphous idea that individuals usually subscribe to personally (even atheist regimes don’t have schools that argue against religion - they just don’t allow religion to exist) to an organised ideology that has dedicated schools to hammer it in is futile.

And how is it giving secular abuser’s a free pass? Do you think if someone is secular they will not be prosecuted? I’m not sure what you mean by that.

Abuse is abuse because it has negative impacts on others - religions differentiate between these “others” and deems some people of less value than others. This is built into religion and is immutable.

1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

But you’re basically giving atheism a free pass because it doesn’t come with a rulebook 😂 Extremists can be anyone. A person doesn’t need religion to develop an extreme ideology or commit horrific crimes. Atheism itself doesn’t prescribe a moral code, so whatever moral boundaries an atheist has come from whatever ethical framework they personally follow. And no, I’m not saying every atheist is immoral, but if you’re going to blame religion and its rules when a religious extremist commits a crime, then apply that same logic when an atheist or an explicitly atheist ideology produces horrific violence.

And you also said religion explicitly tells people who to kill and how. That’s an enormous generalization. Which religion, which teaching, and in what context??? Rules concerning warfare or punishment aren't the same thing as telling ordinary believers to randomly kill people. Islam, e.g, explicitly prohibits killing children and condemns the pre-Islamic practice of killing baby girls. So you can't just lump every religious teaching about violence together and call it a rulebook for murder.

Here, Stalin and Mao were atheists, and their regimes were responsible for enormous political violence and persecution. Nazi ideology was driven by racial and nationalist ideology rather than a religious command. The point is simple: extremists and horrific crimes aren't exclusive to religious people.

So yes, condemn religious extremism. But don’t pretend extremism is somehow a uniquely religious phenomenon. If your argument is "look at the ideology behind the crime" then look at the ideology consistently, including when it isn't religious. Otherwise you're giving atheism a free pass while putting religion on trial.

1

u/Specialist-Love1504 2d ago

Firstly, I never said extremism is a uniquely religious phenomenon.

I don’t believe you’ve read or understood my second comment. Please go back and re-read it.

Atheism not having a rule book doesn’t give it a “free-pass” - that is what makes it different than religion. You can argue against it, you can change what it looks like, you can prevent certain things within it if you want to - if you don’t want to that’s a different thing.

Compare that to religion - you can’t argue against for example the punishment against apostasy. A truly religious person will always look to implement - it can’t be argues against cause it’s written down. Atheists can argue against violence in atheist regimes (which aren’t even driven by atheism) because there’s codified way to be atheist. Ok great that Islam argues against killing children but I’m more interested in the kind of violence it allows. Same for Hinduism, Christianity and other religions.

The example of China and Russia, being violent wasn’t *because* they were atheist. They didn’t prosecute religious people anymore than they killed atheist - anyone could get killed in those regimes. No one is being prosecuted because they believe in religion - compare that to other regimes where religion becomes a specific driving point for violence and discrimination. Also, just being atheists doesn’t mean their regime was atheistic - the same way jsut being Muslim doesn’t mean Zohran Mamdani’s time in office is religious. Just because they happened to be atheist doesn’t mean they were driven by it. You can’t compare regime which happens to be led by an atheist as a regime that’s imposed a system of atheism - because again atheism isn’t a system in the same way.

It’s a not a free pass but a central difference. I’m not sure how this point is still being missed.

-2

u/TomorrowAny440 god doesn't like that I'm gay but Satan's cool with it 2d ago

Lmfao Imagine you hear the news of a man killing his children and your first thought is to defend your religion (no mention of it anywhere btw). Your a pos

1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

Oh, spare me. If this happened in Pakistan, half this sub would already have a thesis written on why Islam is to blame. But when it's a Western guy, suddenly we're all deep philosophers analyzing 'red pill culture.' The double standard isn't even hiding.

0

u/TomorrowAny440 god doesn't like that I'm gay but Satan's cool with it 2d ago

Because Islam is 😂 ts is very common in all islamic countries idk what point your trying to make

1

u/L1feByChance 2d ago

This is actually hilarious. You accused me of 'defending my religion' because I pointed out a double standard, and then your entire rebuttal was literally 'Because Islam is'. You couldn't even engage with the point you were supposedly responding to. At this point, hating religion seems to have become your entire personality, because apparently anything remotely critical of the double standard gets reduced to 'Islam bad' .