Honor killing, as I understand it, refers to killing members of one’s own family, in order to protect the honor of the family, and is often done some time after the act that disordered the family. A crime of passion is when an enraged lover murders a cheating partner and/or their consort in a fit of rage.
How are Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar or United Arab Emirates suffering from poverty, oppression or lack of education? They are rich developed countries and yet they still have appalling human rights records, draconian punishments for apostasy, adultery or homosexuality, and a thinly disguised version of slavery in place.
You are right that as countries get richer and more developed and the education level improves, usually they become more tolerant and have a better human rights record. These four have not. Why is that?
True, but there are degrees of intolerance. The UK isn’t going to be re-criminalising homosexuality any time soon, even if we accepted a million refugees from countries where homosexuality is illegal. However, I would confidently predict a sharp uptick in anti-gay sentiment and verbal, or even physical abuse. This isn’t something I want in my country. We have enough home grown bigots as it is. We don’t need to import any more.
Presuming that all immigrants of a given faith are going to be bigots is an example of bigotry.
No one is doing that. What we are doing is pointing out that the tenets of Islam, as described in the religions own words by documents such as the CDHRI mean that Islamic beliefs and values are in conflict with western secular values. Given that Islam does not allow apostasy, or muslim women to marry non muslims its perfectly reasonable to have concerns about the future effects on politics and values of a society from the effects of a rising muslim population.
This is a distortion.
A crime of passion in the Western sense refers to killing in a jealous rage by a spouse or lover who thinks a partner is cheating. I doubt Western-Islamic comparative statistics are available or can be guessed at. If they are less common in Islamic countries it is probably only because women are so much more confined and restricted.
Honor killing in the Islamic sense usually refers to the killing of a female by her own patrilineal nuclear family, by her father and her brothers. I am not going to go looking for a site, I think it is safe to say this is virtually unheard of in modern Western Christian culture, and has never been common or widespread.
Cold comfort to the woman being killed for having sex. In Uruguay, it’s currently perfectly legal to kill your cheating wife. The law in Italy-- valid until 1981- even used the word “honor.” The detail of which particular man had the right to murder you is precisely that-- a detail. The underlying premise is exactly the same. One of the giveaways is that the laws are generally written to excuse men killing women, not just a wrong spouse killing a wronged spouse.
Are “honor killings in the Islamic sense” different from Hindu or Sikh honors killings, both of which are quite common? Or Yazidi honor killings? Or the Christian honor killings in Jordan?
Protecting ourselves against immigrants who are bigots is responsible self-preservation.
That worthy and essential goal can be furthered without singling Muslims out by requiring all immigrants to sign binding anti-bigotry documents and by acting swiftly and ruthlessly against violators.
Because they’ve clung to repressive, centuries-old cultures and corrupt monarchistic rule – Saudi Arabia has become a wealthy superficially modern country only within barely more than the past half-century, and poverty is still rampant even in the midst of the wealthiest aristocratic classes in the world – so calling it “rich” is true more from a GDP perspective than from a meaningful social one. Religion is intermingled with politics because of these cultural factors, leading to inordinate power for extremist minorities like the Wahhabists.
Here’s my question. If Islam is responsible for all these problems, how come the Saudi royal families who enforce all this appear themselves to be far from devout and apparently indulge in wild parties with alcohol, drugs, and sex in rather un-Islamic fashion, oddly very much like the Taliban leadership once did in Afghanistan. Are these folks genuinely driven by religion? And again, how come Bangladesh, which is 90% Muslim, has a far more progressive culture than the countries you named, as does Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population in the world? Would Islam be a similar problem if it was the predominant religion in advanced western nations, and conversely would these backwoods shit-holes be any better off if their religions were fundamentalist Christianity? Seems to me they’d be stoning people because the Bible said so instead of stoning people because the Qu’ran said so.
Don’t tell me you’re that kind of fool. He may not have been clear the first time, but when he was given the opportunity to clairfy, he instead doubled down. People like you and Trump pose more of a threat to the Constitution and two hundred plus years of the American way of life than any refugee could.
Christianity has the new testament and the reformation. Theres a strong case to be made that the renaissance and the industrial revolution would not have been possible without the accompanying reformation.
Islam is “designed” as much as possible to forbid all attempts at reformation. Devout are expected to learn the original medieval Arabic to study the Quran. Not one word of the Quran can be changed as it is proclaimed to be the actual revealed word of god (rather than the notes of fallible disciples like the gospels are). And finally Mohammed of course declared that he was the ‘seal of the prophets’ and no one else can come after him claiming to update his message for the modern age.
I did not try to make a case based on the murder of spouses and lovers. That occurs in both East and West with unknown comparative frequency. One thing I did not think of before is that there are absolutely no religious grounds for committing such murder in Western civilization, whereas there may be in Islamic civilization. And we all know that Islamic religious courts have the authority to condemn an accused to death by stoning, a situation prevailing nowhere in the West.
This thread is about the West v the Islamic, but even if you want to extend it to West v Hindu, Sikh, Yazidi and Jordanian Christian the West comes out far better.
If you have a question about policy, open a thread in ATMB to discuss it.
If it was not sarcasm, then it would meet the description of hate speech, which is forbidden.
Take this sort of nonsense rant to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Is that all that’s being asked? Sign an oath saying you won’t engage in bigotry?
Hey, that’s cool. Nice to know that a signature is enough to allow anyone to immigrate. Here I had thought people were trying to put real restrictions in place.
All’s well, then.
Trinopus why do you ignore my points and deflect , deflect deflect with accusations of bigotry. Do you think the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is an accurate description of Islamic values? Do you agree with those values yourself? If not which specific ones do you have problems with?
No.
See above.
coremelt: You really have no idea of what you’re talking about.
And a few centuries back, when Europe already had the Old & New Testaments, progress was what was happening elsewhere (hint: in Muslim-ruled areas).
And that has not a blame thing to do with the religion or religions practiced by those involved in industrial revolution.
Have you never heard of Biblical literalism or Biblical inerrancy?
Seems to me that a fair number of Christian denominations have a similar teaching regarding no more prophets, no “updating [the] message”.
When potential islamic reformers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali can freely speak their opinion in the majority of the Islamic world without being in fear of their lives then you will have a point. Until then there is no equivalence between the prevalance and actions of christian and islamic fundamentalists.
Even if she attempted to give a lecture in “tolerant” Indonesia or Bangladesh she would receive death threats and be in grave danger.
Strongly disagree.
I still have copies of the Washington Post in which my letter was published specifically taking them to task for writing about Islamic terror but not calling IRA actions “Catholic terror,” or abortion clinic attacks “Baptist terror.” The Post and other media were even then (pre-9/11) only linking religion to terror if the religion in question was Islam. The editors published my letter because they agreed I had a point. Christian-inspired terror was (and still is) given a pass or described in coded language.
And with that you are completely ignoring the actual history of Christianity, in addition to your misstatements about another religion.