And on preview, I’m a bit confused by your last post, TVAA. Do you believe that Honour Killings should be treated any differently under the law or not? Sorry if I’m being dense, but it’s the end of a long day and my brain is frazzled…
Let’s try that again:
Any position we can imagine can be made a central belief of some hypothetical religion. Therefore, if any position is enshrined in law, it will inevitably impose upon potential religious beliefs. If we accept that there must be some principles in law, we must therefore necessarily reject the claim that a culturally- or religiously-sanctioned practice cannot be made illegal.
I’ll agree to that. Hard to think of any religions that mandate the removal of tags from mattresses, though, or which say you won’t get into heaven unless you regularly break the speed limit…
In fact, I can’t really think of any laws (in the US or UK at least) that conflict with the tenets of any mainstream religion. Anyone?
Abortion laws? Divorce laws? Legality of pornografi, prostitution, etc.? Capital punishment? Draft and military service?
- Rune
Sorry - I should rephrase that:
I can’t think of any laws that force anyone to do anything against their religion, or that make any religiously-mandated practices illegal.
The fact that Divorce, Abortion, Pornography, Alcohol and Prostitution are all legal does not mean that you are forced to participate. You are still free to avoid those things if your religion says they’re wrong.
If, however, the law says that I must eat pork, or that I cannot wear a yarmulke in public, then the law is indeed infringing upon my religion freedom.
Though people are not forced to participate in such activities they are forced, through taxation, to help fund it.
Many feel the military service is against central tenets of Christianity. Yet can be forced through the draft to participate. On the other hand I think all western countries have some for of opt out, and few still have the draft.
Some western countries have the ability to remove children from the parents if the parents act in ways which, by the nation, are seen so be child abuse, but the parents see as central tenets in their religion. E.g. blood transfusion.
- Rune
They seem equally nasty to me. Murder is murder. As I said earlier, honour killings may be viewed as culturally specific justification for murder of a female relative. In countries or cultures where honour killings are not part of tradition or heritage, women end up murdered by family or intimate partners just the same.
Either that’s the sound of a rather familiar axe grinding away, or you haven’t checked the data provided – and that goes for Evil Captor too, who seems to think his case may be demonstrated by uninspired fictional anecdotes. Honour killings take place primarily in Western Asia, North Africa, South Asia, Brazil (and South America in general), in addition to the Middle East. It’s not something exclusive to the Middle East, though the Middle East is one of the hotspots. It’s certainly not something inherent in Islam.
If anything, honour killings are against Islam – even against the dreaded sharia law as far as I know (IIRC the Taleban came under fire from Moslem nations for incorporating honour killings). It’s very rare to find official support for such crimes; in Jordan, an old Napoleonic law in the criminal code gives provision for honour killings, but King Abdullah II has been fighting it since he came to power in 1999. Unfortunately he faces strong opposition from conservatives, fundamentalists, and similar crackpots – one can only wish him luck.
I am somewhat reminded of the problem of abuse towards women in Russia and the painfully slow progress correcting the situation:
Oh my, a non-Muslim nation where women are abused!
The misconceptions involved in the honour killing atrocities are the same nonsense that was flying around on female genital mutilation, which was loudly decried as an Islamic practice, followed by the usual bandwagon choruses involving the words “barbaric” and “Islam”. Only it wasn’t Islamic, it was a cultural practice: not found homogenously throughout the Muslim world by any means, but localized in parts thereof, and practiced by members of other religions in those regions where the practice was observed.
It makes every difference, since some people are claiming that honour killings are somehow Islamic in nature or origin. And it doesn’t take excessive mental rumination to distinguish between culture and religion when talking about honour killings, since such murders are not condoned by Islam, and are not exclusive to Islam but usually arise in strong paternalistic/patriarchal/tribal societies. At the most you can argue that quite a few societies where Islam is dominant happen to be strong paternalistic/patriarchal/tribal societies – and there’s your indirect link between honour killings and Islam.
In a sense it’s a weaker link than that between Christianity and witch-hunts, which was itself not the strongest – Jesus’s lessons certainly do not involve the gruesome torturing and burning/hanging of hapless innocents, but dozens of thousands of victims, mostly women, suffered such fates over the course of a few hundred years in Europe (and the US) based on reasoning that originated and/or was endorsed in scripture. Today we know witch-hunts weren’t really about religion per se, but the tragic result of a complex mix of social, economic, and religious changes taking place at a fast pace, the ratcheting conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism, lack of stability and predictability, mass hysteria, panic, and suspicious paranoia, in no particular order.
Another barbaric practice is the blood feud, the male counterpart of honour killings in which women are never targeted. It used to run rampant in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Sicily, Scotland, and as far as a region of the US (someone already mentioned the blood feud between the McCoys and Hatfields). The practice was largely squashed in the Balkans thanks to the efforts of Tito (Yugoslavia) and Hoxha (Albania), but seems to have returned in Albania – strenghtened after the massive pyramid scheme collapse that ruined the country in 1997 (again we may be seeing how uncertainty, instability, stress, and hardship manifest themselves in paternalistic/patriarchal/tribal cultures with socially sanctioned outlets for stress – justifiable murder).
But they are forced to live in a universe where such practices take place.
This, too, can be a matter of religion.
It’s quite simple: all religions must eventually choose between survival and remaining true to their principles. If they choose survival… then there’s no problems. If they would rather die… well, that is an acceptable compromise.
Well I disagree vehemently. Killing is not always murder and not all murders are created equally. Murdering in self-defense in not the same as murdering for pity which is not the same as murdering for fun. Murdering of children and the weak is particular despicable to me, and even more despicable is murder of those that deserve, has claim on, our protection – which exactly a daughter have of her father. Murdering a spouse, while naturally also awful, belongs to another category of awfulness – if for no other reason that she/he would be an adult willingly entered into the relationship.
I must have formulated myself vaguely, because you misunderstood my sentence. I wrote that “honor killings” in Scandinavia was solely found in communities of immigrants from the middle-east and (to a lesser degree) Islamic Africa. Perhaps it also happens in other communities other places around the world, but as far as I know only those communities I mentioned are continuing with the practice in Scandinavia – if you have evidence to the contrary I’d be interested to see it. And anyway I don’t find spousal killing fit under the category of “honor killing”. But if you think I’m decrying the whole of Islam or middle-east culture because of child killing or female genital mutilation, I have not made myself clear. Because I’m not. I am however condemning the barbaric and despicable sides of Islam and Middle-East culture that condone them. However to be honest before they are exorcised from the religious interpretation and culture, I can’t help but think them an ugly blot staining the whole.
This forum is not the Great Dogmatic Abe. No complex religion including Islam, even especially Islam which, as is often pointed out, has no authority figure that can set out interpretation guidelines, have just one possible interpretation. And I say again how can you, and why should I accept, objectively say what is correct and what is wrong. When a substantial number of Moslems insist on one interpretation of Islam, they are no less Moslems than another group that have another interpretation – and their Islam no less Islam. So your position is nothing but dogmatic insistence that you know the truth and everybody disagreeing are wrong. Last time I had this argument (with Alderban) it ran something like Islamic Terrorists were a self-contradictory term (oxy-what-the-heck-is-the-word?) because Islam is opposed to terrorism and consequently the terrorists not real Moslems. Bollocks then and bollocks now.
Just now you wrote murder is murder. Anyway I disagree since, as I’ve written, I find it is in fact not only very difficult to say what’s culture and what’s religion – it is impossible. And the fact that other cultures and religions spurs certain people to do the same or other despicable things is both sad and obvious but as far as this thread goes neither here nor there. By the way, perhaps I misunderstood you, but you seem to say witch hunts were “not about religion”, and the go on to say they were caused by among other things “religious changes”. I think witch hunts were a combination of culture and religion (and yes social and economical mixed in), just not a culture or religion that exist today. Whereas the religion and culture that condone child genital torture and murder is very much alive and killing today.
- Rune
“Honor Killings” ( by the way Winston Smith, the quotation marks used around them are an accepted way of casting the term as dubious ) in the Middle East - Pre-dates Islam, mostly present among the uneducated and poor, and particularly, in more tribal communities ( Baluchi and Pashtuns in Pakistan, heavily tribalized Yemen, etc. ). It also is not exclusive to Islamic societies, being also practiced by Christian Arab communities in the region.
Female Genital Mutilation - Pre-dates Islam and where found often cuts across all religious boundaries ( i.e. it is just as prevalent among Coptic Christians as Muslims in Egypt; In Nigeria just as common among some Christian Nigerian groups as Muslim ones, but also completely absent from some groups, both Christian and Muslim, depending on tribal or ethnic affiliation; the one Jewish group known to have practiced it originated in Ethiopia, where the prevalence is close to 99% ).
When I refer to a practice as ‘cultural’, rather than ‘religious’, that is not a declaration that religious reasoning is never used to support its practice. Rather it implies that the practice did not originate from religious dicta. Neither of the practices above are found throughout the Muslim world ( you don’t see much about “honor killings” in Indonesia and FGM is virtually unknown in North Africa, exclusive of Egypt ) - They are specific to particular societies and particular regions. I agree the boundary gets blurry and trying to draw a straight line between the two ( culture and religion ) is virtually impossible. But I use the terms to indicate something I think is more of one than the other.
I am slightly sympathetic to the [Islamic terrorism argument, unsurprisingly, since I support usage of that term. However I do think there is a subtle difference at play here in my usage. The term Islamic terrorist refers to an individual that commits a terrorist act in the name of religion ( or claims to do so ). In that case Islam, however twisted in its definition, is the primary cited raison d’etre of the action. It is thus a useful descriptor, even as I acknowledge that it is a violation of most accepted tenets of Islam. The term has utility, one just has to understand its limits - It does not imply that I think terrorism is an Islamic value, per se.
In the case of “honor killings”, Islam, when invoked, is a secondary justification - these aren’t “Islamic killings”, they’re “honor killings” and the dubious “honor” is the source of the violence. In both cases religion is used in an “appeal to authority” argument, but in the first case religious dicta is the motivator, in the second it is a post-fact justification. There is no particular utility in referring to “honor killings” as Islamic, because they aren’t, particularly - they pre-date Islam and are not exclusive to Islam. That’s not dogma - that’s fact.
You can say ( and I would ) that “honor killings” are a troublesome component of some Muslim cultures. What I wouldn’t say is that “honor killings” are a troublesome component of Muslim culture. What’s the difference? Muslim culture, singular, referring to the wholeness of the Muslim experience. Muslim cultures, plural, referring to multiple cultures that just happen to be Muslim. A semantic trifle, perhaps, but one that I think is significant.
I also, by the way, have never supported the argument that terrorists aren’t Muslims because they commit un-Islamic acts ( by most normative definitions of Islam ) - It just makes them lousy Muslims, is all, not non-Muslims.
- Tamerlane
Is murder in self-defence murder at all? The legalistic definition of murder involves some degree of premeditation and unlawfulness/wickedness, etc. Isn’t killing in self-defence termed “manslaughter”?
You then refer to euthanasia? Physician-assisted suicide? Is that really murder?
“Murdering for fun” is the first solid example of murder you cite, and it’s of the psychotic variety. The other examples you cited involve killing, but not necessarily murder. I didn’t say that all killings are equally repellent, I said that murders are. Why I said that ought to become clear, if it isn’t already, by the end of this post.
I suspect these are categories and distinctions you have erected yourself. While I agree that peronally, morally and socially speaking it is more disgusting for a parent to kill his or her child, is there actually a difference in, say, judgement and punishment for the murder of a complete stranger, a cousin, or a daughter?
Kurdish immigrants in Sweden are the leading source of honour killings in Scandinavia (not that there are that many). Honour killings are an enduring patriarchal and mysoginistic tradition of Kurdish culture, which has a strong tribal influence; as explained several times, cultures that involve honour killings tend to share all or some of these characteristics. I was in fact responding to your claim that “It’s a middle-eastern thing, all cultures have despicable elements, middle-eastern have this.”
Sure, if by that you mean that the Middle East is one of the hotspots I agree. By the same thinking it’s also a Brazilian thing. To a lesser extent it is also an American/Russian/British etc. thing, minus the formality of the practice, the peer pressure, and the convenient excuse.
Kurds have not made as much progress in gender equality as some of their exponents would have hoped. Eliminate the tribal and patriarchal ways, institute gender equality, and you invalidate the cultural reasons behind honour killings – unfortunately Kurds are a shattered people, with very little left except their (patriarchal, mysoginistic, and tribal) traditions. Kurdish nationalism is a response to centuries of extermination and a product of the so-called “Genocide Zone” (Eastern Anatolia), and it’s, unfortunately, fuelling the perpetuation of these harmful traditions.
If we look at Kurds from outside of the Genocide Zone, for example those in Iran, we tend to find fewer honour killings (although Iran has plenty of its own problems with unreasonable punishment). Are we beginning to see a pattern?
For more on Kurds and honour killings, see this analysis by two Kurdish academics in memory of Fadime, the girl murdered in Sweden last year. Note that they go deeper than the claim that honour killings are cultural – they reasily admit that they are, but they believe the underlying reasons are a form of patriarchal male oppression that is widespread all over the planet – a form of male terrorism. Which is precisely what I meant on the following topic:
Murder is murder. Honour killings, I have argued, are simply an excuse to lash out at family members such as wives, daughters, etc., with relative impunity (jail sentences for honour killers tend to be lenient, rarely more than a couple years if that in countries where the practice is frequent). Sometimes, a difference between honour killings and other forms of murder is the peer pressure component. Victims of “dishonour” are sometimes pressured into taking action by others in the tribe, but not always. It’s entirely legitimate (where it is accepted/tolerated) to claim honour killing as a defence for murder, with or without peer pressure.
Therefore honour killings, as I said earlier, would seem to be only an excuse for lethal violence. And murder happens everywhere. So does violence against women, which would seem to be the real problem here – honour killings are simply a manifestation of such. Jealousy, anger, etc., can all be very relevant if a man kills a woman in, say, the US. The murder can become what is known as a crime of passion, which carries reduced punishment than cold-blooded murder. Replace jealousy and anger with “honour” and what do you have?
Yes, it’s called engaging in prejudice, forming a premature judgement without proper regard for the evidence. The problem is that, aside from proponents of honour killings, I am not aware of justification for such barbarous behaviour in Islam that you cite, and Tamerlane has again shown it be quite irrelevant to your tirade against Islam. If you think otherwise, let me know what item you are referring to. Do we claim that Christianity is “barbaric” and “despicable” because some psychopaths in the US think that murder and terrorist attacks on e.g., abortion clinics and doctors are the pious work of those who want to save the sanctity of life? Of course not – we are sufficiently enlightened to recognize that although the pyschopaths may be Christian, and although they may profess deeply religious motivations, they are simply twisted fucks and not embodiments of a world religion. We have to at least make the attempt to avoid generalizations.
You get one free pass, WinstonSmith, in the interest of furthering the debate. After that I can’t promise I won’t respond to further foolishness as it deserves.
So you could provide these alternative explanations and arguments you refer to? While you’re at it, you should also explain to us how “Christian” practices such as the murder of abortion doctors could in fact be Christian.
Because I appear to know rather more about religion and culture and their interactions than you have demonstrated in this discussion. Because I have demonstrated knowledge of these topics in the past. Because Tamerlane is here with me (!). Because I have pointed out the fallacies in your position. Because I have cited credible sources that explain the cultural aspects of honour killings, and explicitly state that honour killing is not a religious phenomenon but a cultural one.
You have categorically failed to show that honour killings are Islamic in nature, relying instead on a highly unreliable association between honour killings in Scandinavia and the religion of a culture that originated traditions of honour killings and was exported to Scandinavia. A number of us, on the other hand, have shown how honour killings are cultural in origin.
And Islam, like the major world religions, is largely a revelation, it is not a vote by committee. I have no patience for religion of any sort, but the central tenets of the faith are provided primarily in the scriptures – if some people or even cultures insist on intepreting these materials in a tortured and obtuse way (e.g., Islamic terrorists who kill innocents, or the Taleban), is that supposed to be an indictment against Islam? Or would this scorn not be better directed if you aimed it at the particular beasts who are engaging in sub-human behaviour?
The above summation is simplistic to the point of bigotry. Tamerlane has just explained the way in which the terrorists could be viewed as “Islamic”, and the difference between nomenclature and religion. Although I am not sure because I haven’t read the thread in question, I would hazard the easy guess that Aldebaran was referring to passages in the Koran that prohibit the taking of innocents’ lives, one of the very worst things one could do in Islam and, by extension, quite “un-Islamic”. Since terrorists specialize in killing innocents, it can be argued that folks like al-Qaida are Islamic only in name.
And, indeed, such people do give Islam a bad name, especially to outsiders who insist on simplistic analysis. However don’t assume that a label must necessarily carry deeper meaning.
“Honour killings” and “Islamic terrorism”, consider those two terms. You readily admit that there is precious little “honour” in the former practice despite the name, yet here you are insisting that the latter is necessarily Islamic when there is no provision for terrorism in Islam. Language can be confusing. I am fairly confident that you similarly failed to understand the meaning I am guessing Aldebaran put forth, which is a difference of nomenclature vs the philosophical/religious tenets concealed by it.
Your claim still lacks a coherent argument to support it (it is, in fact, dogmatic), and you have avoided the segment of my previous message where I showed how relatively simple it is to distinguish between culture and religion in this case. I think everything else has already been covered at least twice.
On the witch-hunts thing, you may be aware that some people still view witch-hunts as a primarily religious affair? The centuries-long problem was precipitated by a variety of factors, not a single one like religion. If you look at some of those factors I cited earlier, you will see quite a few that bear striking resemblance to elements that are also present in cultures presently hosting other types of formalized gender violence, such as honour killings.
I’m entirely aware of the fact that both “honour killing” and female genital mutilation spans both religion and culture and at least mutilation predates Islam and will take Tamerlane’s word for “honour killing” also predating Islam, however that doesn’t alter the fact that many Moslems view them as Islamic practises, condoned by the scriptures. Just last year in my little part of the world two Somalian Imams publicly proclaimed Female Genital Mutilation (not their words naturally) was mandated by Islamic law. That they later retracted when faced with expulsion from Denmark, doesn’t really alter the fact that it’s widely accepted among Moslems as an Islamic practise. I readily admit Tamerlane knows infinitely more about Islam than I ever will, but this is besides the point because this is not a debate over the finer details of Islam. I don’t need to prove wherein the Islamic scriptures “honour killing” is mandated, I just need to point to the fact that many practising Moslems view it as that – and the fact that it’s quite unreasonable to claim Islam has a correct and a wrong interpretation (which is what I refer to as dogmatic). Putting culture and religion on the scales, my personal opinion would also be that’s it’s heavily weighted down on the cultural side – but that too is beside the point since my personal opinion is of little interest to those Moslems that claim otherwise.
I agree with the importance of stressing it’s not a Moslem culture if for no other reason than because there is no such thing (a single uniform culture I mean on preview). Which is why I throughout have used “some Moslems” and “interpretation”.
- Rune
You suspect correctly. Those are my personal bedrock morals without any basis in higher logic whatsoever or religion for that matter since I’m not much of a religions person. I think the difference lies in the fact that the child has a demand on the love and protection of the parent. So not only are you killing an innocent child you are violating an unbreakable claim for protection and love. Also I find it worse to kill children than an adult as well as those unable to flee or defend themselves (and where should a daughter flee to if not to her father? And where should a daughter seek protection if not her father?). Any argument can be taken to reduction absurdium. Somewhere logic gives and conviction takes over – this is here for me.
By this I did not wish to imply it was solely restricted to the Middle-East, just that it was (also, if you wish) taking place in the Middle-East. And the reason I emphasised the Middle-East is that, to my knowledge, only people from the Middle-East commit such crimes in Scandinavia – which is the place I happen to live. And if you, for a misplaced wish to seem impartial, use your resources to monitor Japanese or Spanish immigrants in Scandinavia for signs of impending “honour murders” you’ll be wasting resources and endangering the lives of possible victims.
By the way, not that I necessarily disagree on the Kurdish thing, but the last “honour killing” in Denmark was an Iraqi father and his 14 year old daughter.
I agree it has very much to do with the pitiful place of women in those cultures, but I don’t see how you can say the underlying reason [deeper than cultural] is patriarchal male oppression – when this is very much a part of the culture itself. The only thing deeper than culture is biology, and I don’t think anyone would claim it’s based therein. And the fact that the same symptoms are seen all over the planet, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the same cultural practise that cause them. I mean, male oppression in the Middle East is probably another thing than male oppression in South America, and should be handled differently.
I don’t agree spousal murder or “crimes of passion” belongs to a same category. But we’re not going to get any further here because as I readily admit it’s not a view I base on reason. More, while I personally believe things like “(mad) jealousy or anger” are somewhat mitigative, I don’t think “honour killing” normally goes under either, since it’s often pre-planned or ordered.
If you read my posts again you’ll find I have made no such claim to cites. As I have already explained I do not need to show where Islam justify it, just to the fact that many believing Moslem think it does, and it’s unreasonable to raise one interpretation of Islam above all others, and declare this to be the only true and valid one. This is what I call dogmatism. While I don’t see disagreeing with Tamerlane as something evil – I’m quite sure we disagree on a whole lot of subjects, I don’t think you and he are arguing the same thing, since he (correct me if I’m wrong), unlike you, doesn’t believe in one true static interpretation if Islam.
And do I claim any interpretation of Christianity that condones terrorist attacks on e.g., abortion clinics and doctors is “barbaric” and “despicable”. You betcha! But that is another thread.
This was an innocent joke, a play with words. If it makes you sick you best start twisting your knickers because I have no control over it – I have to twist every post I make often to the point where I wonder if anybody but me understand what the heck I’m on about. I might also add that you yourself have had these fine things to say about me: insinuation I had an axe to grind, engaging in prejudice, forming a premature judgement without proper regard for the evidence, to the point of bigotry, tirade against Islam, etc. You might consider I give you all them for free and give me a pat for generosity.
Indeed it can. Where you go wrong is insisting people that have another interpretation of Islam are simply mistaken. It’s like I don’t make myself clear, or we keep talking past each other. What I’m saying is that there is no one and only true interpretation of any complex religion, including Islam. This is not something we can possible disagree on?
What I readily admit is that I think there is precious little honour in “honour killing”, but those practicing it obviously think otherwise, why else the name. My point is that we should not give them that for free by agreeing to call it “honour killings” which is why I suggested koricide or just plain murder.
I have in fact not ignored any segment where you showed how relatively simple it is to distinguish between culture and religion, since you haven’t done so anywhere. But for the record I’ll go over my response again. What you do is declare such “murders are not condones by Islam”, which is clearly your interpretation of Islam. Other people have other interpretations. Unless you claim to have direct divine guidance you can’t reasonable claim to have any inside on the true interpretation of Islam. “[…]are not exclusive to Islam but usually arise in strong paternalistic/patriarchal/tribal societies” That despicable things happen in other cultures is sad but obvious and besides the point, when some Moslems claim they are Islamic.
You lost me on the witch hunt. First you say it’s “not about religion”, then you go on to say they were caused by among other things “religious changes”. I considered it off topic, but just stated my personal belief that it was a mixture of both religion and culture – but that none of those are alive today and while there may be parallels you can’t possible argue Middle-East child killing is inherited from European witch hunts.
- Rune
Though there’s no Koranic justification for honor killing per se, there’s certainly Koranic justification for brutality toward women. To wit:
That specific enough for ya?
Here’s the site it came from:
http://www.secularislam.org/women/dont.htm
My point isn’t that all true Muslims should go out and beat up women, it’s just that there’s room for vile interpretations in the Koran, just as in the Bible or the Torah. Sure, enlightened Muslims don’t see things this way, but there’s a whole fucking boatload of Muslims out there who are seriously unenlightened. They would SNEER at the notion that your Westernized vision of Islam is truer than theirs. They would say that honor killing is a Muslim practice.
You say it isn’t. They say it is. As an outsider, I’m prone to buy the notion that if a lot of Muslims think something is a Muslim practice, it’s probably a Muslim practice. Sure, you’ve got YOUR interpretation of Islam, but they’ve got theirs.
I am sure that there is much in the Koran that can lead one to lead a truly decent and civlized life, and that a lot of Muslims swing their interpretations along those lines. But what you don’t seem to get is that a lot of Muslims DON’T.
Your comparison to the fundies and Catholics who murder abortionists and bomb family planning centers is slightly off-kilter. There is no widespread support for these yabbos in the U.S. U.S. law doesn’t go easier on them because they’re religiously-inspired murders. In fact, it can be argued that they’re punished more severely, as hate crimes. Besides, no one has argued that honor killings don’t occur in Western countries. You wanna start a thread on Western honor killings, I’ll gladly join you in decrying them.
But I do think there’s a pecular horror to the ritualistic, planned murder of family members that isn’t involved in most Western honor killings. You don’t seem to “get” that, and I have to wonder why. You think infidelity murders are just as bad. They’re horrible, true, but there’s something really sick about the cold-bloodedness of Muslim honor killings that puts them in another category altogether than infidelity murders. I feel a certain gulf between us when I contemplate your inability to understand that.
I know many Muslims hate honor killings and oppose them, but the practice is so widespread that it’s very obvious there’s a significant number of Muslims who support them. Now, I’m not saying their vision of Islam is equal to yours – I would tend to regard it as distinctly inferior to yours. But I WOULD say it’s a widely held vision in most predominantly Muslim countries.
What I have read consistently agrees with you that honor killing is a tribal practice that predates Islam in most areas where it occurs. However, when people are called to account for honor killings, they almost always cite Islamic beliefs, not tribal custom, per this site:
http://www.conservativenews.org/InDepth/archive/199903/IND19990308e.html
Here’s the relevant quote:
Now, why is that? It’s because the tribal customs have been absored into Muslim culture, just as Catholic beliefs often absorb pagan customs. The murderous element of the culture surely originated in tribal practices, but it now manifests itself as Islamic.
WinstonSmith You repeatedly claim that honour killing is
and that
and yet again, that:
So where are your cites for this? Where is your proof? What makes you think that most Muslims condone this? I assert that only a tiny minority of Muslims believe honour killing to be mandated by the Koran, and you have yet to prove me wrong.
Furthermore, you seem to beleieve that any and every interpretation of Islam is equally valid and equally correct, and we can never state that any one interpretation is wrong. I find this argument to be patently ridiculous.
There is of course a broad spectrum on interpretations and beliefes and schools of thought, but if a group of Muslims believe that there is more than one God, or that Mohammad (pbuh) was not the last Prophet, (for example), then those beliefs are in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Koran, and I would hesitate to call them “Muslims”.
Similarly, if a tiny minority of Muslims believe Honour Killing to be justified or even mandated in Islam, they are doing so in direct contradiction to the Koran, and they are wrong.
Call it dogmatism if you will - call it whatever the hell you want, but you have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise the word “Muslim” becomes indefinable and meaningless. You might as well have a Southern Baptist decide that Jesus is still God, but that he’s going to call himself a Muslim…
I have already said that Islamic culture is the culture in which Islam is the dominant religion in a country. That would include Pakistan and the Phillipines. I know that the practice of Islam varies widely in the countries that fall under that rule, but there are a lot of countries that practice honor killings and the worst of them seems to be Pakistan, which is not part of the Middle East. Not to mention what Islamic culture was in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
**I think I see what you mean here. I think this may very well be the crux of your argument. If casual, pre-marital sex, multiple partners and the like are frowned upon in Muslim countries, then this is somehow oppressive to women? How so? Seems to me that Islam treats the issue of sex exactly the same as Christianity does. It’s an issue of morality that is (or should be) applied equally to both sexes. **
Murdering someone with an axe is a pretty extreme form of “frowning upon.” It’s not so much the mores but the extremeness of the sanctions.
Evil Captor,
It seems that, just like WinstonSmith, your argument is predicated on the assumption that honour killing is accepted by the majority of Muslims (or even a significant minority), and that this therefore makes it an “Islamic” practice, regardless of whatever the Koran has to say on the matter.
So again, where is your proof? Why do you make this assumption? Where are your statistics that show that this is “widely accepted?” What about the fact the murder mentioned in the OP has received widespread and public condemnation from the Muslim Community?
I can tell you that, as a Muslim, I find honour killings to be abhorrent, and this view is shared by my family, my Muslim Friends, my Muslim aquaintances and colleagues. In fact I have never met a single Muslim in my entire life who has condoned this practice.
Granted that this is anecdotal evidence, but it still gives a valuable insight as to how “widespread” this view is.
Once again - I assert that only a tiny minority of Muslims believe this practice is acceptable, and I assert that it has no basis in the Koran, so it is not an “Islamic” practice.
Tamerlane (et al), two points:
- I believe the comparison of murders of women or other murders in western countries to “honor killings” is not valid, at least for purposes of this thread. The difference is that the western murder are committed as individual acts that defy the values of the society in which they are committed. In the case of “honor killings”, they are committed in the context of positive acts among the sub-segment of society that supports them.
The only comparable western murders that I can think of might be abortion clinic shootings, but these are insignificant in number (and it’s unclear how large of a community supports these attacks).
- Beyond the excellent point being made by Winston Smith - that it’s difficult to definitively declare what is or is not sanctioned by the Islamic religion - the fact is that it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Suppose it should turn out that it can in fact be objectively proved that the interpretation of Islam that allows for “honor killings” (or terrorism) is incorrect and a perversion of true Islam. No difference. A religion does not cease to be a religion simply by virtue of being wrong. I assume most of the participants in this thread are not Muslims, and would consider many of the key tenets of Islam wrong, but this does not change the fact that Islam is a religion. A religion becomes a religion simply by having people believe in it, whether they are right or wrong.
So the people who believe in this “false” interpretation of Islam are practicing a religion every bit as much as those who believe in the “true” interpretation. OK, so it offends you to call it Islam? Fine, call it something else - say, Shmislam. Bottom line is that there is a Shmislamic religion that condones “honor killings”, and there are apparently a decent number of Shmuslims out there. Take it from there.
That has nothing to do with freedom of religion in the United States, for example. Our legal system should have no trouble accepting the “honor killing” rationale and rejecting it out of hand.
There might be some reduced culpability for a murder carried out in “the heat of passion” or the like. That is an adjustment for the mental state or mens rea. An honor killing really is just a premeditated murder with “honor” as the motive. Gavel bang Guilty. Next case.
Any legal system which accepts “Allah made me do it” as a defense to murder is falling for the oldest trick in the book. What a bunch of rubes.
Ever heard the term “shotgun wedding”? It’s cute till your on the wrong side of the shotgun. In fact, threats of violence against people “violating a woman’s honor” with consentual sex acts are commonplace, and in the recent past plenty of that violence was real- especially if black people were involved. Even today the stereotypical “crime of passion” is killing your wife and her lover when you catch them in bed- and this is punished less harshly than other crimes.