Muslim "honor killings" protected under freedom of religion?

Great Debates
121

Why the heck is it everybody but me is calling it Muslim? Moslem was the name I was taught in school.

I have not in fact claimed most Muslims condone this, I have claimed a substantial number (many, large number, etc.) of Moslems does. Clearly I think it’s a minority of all Moslems that condone it and an even smaller number that practise it – but still a sizeable number. And a sizeable number that often find endorsement from their religion.

If I should guard my sentence against all possible misunderstandings, they’d be even more overloaded and torturous that is already the case. I find any interpretation taken by a sizeable number of believers to be valid. There are of course always some lone crackpots that’ll take some ideas to extremes which can not be defended. However when a sizeable number of Moslems think one way, it’s unreasonable and dogmatic to claim their view is incorrect because it’s not an interpretation you personally can share. Before setting up an example it should be examined whether it’s really a realistically example. Personally I’d tend to believe a person that holds there are more that one god would not call himself a Moslem. On the other hand I’m quite happy, within reason etc., to concede anyone calling himself a Moslem (or Christian etc.) as a Moslem. And I have already stated my view that nothing can be in direct contradiction to the Koran, only in direct contradiction to someone’s interpretation of the Koran – since the Koran by itself is a lifeless, inanimate collection or words.

Regarding cites I have none at hand (since what I know of the subject is mostly from TV and Radio programs), so I went to dig some up – which isn’t hard at all. But already in this thread the case of Taliba acceptance of honour killings has been put forward, as well as the Jordanian lenience within the law. (Surfing on, this is specifically what I found it to be “In Jordan, “honour” killings are sanctioned by law. According to Article 340 of the criminal code, “A husband or a close blood relative who kills a woman caught in a situation highly suspicious of adultery will be totally exempt from sentence.” Article 98, meanwhile, guarantees a lighter sentence for male killers of female relatives who have committed an “act which is illicit in the eyes of the perpetrator.” Julian Borger notes that “in practice, once a murder has been judged an ‘honour killing,’ the usual sentence is from three months to one year.”

But on to the cites here is a small collection quickly gathered. Not all the links are about Islamic honour killing, but all about honour killings in predominantly Moslem orientated counties – which should go some way to prove that it is widely accepted among Moslems (actually on review I’m appalled to find it even more widely accepted than I had thought).

BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/410422.stm
“Pakistan’s upper house, the Senate, has rejected a resolution condemning the growing incidence of murder of women in the name of family honour.”

And fresh off the press:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3097728.stm
“Three brothers hacked their two sisters to death in Jordan in an “honour killing”, one day after parliament rejected tougher sentences for such crime, officials are quoted as saying.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3094736.stm
“A woman is like an olive tree. When its branch catches woodworm, it has to be chopped off so that society stays clean and pure.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2954060.stm
A man from Amman has been sentenced to a one year prison term for strangling to death a sister who had become pregnant out of wedlock, the Jordan Times has reported.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2567077.stm
At least 461 women were killed by family members in Pakistan in 2002, the country’s independent Human Rights Commission says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/724802.stm
“In the second, a 21-year-old married woman was killed in her home by her brother for suspected extra-marital relations.”

And on and on and on…

Amnesty
Honour killings of girls and women
"The Chamber of Commerce in Peshawar, of which Samia’s father is President, and several religious organizations demanded that Hina Jilani and Asma Jahangir be dealt with in accordance with “tribal and Islamic law” and be arrested for “misleading women in Pakistan and contributing to the country’s bad image abroad”. Fatwas [religious rulings] were issued against both women and head money was promised to anyone who killed them[…]”

“In March 1999 a 16-year-old mentally retarded girl, Lal Jamilla Mandokhel, was reportedly raped several times by a junior clerk of the local government department of agriculture in a hotel in Parachinar, North West Frontier Province. The girl’s uncle filed a complaint about the incident with police who took the accused into protective custody but handed over the girl to her tribe, the Mazuzai in the Kurram Agency. A jirga of Pathan tribesmen decided that she had brought shame to her tribe and that the honour could only be restored by her death. She was shot dead in front of a tribal gathering.”
This is so sick it leaves me speechless.

“The status of women in Pakistan has been described as defined by the “interplay of tribal codes, Islamic law, Indo-British judicial traditions and customary traditions … [which have] created an atmosphere of oppression around women, where any advantage or opportunity offered to women by one law is cancelled out by one or more of the others” [8]. Traditional norms, Islamic provisions (as interpreted in Pakistan)[…]”

Among statutory laws, it is particularly two laws which disadvantage women in Pakistan, both introduced in the name of the Islamisation of law. The 1990 law of Qisas and Diyat covers offences relating to physical injury, manslaughter and murder. The law reconceptualized the offences in such a way that they are not directed against the legal order of the state but against the victim. A judge in the Supreme Court explained: “In Islam, the individual victim or his heirs retain from the beginning to the end entire control over the matter including the crime and the criminal. They may not report it, they may not prosecute the offender. They may abandon prosecution of their free will. They may pardon the criminal at any stage before the execution of the sentence. They may accept monetary or other compensation to purge the crime and the criminal. They may compromise. They may accept qisas [punishment equal to the offence] from the criminal. The state cannot impede but must do its best to assist them in achieving their object and in appropriately exercising their rights.” [9].

“The Lahore High Court in 1994, while hearing the bail application of Liaqat Ali who had gravely injured his sister and stabbed to death a man he allegedly found with her, was told by the petitioner’s counsel that in an Islamic society a person found to indulge in zina [unlawful sexual relations]in public deserved to be “finished” there and then. Indeed, such murder was more of a religious duty than an offence. The judge is reported to have said: “Prima facie, I am inclined to agree with the counsel.””

Etc.

PAKISTAN INSUFFICIENT PROTECTION OF WOMEN

“On 3 October 2000, Nathu, in Bangla Ichha in Rajanpur district, Punjab, killed his wife Gamil, who was eight months pregnant, pulled out the foetus and stabbed it as well; he had suspected his wife of infidelity.”

“In October 2000, 15-year-old Asif Ali Hussain and his cousin used axes to kill Asif’s sleeping sisters Firdous, 21, and Najma, 20, in their home in Sheikupra, Punjab province. Both young men were arrested; Asif Ali Hussain said in jail that the women had dishonoured their family when they spoke to men other than their relatives and therefore deserved to die:”

Etc.

Yes, It is Islamic Don’t Apologize for It!
“The murderers and their defenders refer to this verse of the Koran that allows husbands to beat their wives: “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill - conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them”, the Koran, chapter 4, verse 34. Honor killing is a tribal practice that has been incorporated in the religion of Islam, because of its anti - women nature and misogynist philosophy.”
“While the murderers have repeatedly and openly defend their act by referring to Islam and the Koran”

This site even go on to give support for the OP (which I though everybody agreed upon was a strawman). Now I don’t know about that, but it is something to fuel the thoughts.
“And that is where the reactionary idea of Cultural Relativism is put into practice to justify women’s victimization by excusing Islam and backward traditions. Unfortunately, until recently which some measures were implemented by the Swedish government, this government not only neglected to protect the lives and the rights of these women, but also justified their murders under the name of respecting ‘other’ people’s religion and culture”
“Swedish intellectuals should show the honesty that is required and expected from intellectuals, by telling the truth, by siding with those innocent young women who were victimized and continue to be brutally victimized because of the Islamic and backward tradition. It is not acceptable to apologize for Islam and backwardness”

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=339
“But punishment of women is widely accepted as an honorable tradition not only by most Jordanians but also by the state.”
“When Ahmad pulled the trigger, 19-year-old Haneen was two months pregnant. Ahmad, now 17, spent one year in jail and then was released to a hero’s welcome from his family and neighbors.”

http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/honorkillings.html
“Some have viewed honor killings as a logical extension of traditional Islamic gender practices, the natural consequence of system that enforces sex-segregation through veiling and female seclusion and harshly punishes violations of these boundaries.”
Yes, among the majority, decency fortunately still rule.
“Others have argued that honor killings are the antithesis of Islamic morality.”

Licensed to Kill
“Indeed, obtaining a jirga verdict to kill a woman accused of dishonoring her family and tribe is not a very difficult undertaking in Pakistan. “
“But in a country where 57 percent of the population is illiterate, Hassan says religious extremists have periodically sought to legitimize honor killings by linking it to Islam.”

And from (Morroccan) Fatna Sabbah’s book: Woman in the Muslim Unconscious:
“I would like to say to the young men formed in our Muslim civilisation that it is highly improbable that they can value liberty - by which I mean, relating to another person as an act of free will, whether it be in bed, in erotic play, or in political debates in party cells or parliament - if they are not conscious of the political import of the hatred and degradation of women in this culture.”

A simple google will give you plenty more, but I’m going to stop here because it’s making me nauseous.

  • Rune
122

Reasonable enough. Murder is still depressingly common in the U.S., but formal bloodfeuds have become rare ( I’m not entirely sure I can say they have disappeared all together ) - violence continues at a high rate, but without the same veneer of societal acceptance ( except perhaps in certain, largely or at least partially criminal subcultures, like streetgangs et al ) it had even 100 years ago.

It does raise an interesting question about why largely non-socially sanctioned murder rates are still so much astoningly higher overall in the the U.S. than in a place like Jordan, but that is obviously a question outside the scope of this thread.

Ohhh…kay. With you so far.

Sure. Never argued otherwise. I think we are talking past each other a bit. Let me try ( and probably fail miserably ) to clarify.

Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, like say those in Taliban, but most of them really, practice a version of Islam which has acquired a number of what I would consider to be “cultural accretions”. That is to say features not universal to Islamic belief and faith, nor even normative to them, but rather arising out of the local tribal culture and taking on a veneer of religiosity in order to justify them as right and proper. In this case I ( and people are free to disagree, but this is my take ) consider “honor killings” to fall under that heading. The Qur’an nowhere explicitly commands “honor killings”, nor do any hadith, best as I understand. Instead a chain of passages are found by ( i.e. commands to modesty, passages that put men at the head of a household, etc. ), that taken together ( and frequently disregarding potentially conflicting passages ) can be used to, often somewhat obliquely, justify such actions.

Now are those Pashtuns Muslims? Yes. Is what they are practicing Islam? Yes, of a sort. Are “honor killings” therefore Islamic? Not quite. I know that sounds weasley, but my issue is the implied universality of referring to them as “Islamic”, with no qualifiers. Given the circumstances, I much prefer to refer to “honor killings” as a cultural accretion that has been inculculated into the local version of Islam, rather than refer to them baldly as Islamic, which I think is potentially misleading. Again, a semantics issue.

Offended? No, not at all. I have no emotional stake in the issue whatsoever. Again, I just think it is misleading when qualifiers are left off.

Same here. In fact I got marked down on an exam paper once for spelling it “Muslim”. However, my ninth-grade history teacher aside, Moslem is now considered a slightly old-fashioned spelling and Muslim is preferred because it is a transliteration that is closer to the actual pronunciation of the word.

No argument. I’m not sure I agree with Bibliovore’s assessment that it is a tiny minority ( to be honest, I don’t know ), but it definitely appears to be a minority.

I am not, for reasons I have gone into before. Words must have definitions. I am willing to cut a lot of slack to someone who refers to themself as belonging to a particular faith, as I consider self-identification the number one criterion. But at some point, they must not directly contradict the standard definition. A Jordanian Muslim who commits an “honor killing” I’d still consider a Muslim ( unless they held some really heretical views aside from that ), but I lean against referring to members of the Nation of Islam as such, as they hold some beliefs that are out-and-out heretical by normal Muslim standards.

That, IMHO, is going way to far over into the realm of relativity. If you think a prophet has appeared since Muhammed you are clearly in violation of a basic tenet of Islam, no matter how much interpretation you try to do. Religious texts, I’d agree, are pretty much all very open to interpretation. But only up to a point.

Actually, I’m afraid they do nothing of the sort. Instead they just reaffirm what everyone ( I think ) has acknowleged - “honor killings” are a serious problem in Jordan and Pakistan ( as well as some other places like Yemen ), which is where every one of your cited anecdotes comes from.

  • Tamerlane
123

…tiptoes into thread…

Abe said:

No.

No.

There’s lawful killing and unlawful killing. Lawful killing includes killing an enemy soldier in battle, self-defence and death by misadventure.

Unlawful killing includes murder and manslaughter (among other things). Manslaughter means that you killed someone for one of several reasons - diminished responsibility, provocation, suicide pact (voluntary manslaughter) or negligence, unlawful act (involuntary manslaughter - common law).

So, imagine you kill someone and get charged with murder. If you successfully argue self-defence then you get set free, you committed no crime because it was a lawful killing.

(The above may vary in your jurisdiction. Usual codices and caveats apply - ie if you’re thinking of killing someone don’t take my word as gospel etc etc).

… tiptoes out of thread…

124

A “misplaced wish to be impartial”? Such a wish is never misplaced, no matter how much indignance or outrage one throws at it. But on to the real substance, generally speaking in Sweden only people from the Middle East entertain rationales (however twisted) of honour killings. If you had a high number of, say, Brazilian immigrants in Sweden, then you might find that the honour killing rationale existed in other communities besides predominantly among Kurds. It’s therefore fallacious to causally link Islam and honour killings based on limited observation – and a broader point of view reveals that, like female genital mutilation, honour killings take place across multiple religions.

They were probably Kurdish; Kurds are scattered across a number of nations, including Iraq and Turkey. Scandinavia seems to have problems with honour killings primarily involving Kurds. Yes, they are Muslim, but that is hardly surprising. The majority of honour violence in Brazil is committed by Christians. Again, not a problem of religion as much as culture.

Culture is a soft term to some degree, which is perhaps why you keep conflating it with religion, but what I meant was that there are definite cultural undercurrents of gender inequality across all cultures. You might argue that they are biological to a degree – superior physical strength seems to be an important component of gender violence after all, and were men not stronger than women I very much doubt the present picture (or that of thousands of years ago) would involve nearly as much gender violence and domination. So by the very fact that honour killings involve biologically differring organisms (men and women) one could argue that there is some basis (or several bases) in biology. In fact, that would make a very interesting thread.

I have posited that this form of male oppression is especially prominent in cultures that share certain traits, as described. We can safely infer that male oppression probably has very similar causes everywhere, since the same factors keep popping up – and Islam is not one of them.

The main difference between crimes of passion and honour killings, as a number of people have pointed out, is premeditation. That’s fine, I didn’t intend to equate honour killings and crimes of passion on all levels. I simply wanted to show how there are degrees of excuses for horrible crimes, and not just for the murder of women in Islamic cultures. If something like a third of all women killed in the US are killed by their intimate partners, that suggests to me a serious problem. The difference is that in the US the problem is underground, whereas in certain countries it is institutionalized (to an extent, Jordan) or technically illegal but unofficially permitted (Brazil). Women end up dead at the hands of men all over the world just the same regardless of the labels you apply to the problem, or the region you choose to focus on. It was yet another suggestion that there is more at work here than just religious differences.

I referred to it because it is exactly the same kind of situation. A number of assholes commit an act of violence, and then use religion to justify it. The biggest mistake is to take their word at face value and fail to qualify the argument. For example, in the 9/11 case, it would be silly to claim that Islam is a religion of violence and terror based on the actions of a handful of extreme fanatics. It would be much better to claim that the form of militant Islam propagated by al-Qaida is a creed of violence and terror, yes. And if you really wanted to be fair about it you could point out the various crucial differences between al-Qaida’s militant Islam and mainstream or Koranic Islam, such as the wholesome respect for innocents in the latter versus the heinous targeting of same in the former.

As Tamerlane said it’s a question of semantics, but that is no reason not to be careful with semantic content: it can make the difference between expressing of bigotry and expressing serious concern.

No pats for generosity. Your “play on words” employed a technique you had just used to blast Aldebaran – accusation of dogmatism. You mixed ridicule with entirely unwarranted personal attack to try dismiss my point. Let me take a minute to be pedantic and show why I said the things you complain about above:

The Axe comment: I said “Either that’s the sound of a rather familiar axe grinding away, or you haven’t checked the data provided” I stand by it, since I don’t see a probable third alternative – the problem here isn’t Islam the religion, but certain (you might even call them backward) cultures.

The prejudice/forming a premature judgement comment: you said “I can’t help but think them an ugly blot staining the whole [of Islam].” This represents a classic case of prejudice (a generalization), one you just admitted to in the segment I quoted. I replied with “Yes, it’s called engaging in prejudice, forming a premature judgement without proper regard for the evidence.” Well, it is.

The to the point of bigotry comment: you insisted, without much support, that just because someone refers to themselves as Muslim his actions, intent, and words are necessarily Muslim too, whatever they may be. Bigotry is the exercise of unfair prejudice or intolerance. Your summation is an unfair judgement to the overwhelming majority of Muslims, those who do not engage in terrorism or kill women.

The tirade against Islam comment: what you seem to be doing in this thread is providing a denunciation of Islam in addition to a denunciation of honor killings – one item I agree with completely, the other is a facile generalization, possibly motivated by outrage and an incomplete grasp of the facts. I didn’t see a constructive discussion, hence the reference to a tirade.

I have, a number of times. Here’s one:

If that’s not good enough, let’s try again. Honour killing: culture or religion? What are the common elements that will allow us to distill one or more key determining factors for honour killings? We’ve looked at Islam, and seen how honour killings are a feature of at most only a small minority of Muslims worldwide. Honour killings also crop up in other faiths – if Islam is supposed to be the determining factor, then it’s difficult to see why honour killings crops up in other religions too. So we need to look at something else beyond Islam, something that shows commonality across the regions where honour killing is found. From South America to the Middle East and Asia, what could be the common elements, the predictors if you will?

Items that are shared across the various cultures that engage in honour killings would be an excellent start. And, sure enough, when we look at cultures where honour killing takes place we can readily identify a number of shared traits other than religion: similar cultural expectations (such as patriarchy, machismo, fundamental inequality of the sexes) or particulars of the status quo (uncertain future and unstable situation, inclement socio-economic conditions, etc.) or even such factors as level of conservatism (e.g. strongly puritanical beliefs, etc.). I explained as much, with the relevant cites, in my first and second posts on this thread and ever since. I also cross-referenced this case to female “circumcision” to illustrate how an item that is quite clearly cultural in origin and nature could be mistaken for one of religion. I then expanded on that by discussing briefly the practice of witch-hunting and of blood-feuds, also cultural rather than religious items.

They’re called “honour killings” not because killing a female relative is in any way honourable, but because a death is required to wash away the stain brought on to a tribe’s honour by whatever alleged behavour. Personally, I think that calling it “honour killing” actually draws attention to the stupid traditions of machismo involved, and may assist in putting an end to the practice.

Witch-hunts were caused by a variety of factors as described. One of the factors, “Religious changes”, need not mean that religion was the leading cause of witch-hunts. Although Christianity was used as a convenient excuse in this centuries-long venting of stress-induced paranoia, the point is that other factors were much more relevant. Similarly, the Crusades weren’t exactly about religion, in spite as being advertised as such by the Popes of the times.

Surely the point is nowhere near so obscure, perhaps you may benefit from a rereading of my post. Consider the argument that honour killings and witch-hunts are simply the manifestation of the same human trend/s, which seem to have occurred in the vast majority of the world’s cultures: the subjugation of women, the belief that men are better than women, etc. You will note that this ties in nicely with the cultural arguments of patriarchy, machismo, and mysoginy.

I’ve got a few other posts and points to get through so I’ll do that as soon as time permits.

125

Not really.

By the way, I am not familiar with the web site you used, but I would be wary of information coming from it based on this rather poor essay you linked (WinstonSmith also linked to the site). I am particularly wary of the repeated use of “Islam- ridden” to refer to countries with a dominant Islamic tradition: firstly, the term strikes me as vaguely offensive; secondly, “ridden” is the past participle of “ride”. Perhaps the author was thinking of the word “riddled”, meaning permeated (in which case the gunshot connotation of the word is most unfortunate and the reason I think the term may be used there deliberately offensively). Anyway, not the most inspiring of sources.

Let’s take a closer look at the passage in question, this time in three translations:

As you see translations vary. The jist of the passage is in my opinion best captured by Yusuf Ali: men are stronger than women, and it is thus men’s duty to protect and maintain women – not to beat the daylights out of them as some people suggest Islam is all about. In fact, one way of looking at this passage is that it attempts to reduce violence against women. Notice that the first thing a Muslim husband who perceives “disloyalty or ill-conduct” is required to do is to admonish (talk to) his wife. Next, if things do not improve, he is free to refuse to share a bed with said wife, in other words sending a rather strong message indicating the severity of the situation. Only after these measures have been attempted is a husband allowed to resort to any kind of physical punishment, and then only with a light hand. Finally, notice the warning at the end of the passage, telling man not to hold any rancour or bitterness for his wife once the problem is resolved.

So the Koran actually advocates two phases of non-violent behaviour in between a perceived problem with a woman and the physical abuse of that same woman – rather better than going straight to the beating, I think. And the beating is, it is often argued, meant to be symbolic rather than punitive.

Of course, this kind of thing was far more relevant to 7th Century Arabia than it is to modern society. Women out and about today will take a taxi and come home safely without a second thought, but back in the day dangers such as abduction, assault, etc. were very prominent and women had to be guarded closely. At any rate, I disagree that this passage (4-34) is a sanction for brutality against women – it would seem to me quite the opposite.

There are plenty of other passages in the Koran that encourage fair treatment, respect, and love of women.

No, I “get” it perfectly well. These “muslim honour killings” as you keep referring to them are no more Muslim than slavery is Christian.

We know there are some honour killing fixed hotspots in the Middle East, chiefly in Jordan, Pakistan, and among the Kurdish populations scattered between Anatolia and Iraq. What you have to show is that this is an Islamic practice as opposed to a cultural item predating Islam and surviving alongside it in some populations – as Tamerlane explained, cultural accretion. Honour killings are most certainly not in any of the five pillars of Islam, or in any comparable source of Islamic guidance.

Is slavery inherently a Christian matter just because it was widely supported among Christians? Is slavery a Christian practice because it was so often rationalized and apologized by some official exponents of Christianity as well as average practitioners? The Curse of Canaan is probably the leading scriptural basis for racism against blacks and their enslavement, even though the original story in Exodus doesn’t really advocate slavery. Still, it was claimed that the primitive, wicked, and backward people of dark skin are the descendants of Ham, cursed and twisted bestial beings deserving of enslavement and conversion. Of course, that’s not really Christianity.

Well, do we have some indication beyond hasty generalizations to suggest that honour killings are upheld by anything other than a minority engaged in (misguided, as we have seen) cultural tradition?

126

Well I see Abe has resurrected the thread.

On review I see all of the cites, except the secularislam.org (about the Swedish Fatima case), are from Pakistan and Jordan. Not purposeful so, but also inconsequential I’d say. Perhaps it would be regrettable if the exercise was about documenting widespread acceptance of honour killing throughout the Moslem world. But it wasn’t, it was showing acceptance of honour killing by a considerable number of Moslems. So what is a considerable number? Well I don’t know, but a percentage of either Jordan or Pakistan will do.

One anecdote is an anecdote, two anecdotes are two anecdotes, many anecdotes document a trend. Anyway while many of the cites certainly start off as documenting single cases, I don’t think you can write them all off as just anecdotes. E.g. The Jordan parliamentary and juristically acceptance and support of honour killing, as well as the widespread Jordanian popular support thereof are all documented. The favourable Pakistani court rulings and statements, as well as the belief that they are religiously based by highly placed clerics and officials. The numbers reported by Amnesty. Etc. All document much more that mere anecdotes I think.

  • Rune
127

We’re not talking law here JoJo, we’re (at least I am) talking ethics. I find law about as interesting as the mole on the Pope’s arse, and American law even less so. You might also consider that this is the Internet and not the Americanet. The law where I’m at, as far as I know – which isn’t a whole damn lot I proudly admit, has nothing comparable to manslaughter (just murder with different sentences), no common law (just good ole Roman), etc.
As for why I think not all murders are born equal; I think this has been addressed adequately.

  • Rune
128

Regrettably I must disagree. If being impartial does more damage that good in the world. If the impartialness endangers children. If the rush for impartiality is solely to satisfy your own conscience or further a political motive. It’d be impartial but ridiculous to offer free pregnancy tests to both sexes. In a world with finite resources (such as ours) it’s impartial but damaging to diverge resources to areas where they do little good, such as honour killing counsel to Spanish immigrants.

Perhaps, but since that is not the case we’ll never know. And more to the point, as the portion of my message you respond to was about events in real life taking place here and now, and how best to deal with them – what Brazilian immigrants would or would not do is quite irrelevant. Unless you’d argue that the fact that Brazilian fathers may kill their children in Sao Paulo somehow helps Kurdish girls threatened by their fathers in Stockholm.

Round and round and round we go. All this spinning makes Winston a dizzy boy. I’m going to stand here in this corner of the thread and sulk and hold my breath till you at least acknowledge that what I’m talking about is the interpretation of Islam. That I do not believe in a Islam, but many different interpretations of Islam. If we are to have any meaningful discussion you’ll simply have to read what I write and reply to that, and not something I do not write.

  1. I have written several times that I do not causally or otherwise link Islam to neither Honour Killing, Genital Mutilation, or Superman’s bathing trunks. What I have written is that I do indeed link some Moslems interpretation of Islam to those despicable practices. And that based on their own testimony and not specific veres from the Koran.
  2. I have supplied cites to document it is not based on a limited number of observations.
  3. I have addressed the point that I’m quite aware of the fact that genital mutilation and honour killing is prevalent in other religions and cultures, but that this is beside the point as long as it’s also taking place in Moslem religion and culture.

These are all points I have rehashed over and again already in this thread, please can we skip the part where I have to do it again.

I disagree. And unless you’d posit those similar causes exist in biology I can’t possible see how such a view can be held. Taking into consideration the immense variety of culture social circumstances, etc.

You will of course note again (and again) that I think Islam is nothing without interpretation. Do I believe Islam, by all Moslems, is interpreted as a religion of violence and terror? Nope. Do I believe Islam, by some, is interpreted as a religion of violence and terror? Yes I do. Do I believe that Islam, by some, is interpreted as a religion that condones child killing? Yes I do. And do I believe that the fact that these despicable interpretation may be shared by just a minority makes them non-Moslems. No I do not.

And you will of course have noticed that I already have written that I agree with Tamerlane on this particular point, which is why I, unlike you, throughout have used terms like “some Moslems”, “many Moslems” etc.

While we’re being pedantic:

This just shows you either haven’t read or understood very much of what I have written so far (should I reiterate: it’s not the whole darn Islam I’m talking about, but some Moslems interpretation thereof! Fer’ Allahs sake! How many time must I repeat? I believe in no singular Islam common to all Moslems! Why do you keep insisting I’m talking about Islam when I’m just about some schism therein?). And another notch for a very tiresome, dare I even call it Bushiest, discussion technique you seem to find somehow constructive; “either you’re with me, or you’re a man with a wicked heart”. Have you for a second contemplated the third option: I, myself, Mr. Abe have not understood what was written, or gasp am mistaken?

No it’s called an honest response when faced with a despicable practice. And the fact that you again emphasize just Islam when the whole three lines preceding it was about both Middle-East culture and Islam, goes to show you haven’t much understood, or choose to ignore, my view of the inseparable nature of culture and religion. So let me rephrase that for you again. “Does the fact that some Middle-East cultures and their form of religious interpretation to some extend incorporate a favourable view of child killing make them somehow less attractive to me? Yes it does. Does it damn it all? No it does not.” If you deem this a prejudice I wear your affront gladly, if not I put it to you that you have just commit a grave act of premature judgment? In any case I think it reveals you as fairly stupid (and you might consider the fact I have called you nothing as bad as you just called me)

Again you exercise little reading skill and even less comprehension. This thread is not about those that do not kill children, but about those that do. It is you, not me, that insist again and again to bring them into the debate, even as I repeat they are not what I’m talking about. That you use your own misunderstandings as basis for insults, makes you what? Bigot? Stupid? (and you might consider the fact I have called you nothing as bad as you just called me)

Not understanding much of what I have written, would have led a better man than you to ask for clarification, not knee-jerk insults. Again, what? Stupid? (and you might consider the fact I have called you nothing as bad as you just called me)

All in all, I find your debating style often very tiresome; you have very thin skin, and prone to engage in insults and provocative accusations on the most flimsy grounds. But since your last post revealed no new ones, I’ll let it pass in the interest of furthering the debate.

No it wasn’t good enough, and I already addressed it. And neither is this good enough either since it seem to be mostly about dispelling the faulty assumption that I believe Islam is the number one reason for honour killings, and the unsubstantiated idea that shared outcomes necessarily demands shared roots. Also you have yet to address why it is you think you can dispel the belief of many Moslems with a wave of your hands and a puff of magic. Further you seem to have gotten the impression that I think their religion made them do it. If so I’ve not made myself clear, because I most certainly think no such thing. They themselves are entirely and solely to blame for their actions. I’ve just pointed out that many have found a true cause in their religion, and that I did not find it fair to say they did not when they themselves adamantly claim so.

I myself is not much of a man for the great suppressive and eternal patriarchy. However removed some of the extremity, I do not find your point unconvincing – I just wished it formulated with a little less indignation. And if you have gotten the impression that I thought Islam the cause of honour murders, I have not been sufficiently clear in expressing my thoughts. My original, and perhaps only beef, was with the statement that Islam itself is against honour killings when many devout Moslems thinks otherwise.

As for my tirade against Islam. You might remember I started out saying whether religion or culture made no difference. I’ll tell you what Abe, I’ll give you this banana for free. Perhaps there are on average around one victim of honour killing in Denmark per year. Meanwhile there are on average eight other child killings, that’s 800% more deaths. This is not what this thread is about, but a much more serious threat to the children. Some parents kill their children simply because they can’t be bothered with them, other parents find it appropriate to introduce them to something remiscence of regular prolonged torture sessions. If someone were to open a thread arguing these parents should get a special break because they’re ethnic Danish, you’d see me bringing down the wrath of gods on their puny arses. As far as I’m concerned these are children; they have no religion, they have no culture, they have no colour, no sex, no social position, just children.

  • Rune
129

Although, it leads to a skewed result to call it accepted by a “considerable number” of Muslims, if it’s a Pakistani and Jordanian cultural tradition.

As a parallel example, Scandanavia is Christian, and Scandinavians also eat lutefisk, which isn’t really found outside of Scandinavia. So, because a percentage Scandinavians eat lutefisk, you could say “A considerable number of Christians eat lutefisk”…that would be true, but it also would be misleading, because it seems to suggest there is a link between Christianity and lutefisk eating, when in reality, Christianity and lutefisk eating are two independant Scandinavian traits.

130

The cites were in direct response to Bibliovore’s “So where are your cites for this? Where is your proof? What makes you think that most Muslims condone this?” Which I responded to with a: I nowhere claimed, and in fact did not held, a majority but a considerable number. There it is, a considerable number.

Also I have yet to hear of a Scandinavians eating lutefisk as a religious duty. But who knows, people say and believe the darnest things. Some people even believe it’s wrong to eat lovely crisp bacon. But whatt’do’you’know. If a considerable number of faithfuls claim it is according to their religion not to indulge in pork, I’ll gladly accord them that it’s really according to their religion and be on my merry way.

Also I think the thread has been hashed to death many times over. Are there anyone that doesn’t believe the OP was a strawman? And even not, are there anybody that hold such killers should get off light?

Goodnight.

  • Rune
131

No, the week-end simply intervened before I could write a reply. I don’t normally post on week-ends.

I was discussing impartiality, not a case of reductio ad absurdum. The people who really study these cultural problems consider impartiality essential.

I was highlighting why the judgements you expressed a few times could well be misleading (no matter how intended or rationalized). And I was illustrating why statements you made indicating that the difference between religion and culture is irrelevant and undetectable are simply wrong. We may easily distinguish between cultural and religious items. Not always, but in the case of honour killings the matter is relatively clear because we have a broad baseline to work on and readily identifiable trends to measure up against it.

I have stated often enough that you will find interpretations of just about anything among those professing any religion, therefore it’s rather meaningless to go on about whatever interpretation of Islam you feel like focusing on while largely ignoring the rest. I explained this point referring to al-Qaida for exactly that reason.

Do you accept the assertions of every person on this planet? I noted before (and I think you ignored), you might also do well to distinguish between the categories you are discussing. Therefore, rather than refer to al-Qaida as simply Islamic, a fair observer (and certainly an impartial one) would identify the fundamentalist militant philosophy of the group as an extremist criminal faction born not out of religious belief, but of political, historical, and xenophobic factors and intolerance, among others. One could further examine the level of support for this group among some populations of Muslims and realize that socio-economic conditions, historical trends, discontent, and propaganda are often the driving forces of such militancy – religion is simply the veneer under which it is practiced, propagated, and justified. Just like honour killings.

I have responded to this in previous messages. I have also noted that it’s quite meaningless to talk about the matter in this way. Since there appears to be no religious basis for honour killings, you are taking a cultural item particular to certain tribal and patriarchal societies and calling it, willy-nilly, Islamic simply because some of those people practicing it are Islamic themselves (and tend to justify everything they do as Islamic anyway!). Muslims eat, therefore eating is a Muslim practice.

Referring to the practice as Islamic is unnecessary, incorrect, and misleading. If you want to look at it another way, when examining these thorny questions one needs a rather more critical eye, one cannot simply accept assertions without question. Particularly in the case of Islam, which suffers from almost as many schisms as Christianity and which lacks its centralized structures, as you mentioned.

What have you really demonstrated? That a limited set of observations, restricted to Scandinavia, Jordan, and Pakistan will lead to the tentative (but fallacious) conclusion that honour killings are Islamic? Not even that. No one is disputing that some Muslims practice honour killings. But how about identifying a substantial number of Muslims who actually do so for reasons of religion as opposed to tradition? In the cites I have read so far, the justification for murder is usually given as “honour”. When Islamic law is mentioned, details are not provided and the link to honour killings is not stated (e.g., AI referred to Islamic law being used to arrest suspects etc., but is there a more direct link between Islam and honour killings, or is honour itself used as the justification? – the latter seems to be the pattern)

My objection, previously stated, is that you are singling out Muslims among the wider set of honour killers (or female circumcisers), and that your prose suggests (perhaps unintentionally) a link between honour killing and Islam – these problems will tend to lead to fallacious conclusions, especially to people not informed on this subject.

Do you have an argument to do so with?

Some of the underlying causes probably are biological, since there is no place in the world that is to my knowledge safe from violence and from violence against women – nor is it likely such a place will exist, given the fundamental biological differences between men and women – violent conflict and superior physical strength are more male traits than female ones. How trends (such as patriarchy or mysoginy or more specific manifestations) are handled seems to depend on cultural notions. In Jordan and Pakistan and among the Kurds, where tribal rural patriarchal influences are prominent and where equality of the sexes is an obscure concept, you have an enduring tradition of honour killings that seems aggravated by a number of variables, including well-being, history, tension, political climate, etc. In Brazil and some other Latin American countries, where, similarly, machismo is king, you also find the same practice and it tends to be aggravated by low socio-economic status. The search for elements common to all the countries where honour killings take place doesn’t result in Islam, but in various other factors I already cited. Chief among them is the culture of the male as undisputed Leader – and that makes sense, since honour killings are a device that obviously maintains this convenient (for the males) state of affairs – any woman that steps out of line by showing independence or refusing to accept the Leader’s word can easily be accused of tarnishing the family’s (or tribe’s) honour.

Quite a lot of Muslims may be surprised to hear this. While of course all religion depends on interpretation of scripture and doctrine, one of the tenets of Islam is that the Koran is the perfect book, revealed to Mohammed in its finality and not subject to human whims. That is one of the reasons Arabic is the central language of Islam – because the Koran is no longer the pure word of god once it is translated, or interpreted. In practice, of course, interpretation is usually required to conceive of an ancient text as applicable to the modern world. But no interpretation of the Koran or Hadith that I am aware of can advocate honour killings, as you seem to acknowledge – in fact the Koran expresses strong disapproval of such practices. And since the Koran is absolutely central to all forms of Islam, we must question whether these tribes and societies that you claim justify honour killing on an Islamic basis are not in fact in direct contradiction to accepted definitions of Islam. (Much like the point Tamerlane made about the Nation of Islam, a group that does not consist of Muslims in anything but self-given name)

So, to go back to a previous example, when we talk about slavery in the US, for example, do we refer to it as Christian slavery or simply as slavery?

OK, but consider a Muslim: who believes that in addition to Allah there are gods of nature, who refuses to pray though he is fit to do so, who thinks Ramadan is a bunch of ascetic rubbish, who refuses to give alms to the poor though he is rich, who thinks that the Hajj pilgrimage may be satisfied with a holiday on the beach, who gorges himself on pork and gets drunk regularly; is a person holding a few such beliefs a Muslim because he insists that he is one? Your requirement is simply that he call himself a Muslim, but obviously that criterion is lacking because it does not factor in direct contradiction of the tenets of Islam.

In other words, how does your simple identification system address the problems of heretical belief? And how do you address the issue of diverging faiths and different cultures when the terms you have repeatedly insisted on using are “Muslims/Islam” and “Middle-East” without any finer definition or analysis involved? Why don’t you focus on a few cites where honour killings are deemed religious (and typically they are not, the people involved usually talk about their honour rather than religious beliefs) and let’s see where that takes us.

I suggest you focus your argument more precisely. Furthermore, you appear to be using the broad variance of religious beliefs to justify your statements (more about those at the end of the post). Let me ask you: why do you keep focusing on Muslims? Aside from the Scandinavia factor, where it just so happens that the tradition of honour killing is performed by Muslim immigrants and is where you live, why are you trying to make honour killings a facet of Islam, albeit interpreted? Where is the religious justification, apart from your limited observations, of this practice? What is the schism you refer to that advocates honour killings? Since you are talking about specific populations, and not Islam in general, perhaps you could start addressing the discussion in more detail than just vague references to undefined groups of Muslims whom you claim hold religion as a basis for honour killings. Maybe that will help you out of the broken record groove.

Amusing. Particularly amusing to note that you employed this same “Bushiest” technique you decry so fiercely just three lines earlier in the very same paragraph. The difference is I’m not going to reduce your words to an idiotic charged paraphrase the way you did with mine. And I did contemplate the “third option”, but I concluded it was unlikely.

I have little interest in whether the response is honest or not, it is nonetheless a textbook definition of premature judgement, of prejudice, regardless of your moral sensibilities. You admitted that the actions of a few, what you even acknowledge is a clear minority, “stained” the whole of Islam and the Middle East for you. A noble admission, by the way, but one that signals a certain prejudice in the discussion. Which may even explain your use of general terms that can easily mislead others, where more specific terms would serve better use.

You seem to entertain some delusions as to the clarity of your prose. You use broad terms like Islam and Middle-East liberally when talking about specific societies or countries, and when someone points out the existence of virtually identical practices outside those locations you seem to acknowledge them very briefly, but then go right back to making pronouncements pertaining to the Middle East and Islam. All your cites so far simply show what was stated earlier, that in certain parts of the world honour killings are a serious problem. In spite of your denials, culture and religion are by no means inseparable, as I have argued and cited. I have even posited the underlying causes of the ubiquity of sex oppression, only to have you try dismiss them with non-arguments such as “I disagree”.

Again generalities and vague parsing. Does the fact that some European countries/politicians and their forms of religious and political beliefs to some extent advocate racism and xenophobia make them somehow less attractive to me? Make “what” exactly? Europe, or a select few in that greater whole? The beliefs themselves? The exponents of the beliefs, or their entire countries? The religion involved? If I read you correctly you seem to think that you have stated yourself clearly on this matter, but you haven’t – and your case is weakened by your repeated insistence on conflating religion and culture in those aspects where the two are (and are shown to be) in fact distinguishable.

Let me point out, leaving aside the childish and formulaic personal attack above, that you are once again engaging in “Bushiest” behaviour, to use your term. Virtually the same inane silliness is repeated in the next THREE paragraphs, which, apart from insults, are devoid of content. I suggest you shape up. It’s in your best interests, really.

Oh, and let me point out that the one expressing outrage, indignation and various other emotions here, implied or openly admitted, is you – I think I have been rather even-handed as far as this thread is concerned.

Let’s skip ahead past the unsupported denial and waffling, and get to this:

How many is many? Aside, you will find plenty of arguments to address the above, starting with the possible distinctions between culture and religion. And let me note that, based on your reasoning, the matter becomes entirely irrelevant. Greater Islam most definitely is set against honour killings – even Sharia law, often a controversial judicial system involving brutal punishments, usually fails to support this practice. In this thread you have claimed both that A) Islam is not against honour killings and also B) that Islam supports honour killings. You have employed the term “Islam” to flip back and forth between general and more specific meanings, only adding to the confusion. Well, if Islam as a religious belief is entirely relative as you claim then it becomes meaningless to say that Islam is for or against something, since there will always be people calling themselves Muslims who will be for or against XYZ, and who will use religion to justify their actions and philosophies – just as I have shown that other religions were/are used to justify acts one might consider in direct opposition to those religions. The entire discussion of Islam thus becomes patently unnecessary, and we may proceed straight on to a treatment of the cultural traditions involved, since Islam is made entirely relative and amorphous.

The truth is rather different of course.

132

I am happy to link some positive news on this dismal topic, this item from about a year ago caught my eye:

I haven’t had time to check these particulars, but it would seem that even among Kurds – where the incidence of honour killings is relatively high – there are voices of sanity as far as religion is concerned. Note however that this development came from Iraqi Kurds, and not from the Genocide Zone, where the local kurds are rather more extremist (almost certainly as a result of their historical hardships, dispossession, etc., which are among the variables that I posit can aggravate existing cultures of mysoginy/patriarchy).

133

Thank you again, Abe, for a thoughtful, thorough, and balanced post. I could not have expressed it better, however I fear that despite your best efforts, others will continue to try and conflate honour killings with Islam, and will continue to perceive Muslims as barbaric misogynists.

It seems that this prejudice is so ingrained in some minds that some people cling on to it like grim death, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary…

134

[Moderator Hat: ON]

WinstonSmith said:

You know what you might consider? That you are breaking the rules by insulting another user in Great Debates. Adding a little parenthetical remark accusing that user of doing worse doesn’t change the fact that you are, in fact, the one breaking the rules. If somebody else violates those rules by insulting you, the proper way to handle it is to report the post to the moderators. Then that person would get a little note like this one that tells them to not do it again. Just like I’m telling you now: Don’t do it again.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

135

I know how to fix that. In the countries where it happens, track down the miscreants with bloody-screaming vigor and hack them to pieces 100% of the time, making no excuses for them and making sure that every one of them gets a very public and very gruesome death. So long as the perpetrators are let off the hook, then the reputation will hang around.

136

[Member Hat: ON]

David B said:

Gotta take my hat off for such a wise call David B. And timely too, since the insults have only being flying for about five days. And right on the mark even, since it was clearly me who started and insulted the worst. So with great respect I put it on again.

But wait I do have some questions, that I hope you could answer in the spirit of fighting ignorance and all that silliness.

You know what you might consider? That two persons were insulted here: one by being called stupid (and that suggested), the other by being accused of grinding axes, called prejudiced, engaging in bigotry, having a tirade against Islam, forming premature judgment without proper regard for evidence (a lengthy sentence for a small word: stupid, if you as me), etc. That you choose to emphasize one and not the other does that reflect the fact that you do not think they’re not insults, that you agree with the insults, or is it in fact an outcome of a glorious and irreproachable impartiality?

Perhaps you’d like to clarify your decision why my remark was so reproachable and not Abe’s? Or is your verdict beyond debate? Perhaps someone filed a complaint against me? See I truly do not know. Personally I find it much worse being called a bigot than being called stupid.

  • Rune
137

It might surprise you Abe, but I do not at all like being called a bigot, nor much enjoy being called prejudiced, or see my opinion reduced to an accusation of familiar axe grinding tirade against Islam. Etc. And what should I do with the fact that you apparently classify such insults under even-handed? Have you noticed that about half of the last few messages have been about such insults and not the topic of the thread? Such derailments are what happen every time someone starts up the insults. You posit to have a pious interest in furthering the debate; personally I don’t think this is the way to go about it.

But since you persist, and not least since David B in all his moderator glory has decried that only one person here can let insults fly, I do not think the cards are dealt with an even hand. So I must bow out of the discussion and wish you a happy thread.
I wrote this sulking on David’s post, but on preview I think I changed my mind. With all your faults, which are indeed many and grave, you sorta have a tendency to grown on one - much like old warts and snotty kids. Perhaps you are an acquired taste. So I recon I’ll be back to you after having sulked a bit.

  • Rune
138

Here at Great Debates, we are obligated to call our opponents’ arguments stupid, as opposed to calling them stupid.

Of course, isn’t a stupid person just someone who repeatedly and consistently makes stupid arguments? Isn’t it the height of rationality to call a person stupid when they make arguments that are demonstrably lacking in intelligence and understanding?

Not in the eyes of the Moderators.

As a lackey in the court of Muad’Dib said, “Sometimes I am required to say things other than what I think. This is called ‘Diplomacy’.” I believe they had him executed, but such is life.

139

I think you’re on somewhat shaky ground here as well. Most if not all religions are formed to some extent by cultural accretions being inculcated into them. I would imagine if you looked at the actual teachings of Mohammed himself in historical context, you’d find much that reflects the cultural teachings of his time and place. The fact that in this case the culture is a local one is not a fundamental difference in terms of defining a teaching as religious or cultural.

I don’t think it sounds weasely, but it sounds like you might be talking at cross-purposes to the discussion in this thread, which can give a misleading impression. The discussion here is about whether “religious” practices that are morally wrong according to Western morality should be given leeway because they are religious practices. By arguing that these practices are not “Islamic”, you seem to be supporting the position that these are not religious practices and would not get any leeway on this basis (assuming that this is in fact a basis for giving leeway - IOW, that the premise of the OP is wrong to begin with). If in fact your real argument is merely that referring to the practices as “Islamic” is potentially misleading from a technical standpoint, and your point is “a semantics issue”, then I think you are running a serious risk of being misunderstood and misleading.

140

Abe said:

So God advocates violence towards women?

That’s your story?

Aw shucks, what a guy. He may give you a slap but, don’t worry, he won’t hold it against you in the future.

How about the idea that you should never hit a woman for any reason ever (apart from in defence of life and limb)?