(No) honor killings

Remove all ads!

Barmy:

Barmy, the problem with that is that it establishes a state religion of its own: atheism. And it scares me, I mean really scares me, that you don't see the problem with that.

Ziad:

I never said any such thing. I said fanaticism seems to be more common among muslims than other religions, but then I specifically said that may be more due to a shared middle-eastern culture than to the influences of the religion specifically.

 

12th-century Spain is another example of a culture where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in peace and prosperity. Maimonides (aka Rambam), one of the greatest Jewish sages ever, came from that culture.

 

I don't see why it would. Just because you don't allow religion to enter politics doesn't mean you establish athieism throughout (which wouldn't actually be a bad idea as far as I'm concerned). It just means you don't allow religion to alter political decisions. Also, I don't believe that not actively following a particular religion necessarily makes you athiest.

 

The most important mistake made here is the one connecting such murders to islam. They are and always were an expression of a tribal society, not of religious dogma.

 

I don't see the problem either. Why should a move away from blind faith to rational thought be discouraged, especially in the decision-makers? A state that has no strongly religious leaders will not necessary attempt to remove all traces of religion from the country and, due to human rights, I doubt that is even a likely possibility.

No tea? That's...that's...simply barbaric! I dread even the thought it!

 

Morgoroth has already beaten me to it. Oh no! He must be a muslim apologist as well!

Depends who you're asking. Many muslims consider what's written in them to be bollocks since (as you've stated yourself) they consider the Quran to be the word of god (complete, perfect and all that) while the other works were written by men. They're meant to complement the Quran, not replace it.

Hardly specific to Islam. I don't like using the "oh but others have done it first!" argument but let's face it, sexism is hardly an islamic invention. If we're going to criticise the religion for something, let's at least pick something specific to it and that wasn't shared by half of the world at the time.

I thought we were talking about the Quran?
"According to the Quran, homosexuals, women, Jews and anyone that exercises his universal rights are the enemy." Your own words.
The articles of the Shariah are not universally accepted by all muslims as being worth the ink they're written with. Using something out the Shariah as an excuse to blast all muslims is the same as picking fault with some christian writing (say St Augustine's) and blasting all christians for believing in it. Not all do.

I know she is. I don't think I've refered to her in my post. If I did refer to her as "he" - sorry Rally!
(And while I'm willing to let martaug think of me as a "muslim apologist", don't get me started on the Quran being "right")

The Hadiths are a tricky thing to talk about. There's many of them - far, far too many. I wish I could remember who did this - some years ago a scholar decided to try to see just how many there were, and calculate how long it would have taken Muhammad to say all of them. The time frame he came up with meant that he would have had to spend every waking moment from when he had his "revelation" until his death talking non-stop

That was specifically the Benu Nader tribe (all other tribes at the Oasis were spared). Not to justify their slaughter, but they have an interesting history of double-crosses, including an assassination attempt on Muhammad.
That said, I take back my comment about peaceful coexistence, as I had completely forgotten about the specific incidents you mentioned. My bad.

The Ottoman empire happily slaughtered anyone who wasn't an ottoman, including other muslims, so I wouldn't really use them as an example of discrimination against non-muslims specifically

Now before anyone jumps at why I ignored all the specific quotes you've got from Quran passages, the reason is simple - none of those I've seen ever had a numbering system anything like the one you've used. I don't know where these numbers refer, as the only times I've seen them crop up was with translations and never with the Arabic books (which are the ones I've seen). The original language has a name (no number) for each Sura, which I assume is the first number, but if the second one is line number then finding the specific passages you're talking about is impossible with anything but the particular version you have (and others that use the same formatting).

I was wondering where your bitterness comes from, and I think I understand now. I also feel I owe you an apology - the accusatory tone of my post came from the assumption that you knew nothing on the topic, whereas your response is abundant in historical references (some of which I'll admit I did not know or had forgotten about). However if you truly feel that you do not hate islam and muslims then you've got to realise that sweeping generalisations like "you're either westernized or muslim" and "I would take fundamental Christianity over fundamental Islam anyday, because the former is based on common sense and the latter on desert barbarism" do not come across as "fair" or as "criticism" but as, well, bitter hatred (not to mention they really don't do justice to how well you've researched the topic). I'll agree that fundamental Islam is as far from common sense as you can get - but so is fundamental Christianity, fundamental Judaism, fundamental any religion, and yes, fundamental atheism. In response to one of Barmy's posts you've listed things you expect of a muslim to be considered "westernised" while completely disregarding (or possibly not realising) that none of these points have anything to do with islam itself and can be applied to any religion, including the predominant "western" religion (To take just one example: "One nation under God", "In God we trust", the president being sworn on the Bible, etc...)

 

thanks for the link morgoth, it just reinforces things while answering one question. did you notice the 3 legal reasons to kill someone? for killing another, for adultery or for becoming a non-muslim. now, i don't know about where you live but here if you cheat on your spouse or change religion we don't kill you.
@ ziad, yes the usa was founded as & is a christian nation yet we don't try follow the laws set done in parts of the old testament because we have grown & evolved to the point that we realize they no longer apply.
unfortunately, the islamic world does not wish to do this, as is common among fundies, the book is the end-all & be-all. to never change, sorry, it may have been ok to trreat your wife like one of your cows 1000 years ago but not now in the rest of the civilised world.
they either need to join the 21st century or become small isolated communities like the amish if they wish to keep a religion that is so fundimentalist, no more ruling countries & inflicting their crap on others. just because you believe your religion is right doesn't give you the right to violate the basic human rights of others.

 

Neither do they in Turkey which is predominantly a muslim country, nor do they in Malaysia, nor in Bosnia, or in Indonesia or in Albania. As Drew pointed out even in Brazil killing your wife for adultery was legal until 1991 so it's not like this has been illegal in all Christian countries for all that long. However I will agree that it's a barbaric custom that needs to be wiped and it's horrible to read about immigrants who carry on this custom to various European countries, it's unacceptable.

 

Not entirely true. I read in the news all too often about someone killing their cheating spouse. It's throughout the culture in books, movies, poetry and song (and not just country music). It is illegal to kill the cheater, but you often hear people say things like 'he had it coming for what he did' when referring to the crime. The 'crime of passion' defense works for a reason -- because we, as a society, are willing to believe it.

 

yes T2Bruno but it is not condoned & encouraged by your religion & when was the last time you heard of someone being killed for changing religions when islam wasn't involved?

 

It's called 'deprogramming' and can get out of hand. The killing is usually accidental, but not suprising when you consider the techniques used to deprogram someone from a religion (or cult).

 

Hey Ziad, it's good to see that you cleared up and I hope that you and I can now continue the discussion without feeling the need to be unnecessary rude

I admit, it depends on who you ask. The Shariah even differs between Islamic regions, albeit slightly. But these books do not mean to complement, they mean to clarify.

I only responded to your claim that the Quran said a lot of good things about women. The passages I remember look good at first, but are sexist at the core.

I haven't heard about that one, that's funny I know that there are Hadiths that are only accepted in some Muslim circles. The one I got the number 72 from, is (IIRC) only accepted in the Sunni movement. This should lessen the burden for Mohammed.

It's true, they even oppressed the Arabs. So I'll stop using them.

Yes, the original way of referring to the books was not with numbers, but using numbers is more useful for scholars. The books are, except for the first one, ordered by the number of passages. So using numbers seems to be a good way that can be used across translations. The first number is indeed the Surah, and the second number is the passage. For example, 6:160 points to

Use the link to the digital Quran that I gave in my previous post.

True, but since
(a) The Quran is complete and
(b) This rule is something that all versions of the Shariah agree on, and therefor,
(b2) all important Islamic theocrats have found justification for the execution of homosexuals in the Quran
I conclude that the Quran actually claims this, just not in the crystal clear words that I and you would like to see. To support this, 7:81 in full:

and three passages later:

That's fair. I'll redraw my second statement because it is a harsh one, but I'll stick to my first one for the reasons that I already mentioned.

@Rallymama

I'm speculating here, but since they were on the far end of the Islamic region - and a whole different ethnic group, the Moors - they could have been quite immune from the fundamentalists Qaliphs in the ME.

 

That sounds suspiciously like picking outs bits that want to follow and ignoring the rest. If it is in the OT and has neither been replaced by a passage in the NT or proven to be impossible to follow, why should you get to ignore it?

Yes, the OT can be a bit odd*, but do you not see the problem in claiming a religion is correct apart from some bits which you don't bother with any more?

* "They are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon according to its kind, every raven according to its kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according it its kind, the owl, the cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat" (Leviticus 11:13)

If this is true, I've no idea why Noah went and saved them on his ark.

 

Ziad and Decados:
I would consider the forbidding of any active practitioner of a religion to be the official establishment of state Atheism. Mind you, the establishment of a state religion does not require that all other religions be oppressed or expunged, just that this is the religion which the state operates by whenever the issue comes up. This religion is assumed to be true in courts.

I would also like to remind you both that religion and rationality are not mutually exclusive. Many of history's greatest thinkers, ancient and modern, have been deeply spiritual people. At the same time, many of the biggest idiots I know are atheists or agnostics. Bad decisions are not by any means limited to the faithful, nor are good ones the sole property of the unbelieving.

Essentially, to even begin to defend such a measure, you would have to demonstrate that non-religious folk are statistically more likely to make good decisions, or at least less costly bad decisions. I challenge you to do so.

Decados:
That's specifically speaking of food. Those animals are not to be eaten. They are 'unclean'. If you go through the dietary restrictions of Leviticus, there are currently understood reasons to ban each one (mainly parasites, disease, or a high tendency to go bad quickly without being noticed). Once the reason is understood and can be properly managed, there's no need for the law anymore. This is covered in Acts 10:9-16 when God tells Peter in a vision to eat of the animals (all unclean) in a sheet lowered from heaven. Peter's response is that he has never eaten anything impure, to which God responds "Do not call anythng impure that God has made clean." - Acts 10:15b NIV. By this point, the Jews' contact with other cultures had educated them as to why these were unsafe to eat and how to handle them safely. This is why the Christian church has never followed the Levitical proscriptions on food.

We can say the same thing today about their laws on the treatement of the diseased or on exposure to blood and dead bodies. If you look at the laws, these are obviously disease control and quarantine. Today, we understand diseases and quarantine pretty well, and can handle these things ourselves.

 

That's fair enough- my biblical knowledge can be hazy at times.

Very true. There have been great minds both religious and non-religious.

I doubt there really is any statistical evidence either way in terms of ruling countries- it isn't as if there is a huge amount of data available.

I had another point to make on this, but it has gone and vanished. I'll edit if I remember it.

 

Actually, killing for adultery or apostasy is mentioned in the Bible.

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." - Leviticus 20:10, KJB

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God" - Deuteronomy 13:6-10, if I read Biblical nomenclature correctly .

However, the above would probably not apply to a conversion to another Abrahamic religion, since the three worship the same God. At the same time, the above verses were first written there were no other monotheistic religions near Israel, so there was nothing else to be mentioned. I don't know how the Qu'ranic verses work, especially as I've seen a few verses translated in very different ways - so I can't tell if they likewise consider converts to Christianity/Judaism apostates. I wouldn't be surprised.

Anyway, my point is that imo Islam, like Christianity or other religions, can be used for good or ill depending on how its teachings are interpreted and what the believer actually wants to do. Its teachings certainly can be used to defend inhuman behavior, but that doesn't mean it's not personal or cultural factors who actually motivate this behavior.

 

You are assuming everyone reading that passage believes the three religions worship the same God. Quite often, slight deviations in worship are only seen as blasphemy -- such worship is no longer directed at the "Only True God" but really revolve around worshipping the devil in the guise of the "Only True God".

People believe what they want and will distort religious beliefs to get what they want.

 

Yeah, Christians stopped that stuff (or should have) the moment Christ uttered his "Let him who is without sin..." judgement. Obviously Jews have no reason to abide by that, but they may have their own reasons.

 

"or should have" are the key words there.