(No) honor killings

Remove all ads!

Actually, Martaug, in Islam none of those reasons cited are legal justification to murder someone. While it is true that Murder, adultery, and apostasy are considered capital crimes in Islam, it must be prosecuted through the court system. If you are actually following Sharia law to the letter and your wife cheats on you, you don't kill her. You press charges in court against her and the man with whom she cheated. If found guilty, the Islamic courts will mete out the death sentence. If a man were to simply kill his wife for (suspected) adultery, a nation properly adhering to Sharia law would likely put him to death for murder.

While it is a grave injustice when the judicial system puts someone to death merely for apostasy or adultery, it isn't an honor killing.

 

Sorry if I came across as rude in that first post. I was tired from work (I know, not an excuse) and made wrong assumptions. I'm glad we've cleared the air.

The Shariah differs between regions (which I'm tempted to say is due to the cultural phenomenon that Drew pointed out earlier, but I have no solid data to support this) but also between the different subgroups islam (sunna, chia, alaouites, etc). Many of the same stuff crops up in all of them, but some of the subgroups are very serious about how this or that article is different from some other subgroup's version, and these can trace back as far as the original split and the formation of the subgroups. You can see this if you compare the Alaouites (Syria) and the Chia (Iran). The countries may be political allies at the moment, but the religious subgroups, which can seem identical at first sight, have differences that go back centuries. To most (including me) the differences seem superficial but the people involved tend to take them very seriously (far too much really).

I reread my initial post and my phrasing was far too positive. What I should have said is "does not consider the enemy". That said, you are right and the passages you mentioned are sexist at the core. I would like to note that this attitude was not introduced by islam but was quite predominant among the tribes of the peninsual (definitely among the polytheistic tribes, not sure of the jewish ones had the same attitude, but if I had to venture a guess I'd say yes, as culturally all the tribes were very similar). Unfortunately the incorporation of this attitude into islam and the Quran means that nutters like the one mentioned at the beginning of this thread think they have an excuse or, worse, a duty to perform honor killings, which is insane.

Same story as with the Shariah. Too many Hadiths, and each subgroup picks whichever they find more convenient (or make them up, which is the only reasonable explanation I can think of for their abundance!).

My bad, I missed the link. The numbering system is strange, not all the Suras have numbered passages in the arabic version (though they do make referencing much easier).

I've gone through some of the passages you've quoted. The translation is very odd in places (though not too surprising considering the archaic Arabic used in the book is difficult to read, never mind translate). The minute I saw that 7:81 quote I knew which passage you meant, and I was pretty sure (albeit from memory) this was referencing the Torah. I went back to the online translation, and while it doesn't make the reference as clear as I remembered it, you'll noticed the passage has plenty of Old Testament references (Satan the fallen angel, the Garden, Adam, etc). The passages you quoted (specifically "shower of brimstone") is, I'm sure, a direct reference to Sodom and the Bible.

(Completely unrelated - there's apparently two towns named Sodom, one in Ontario and the other in the Shetlands)

Now this would not be of much importance if not for one little point. You could always say that what the Bible says is immaterial, the Quran claims that all its words are true therefore its attack on homosexuality is its own problem, regardless where it got its idea from. The one little flaw here is that the Bible also says it is the word of god and is therefore true. See Matthew 5:18 in which Jesus refers to the Old Testament in these terms: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Sounds awfully like what the Quran says about its own accuracy, doesn't it?

Now let me make it very clear I did not bring up this quote to say "if the Bible does it then it's perfectly acceptable for the Quran to do so as well". It's not. The reason I'm drawing this parallelism is specifically because of some passages you quoted being references to the Bible (the Quran has loads of these, as I may have said in an earlier post) and more generally because the argument that Islam can never become modernised (or westernised) because every word in the Quran must be true, then this will equally apply to both Christianity and Judaism (not so sure about the latter, although I remember some passages from the Torah implying that being the word of God everything in it must be true. The Kabbalah spring to mind, but I don't think they're representative of Judasim as a whole). Therefore this becomes no longer a debate about Islam but a debate about monotheistic religions. Which means that the "a muslim who does not follow the Quran word for word is not a "real" muslim" argument no longer applies either, because at that rate a disproportionately large number of muslims (and christians) are not "really" religious. I'm sure many of them would beg to differ

Unfortunately I have no evidence I can present to you to convince you your first statement is too generalising. The only evidence I have is a number of people I know, and that's not easy to get across to someone else. Edinburgh has a mosque in the city centre, not too far away from where I live. The people there are incredibly friendly - they've got a kitchen with some tables and chairs, offer food for a very good price (very generous portions as well!) and invite everyone, especially non-muslims, to come in and eat. No lectures, no "convert and you'll get a discount", none of that rubbish. You get your food and you eat, simple as that. If you express interest in learning more about what they believe and why, they are more than happy to give you a tour and explain, but the explanations are of the "we believe that" variety and never "we are right" or "what we believe is better". As far as I can tell they have no political involvement and are not trying to integrate Shariah law into British law or anything of the sort. By all appearances they're well integrated, happy to live here, make no distinction between a Brit or someone from their region, and their openness and eagerness to explain their belief without imposing it makes me wish more religious people were like them. The reason I'm going on about this is simple - that's an example of muslims (and the guys running a mosque, not some random people off the streets) who seem to fill in the 3 points you raised in an earlier post (I think in response to Barmy) which you considered as requirements for westernisation. In that same post you brought in a major point to the argument - even if people fulfill these 3 requirements the Quran does not, therefore the people cannot really be muslims and also fulfill the requirements because the of the Quran claiming its own words are always true. To this argument I raise the counter-argument I made earlier - the Bible says something similar yet many Christians consider themselves, and are considered Christians, without following the "letter of the law". While we could resolve this by saying that these people cannot claim to be Christians without following the Bible, I'd much rather think that they can, in the same way that muslims can be muslims without following the Quran to the letter.

Andalucia (well Al-Andalus at the time) was generally far more open and accepting than most of the other civlisations around it, especially at the time of the Inquisition (a number of european scholars fled to Andalucia, and the emirs there translated and preserved many of the books being burned further nborth). Ironically it was started by the remains of the Umawyya, who spawned the bloodiest and craziest caliphs, when the Abbasid took over the islamic empire. It's possible that the circumstances under which they formed, as well as their mixing with the Moors and the native Andalucians, made them much more open than their predecessors were (and could be the reason they outlasted the Abbasid empire by centuries). But this is again speculation.

 

One thing about the passages cited in the old testament I'd like to bring up is that in addition to the Divine Laws (The ten Commandments), and a historical record of the people. How many of these were interpretation by mortal Scribes and Pharisees and a concession to the lack of a prison system? In some cases, there was no alternative other than death...

 

If you start interpret like that you can pick and choose mostly everything Gnarff. By your own reasoning pretty much everything in the bible is interpretation of mortals. Is it possible to be a Christian and pick and choose from the bible what you deem is divinly inspired and what is just the ramblings of some old cook?

 

The simple answer to that is "yes". There is a lot of debate amongst the Christian denominations as to whether or not some books are canonical. There is also some debate about whether things have been altered, lost or mistranslated over the centuries. I would venture to say that a lot of debate in the Christian religion stems from arguments like this, though there are a lot of core texts that are not under debate (eg: every Christian sect accepts the 4 gospels as divinely inspired, I would assume.)

 

To add to what LKD said, I've seen books in other bibles that I've never heard of elsewhere. On one hand I'm curious to what they are, but on the other hand, I have enough to learn. But I do remember in the Gospels (universally accepted among Christians as divinely inspired) where Christ ran afoul witht he Scribes and Pharisees when he did good things but not within the confines of their ever tightening interpretations of basic laws given of God in Exodus. The Old Testament laws that come into question are where mortals try to clarify what God has commanded without the spirit of inspiration.

 

Must be hard to try to live ones life after a really old book that actually seems to be open for interpretation even by the true believers. It seems that everyone when all things are said and done trust their own judgement whether they are of faith or not. This is very off topic though. Honor killings are bad!

 

It's a question more of seperating the divine from the secular history recorded in the book. The secular makes concessions to practicality that lose the spirit of the divine laws.

 

the worst part of this is people try to say, "oh its just the tribal communities" but as this shows : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/iraq.humanrights1

now these are youths raised in britian, not what i would call a backwards tribal community. they are being taught it along side their religion as they grow up. there must be a way to change this. everyone has the right to raise their children but they shouldn't be allowed to preach hate & intolerance.

 

I want more information about that poll, who they asked and what questions they asked, as well and who conducted the poll. It's quite easy to get a stat like that.

 

How do you manage to decide what is secular and what is divine history? Being a Christian seems to demand some serious self confidence, not only do you have to first pick a religion and be sure it is the right one, then you have to pick denomination and be sure it is the right one but even then you are not done with choice, you then have to dissect and pick and choose from your holy book what is relevent and what is not and if you make one wrong choice you go straight to hell or at least get barred from heaven or something. I am impressed by your selfconfidence Gnarff, I do not think I would be able to make so many choices where so much hangs on the line as it does when you do have faith. Making the right and correct choice with religion seems as probable as winning on roulette several times in a row.

martaug, it is quite possible to keep tribal values despite living in another society for a generation. Tell me, how would you feel if your sister (if you have one if not imagine it) came home with a flaming bisexual liberal who finds Obama to be a bit too far on the right and also enjoys to dress up in your sisters clothes now and then?

 

Completely off topic, but Sodom? In Shetlands?

 

Well joacqin, i would have no problem with the flaming bisexual part but the liberal deal we would have to talk about & as long as he didn't mess up her dresses no problem, i like a good drag show as much as anyone.
See, unlike a lot of conservatives, i am extremely liberal as far as your sex life goes. As long as it is agreed to by all parties have at it. a bit of roleplay & leather never hurt anyone(well, no more than they wanted it to)

 

I like it when someone can synthesize an entire thread in 4 words and one exclamation mark. Go have a cookie, Joacqin

 

Context is a good indicator. There has also been centuries of commentary in some religions (over 150 years in the case of Mormonism) that can assist us in making these determinations. That is why some things stay forbidden and some things written off as concessions to the living conditions or man's interpretation of the law. Some of the stuff fromt he scribes and pharisees is actually kind of stupid and impractical...

 

Personally, I'd recommend that in the future she sticks to those who are not on fire. Although that would be second- I'd first be rather shocked as I reach for a bucket of water.

 

This still doesn't prove that the cause is religion rather than culture. I can guarantee you that, in Bangladesh, a hell of a lot more than one out of ten people think honor killings are acceptable. One out of ten would likely be the number who think that they aren't. A lot of those youths raised in Britain were raised by parents who weren't raised in Britain, so they didn't exactly get the full cultural experience of the UK.

 

Of course, if someone preaches something that is against the law, the state can be allowed to intervene imo. Give the Caesar what is caesar's, etc. However, as I said this attitude should not be restricted only towards Islam. If you want to be a ........, you can find more than enough in the Bible - and I'd say the Torah, if it is what the Old Testament was based on - to support your beliefs.