RANT: So-called 'Honour' killings

[Murmur]

Fuck allah:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.honor.ap/index.html

'"I thought the younger girls would do what their eldest sister had done, so they should be eliminated," he said, his hands cuffed, his face unshaven. "We are poor people and we have nothing else to protect but our honor."'

I bet if they had been BOYS this wouldn't have been a problem. Mysoginstic stupid mother pathetic fucking god-fucked bastard. Sorry self-centred shit-- you think god & the whole fucking universe revolves around your so-called fucking dick so that gives you the right to AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!

Where are the imams saying this is bad, Islam is peace-- where are they saying in plain language that this is against their precious Allah? I don't hear any of them.

But he' s only one example in Pakistan alone...

:angry: :angry: :angry:

[reddhedd]

Fuck allah:

Mysoginstic stupid mother pathetic fucking god-fucked bastard. Sorry self-centred shit-- you think god & the whole fucking universe revolves around your so-called fucking dick so that gives you the right to AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!

:angry: :angry: :angry:

:thumbs: :angry: :angry: :angry:

I only wish the thumbs up icon wasn't smiling. I agree, and would only add "chickenshit-ass-holian credit to theist extremists everywhere"

:crying: Redd

[Machiavelli]

Bush should have used that to justify attacking Iraq and thier ilk.

I'm way more disturbed by this being commonplace than I ever was about some weapons program.

[Alethias]

If I understand Islamic law right, the Imam's would say he is justified in killing his step-daughter because of the allegation of adultery, but that the killing of his 8 and 7 year old daughers is wrong.

Makes me wanna puke.

SoT

[Yahzi]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.honor.ap/index.html
This is exactly what the people in Pakistan needed to see. Maybe now they will take the problem seriously.

It also proves Sam Harris' point: if you tolerate mild unreason, you will enable wild unreason. Many Pakistanis probably didn't see the harm in killing daughters that were whoring around; most of them will undoubtedly recognize that killing them before they are old enough to even think about it is insanity.

And when the court sentences this guy to death - which it assurdedly will - there will be another precedent against tolerating honor killings.

This is how progress is made: when the mistakes pile up so high and so gruesome that they cannot be ignored.

[Bloodnf]

If I understand Islamic law right, the Imam's would say he is justified in killing his step-daughter because of the allegation of adultery, but that the killing of his 8 and 7 year old daughers is wrong.

Makes me wanna puke.

SoT

So you make an answer for some Imam and then you get disgusted by the answer you yourself made up?

[JEST2ASK]

So you make an answer for some Imam and then you get disgusted by the answer you yourself made up?

Murmur Where are the imams saying this is bad, Islam is peace-- where are they saying in plain language that this is against their precious Allah? I don't hear any of them.

But he' s only one example in Pakistan alone...

I am sorry I missed the links you provided showing the outpouring of outrage by the vast majority of Islamic Clergy ... and the pictures of the masses of protestors in all Muslim major cities calling for an end to such monstrous behaviour
:huh: :confused:

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth
If I understand Islamic law right, the Imam's would say he is justified in killing his step-daughter because of the allegation of adultery, but that the killing of his 8 and 7 year old daughers is wrong.

Makes me wanna puke.

SoT

So you make an answer for some Imam and then you get disgusted by the answer you yourself made up?

Where did she say that she answered for some imam? She gave her own understanding of islamic "law". I doubt that her accurracy can be far off. Your allah is just about as bloodthirsty as yaweh.

-Ubercat

[Machiavelli]

So you make an answer for some Imam and then you get disgusted by the answer you yourself made up?

So do you think honour killings are wrong?

[Kosh3]

The men who do them are soooooo honourable. They smack of honour, it drips off of them. Clearly gods favourites.

[Murmur]

Murmur Where are the imams saying this is bad, Islam is peace-- where are they saying in plain language that this is against their precious Allah? I don't hear any of them.

But he' s only one example in Pakistan alone...

I am sorry I missed the links you provided showing the outpouring of outrage by the vast majority of Islamic Clergy ... and the pictures of the masses of protestors in all Muslim major cities calling for an end to such monstrous behaviour
:huh: :confused:
I think you missed my point-- that's what I find additionally infuriating about this-- there WON'T BE an outpouring of outrage-- this is business as usual with these wackos. Their silence is just as reprehensible as this murderer. As a result, Islam is accessory to the crime.

[Bloodnf]

Murmur Where are the imams saying this is bad, Islam is peace-- where are they saying in plain language that this is against their precious Allah? I don't hear any of them.

But he' s only one example in Pakistan alone...

I am sorry I missed the links you provided showing the outpouring of outrage by the vast majority of Islamic Clergy ... and the pictures of the masses of protestors in all Muslim major cities calling for an end to such monstrous behaviour
:huh: :confused:

Every time a crime is commited by a Christian or a jew or a Hindu or a Buddhist we see their respect clergy out protesting? No.

Anyone can claim anything. It doesn't make it true. This man committed a crime. He broke the law. He has been arrested and will be tried and hopefully sentenced to the appropriate punishment.

No Imam needs to say anything because what this man did is contrary to the laws of Islam. And Muslims know this.

[Bloodnf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth
If I understand Islamic law right, the Imam's would say he is justified in killing his step-daughter because of the allegation of adultery, but that the killing of his 8 and 7 year old daughers is wrong.

Makes me wanna puke.

SoT



Where did she say that she answered for some imam? She gave her own understanding of islamic "law". I doubt that her accurracy can be far off. Your allah is just about as bloodthirsty as yaweh.

-Ubercat

Her understanding of Islam is wrong. And your doubs are wrong as well.
Islam does not allow for extra judicial actions which this was. And Honor Killings are contrary to the laws of Islam.

[Bloodnf]

I think you missed my point-- that's what I find additionally infuriating about this-- there WON'T BE an outpouring of outrage-- this is business as usual with these wackos. Their silence is just as reprehensible as this murderer. As a result, Islam is accessory to the crime.

Ridiculous argument. This was a murder. There doesn't need to be an outpouring of anything. What is needed is a trial and punishment according to the LAW.

[Avatar]

And Honor Killings are contrary to the laws of Islam.
I agree with this one...there isn't any mention or support of "honor killings" in the Quaran.

However, many Islamic countries make this a common practice. A effort to outlaw such killings was quashed recently, (In Jordan, I think) its opponents claiming that such a law was somehow against Islam or some such nonsense. Until this practice goes the way of the Dodo, Islam will only look hypocritical.

[TySixtus]

And Honor Killings are contrary to the laws of Islam.

Just like suicide bombing, right? Get a clue. If you think this honor killing was based on anything other than the Stupid Pile of Shit known as "Islam", you are fooling yourself.

Ty

[Bloodnf]

I agree with this one...there isn't any mention or support of "honor killings" in the Quaran.

However, many Islamic countries make this a common practice. A effort to outlaw such killings was quashed recently, (In Jordan, I think) its opponents claiming that such a law was somehow against Islam or some such nonsense. Until this practice goes the way of the Dodo, Islam will only look hypocritical.

Lets not blame the religion when PEOPLE do things directly in contradiction of the teachings of the religion.

Blaming the religion is exactly the excuse given by the perpetrators of these crimes.

[Bloodnf]

Just like suicide bombing, right? Get a clue. If you think this honor killing was based on anything other than the Stupid Pile of Shit known as "Islam", you are fooling yourself.

Ty

No. Your bigotry is what's fooling you.

[Ishmael]

No. Your bigotry is what's fooling you.
Agreed, Islam is the cause of this just as Christianity was the cause of countless crimes against women in the Middle Ages. Humans are better when they are less religious-- like the nominal West.

[Murmur]

Lets not blame the religion when PEOPLE do things directly in contradiction of the teachings of the religion.

Blaming the religion is exactly the excuse given by the perpetrators of these crimes.
But a religion does not exist in some vacuum somewhere-- it exists only insofar as it is brought into being by its followers. So the whole, 'Oh well, that person isn't a real XYZ' routine doesn't wash.

Is Rumi an abberration from Islam or is the Taliban? There is no official objective definition of Islam & is subject to interpretation & there are plenty of followers who are much closer to the Taliban & not Rumi.

Give me a good reason to see Islam in a good light for a change & I might change my opinion. But history shows that 'peace' is much more an exception than the rule.

murmur

[Bloodnf]

Agreed, Islam is the cause of this just as Christianity was the cause of countless crimes against women in the Middle Ages. Humans are better when they are less religious-- like the nominal West.

Humans do not need religion to commit horrendous deeds. For what religion was the Rawanda genocide committed? For what religion did Pol Pot kill millions of his fellow Cambodians? In the name of what religion did millions of Chinese die?

[Bloodnf]

But a religion does not exist in some vacuum somewhere-- it exists only insofar as it is brought into being by its followers. So the whole, 'Oh well, that person isn't a real XYZ' routine doesn't wash.

Is Rumi an abberration from Islam or is the Taliban? There is no official objective definition of Islam & is subject to interpretation & there are plenty of followers who are much closer to the Taliban & not Rumi.

Give me a good reason to see Islam in a good light for a change & I might change my opinion. But history shows that 'peace' is much more an exception than the rule.

murmur

Any religion can only be considered by its teachings, its rules and its laws. Rumi and the Taliban are both aberrations from Islam. The only way to compare either is to compare them to the teachings of Islam and how well they followed it. In my opinion both strayed off the teachings of Islam in some ways.

We cannot blame a whole relgion or philosophy because of what some self professed member does. If that was the case there would bo no religion, philosphy, political party or way of life that would not be guilty. Because all groupings are made up of individuals some of whom commit crimes.

[Murmur]

Humans do not need religion to commit horrendous deeds. For what religion was the Rawanda genocide committed? For what religion did Pol Pot kill millions of his fellow Cambodians? In the name of what religion did millions of Chinese die?
Its not a question of religion. Its a question of absolutism & fanticism. There is religious & non-religious fanaticism. Any idea, religious or otherwise, that becomes more important to the dignity of human beings is abhorrent.

[Alethias]

Its not a question of religion. Its a question of absolutism & fanticism. There is religious & non-religious fanaticism. Any idea, religious or otherwise, that becomes more important to the dignity of human beings is abhorrent.I looked at your profile after reading this. I wasn't surprised at all to see the word "Humanist".
:thumbs:

SoT

[regis]

Honour killings are cultural. It wasn't too long ago that they were outlawed in Brasil. Some people's egos are so fragile that to be made to look stupid (dishonoured) is too much to bear. All because they don't want the world (like it cares) to find out about their tiny, tiny, tiny dicks. Pathetic.


:devil1:

[TySixtus]

No. Your bigotry is what's fooling you.

Ah, yes. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "bigot".

Ty

[Bloodnf]

Ah, yes. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "bigot".

Ty

No. Just anyone who hates a whole group of people.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb

[epepke]

Every time a crime is commited by a Christian or a jew or a Hindu or a Buddhist we see their respect clergy out protesting? No.

Um, when it's done supposedly in the name of Christianity, then hells fuckin' yeah we do.

When that guy shot the abortion doctor in Pensacola, there were oodles of editorials. Whenever some woman kills her children because she thinks they're posessed by demons, it's practically a 24/7 newsfest.

[Agemegos]

When that guy shot the abortion doctor in Pensacola, there were oodles of editorials. Whenever some woman kills her children because she thinks they're posessed by demons, it's practically a 24/7 newsfest.

The editorials, the newsfest… aren't they made by journalists? Wouldn't it be more to the point if they were made by clergymen? Bloodnf is asked: "Why don't the imams denounce this crime?". He responds: "Why don't clergymen denounce the crimes of Christians". You answer "They do!"--and cite the actions of journalists as evidence.

[Agemegos]

No Imam needs to say anything because what this man did is contrary to the laws of Islam.

I think you have that wrong. The imams' whole purpose it to tell people plainly and firmly what is consonant with and what is contrary to the laws of Islam. That is the area of their expertise: they ought not to be silent about what they know and vocal about what they know not.

And Muslims know this.

Well, unless you are going to argue that those who don't know it are not true muslims by the fact of their not knowing it (which would be the True Scotsman Fallacy) I am afraid that this is evidently not true. These crimes are committed with lamentable frequency by men who profess to be muslims. The people responsible for teaching the men of muslim countries that they must not murder their womenfolk whatever the pretext are not doing a sufficiently good job.

I think we have an argument coming about the treatment of adulteresses and fornicatrices that is prescribed by Islamic law. But I'll wait until you stick your head out on that subject before I presume to know your position.

[Bloodnf]

Um, when it's done supposedly in the name of Christianity, then hells fuckin' yeah we do.

When that guy shot the abortion doctor in Pensacola, there were oodles of editorials. Whenever some woman kills her children because she thinks they're posessed by demons, it's practically a 24/7 newsfest.

Newsfest is exactly what we have in this case as well. I don't undersand why Sane people should be out demonstrating when some nut commits crimes claiming he was possessed or believed something from some religion. The only time to protest would be if his excuse is accepted by authorities and he is not punished for his crimes. Otherwise it is a matter for the criminal justice system.

[Bloodnf]

I think you have that wrong. The imams' whole purpose it to tell people plainly and firmly what is consonant with and what is contrary to the laws of Islam. That is the area of their expertise: they ought not to be silent about what they know and vocal about what they know not.

You are mistaken. An Imam in Sunni Islam in not like a priest. Usually the Imam is hired by a mosque to lead prayers and be a caretaker of the mosque. Some Imams may have followers who will study from him and listen to his teachings. But in general most muslims anywhere in the world do not fell required to listen to any Imam or follow the sayings of any Imam. An Imam will give a sermon in a mosque about a current topic and how it relates to Islamic law, but no one will be interviewing the Imam on TV as a religous authority.



Well, unless you are going to argue that those who don't know it are not true muslims by the fact of their not knowing it (which would be the True Scotsman Fallacy) I am afraid that this is evidently not true. These crimes are committed with lamentable frequency by men who profess to be muslims. The people responsible for teaching the men of muslim countries that they must not murder their womenfolk whatever the pretext are not doing a sufficiently good job.

I think we have an argument coming about the treatment of adulteresses and fornicatrices that is prescribed by Islamic law. But I'll wait until you stick your head out on that subject before I presume to know your position.

Once again since their is no Priestly Hierarchy in Sunni Islam and muslims are not required to follow the teachings of any particular Imam, their is no Imam who can be responsible for the actions of some particular muslim. Each muslim is responsible for himself.

Honor Killings are against the teachings of Islam. Just like Adultey, Drinking, Gambling, usuary. However all these things happen very commonly in muslim countries. We cant blame Islam for that. We have to blame people for what they do.

As far as Islamic law against fornication and adultery is concerned lets look at it.

For unmarried people who commit fornication the penalty is fifty lashes.
For adulterers, the penalty is toning to death.
However no one is allowed to take the law into his own hands Any punishment are only to be carried out after a trial and conviction. Conviction requires 4 male witnesses to the act of penetration. Hearsay and suspicions are not valid proof. Accusing someone of adultery without 4 male witnesses to penetration carries a penalty of 50 lashes.

[Ishmael]

As far as Islamic law against fornication and adultery is concerned lets look at it.

For unmarried people who commit fornication the penalty is fifty lashes.
For adulterers, the penalty is toning to death.
However no one is allowed to take the law into his own hands Any punishment are only to be carried out after a trial and conviction. Conviction requires 4 male witnesses to the act of penetration. Hearsay and suspicions are not valid proof. Accusing someone of adultery without 4 male witnesses to penetration carries a penalty of 50 lashes.

Do you have any idea idea how sick even these laws are?

[Bloodnf]

Do you have any idea idea how sick even these laws are?

Why sick? You find extra marital sex as no problem. Others are horrified by it. What makes you right and others worng?

[Ishmael]

Why sick? You find extra marital sex as no problem. Others are horrified by it. What makes you right and others worng?
My moral objections to your "laws" have nothing to do with the "crime." :rolling:

[Armchair dissident]

I hate to step into the middle of a debate, but nevertheless:

Honor Killings are against the teachings of Islam. Just like Adultey, Drinking, Gambling, usuary. However all these things happen very commonly in muslim countries. We cant blame Islam for that. We have to blame people for what they do.

Many (most?) muslim countries specifically outlaw adultery, drinking, and gambling (I'm not sure about usuary, but given the rise in demand for "islamic" mortgages in the west, I wouldn't be suprised) and these laws are strictly enforced. Honour killings in these countries may or may not be specifically outlawed, but where they are the enforcement of the law is either non-existent, or fleeting.

This is particularly the case in Pakistan where honour killings were technically outlawed so that the Pakistani government would be seen as complying with international norms on human rights; but the killings themselves that came to the attention of the authorities were either unpunished or punished in a manner more lenient than one would expect in a murder case.

As far as Islamic law against fornication and adultery is concerned lets look at it.

Yes, lets. Recognising that you are opening up a whole new can of worms.

For unmarried people who commit fornication the penalty is fifty lashes.
For adulterers, the penalty is toning to death.
However no one is allowed to take the law into his own hands Any punishment are only to be carried out after a trial and conviction. Conviction requires 4 male witnesses to the act of penetration. Hearsay and suspicions are not valid proof. Accusing someone of adultery without 4 male witnesses to penetration carries a penalty of 50 lashes.

I do hope that you're not putting this forward as an example of fair justice. Note, for instance, that only the evidence of males is considered. Note too, that there must be four of them and they must have witnessed the act of penetration.

One must wonder whether any cases of adultery are - then - ever punished. What, exactly, are these four up-standing male members (pardon me) of society supposed to be doing all the while this vile criminal act - punishable by death - is going on? :huh:

I note too, that you've missed out rape. The same problem that - supposedly - makes it so difficult to try someone for adultery makes it almost impossible to try some one for rape: because there has to be four male witnesses to the act. Again, one must ask: What are these four male witnesses doing whilst the rape is taking place in order for them to witness the act of penetration. It's worse that the old-testament christian declaration that if the woman is heard screaming then a rape has taken place, otherwise its consensual adultery.

Incidentally, you've also omitted what happens if a woman falls pregnant after a case of rape.

First she has to be able to accuse the man of rape. If she can't she can be stoned to death for adultery.

Second, she must find four male witnesses. If she can't, she's given 100 lashes for slander, and stoned to death for adultery.

You see, the problem with the adultery law is that a woman can also be found guilty of adultery by means of becoming pregnant: something that doesn't apply to men.

This is not a question of bigotry. This is not a question of a select few people operating against the wishes of Islam. This a question of Islamic nations justifying brutality and extreme sexual discrimination, and codifying these principles into law.

[anders]

Honour killings are cultural.
In families with roots in or living in for example the Middle East, they occur among Christians as well. I suppose some "household accidents" in India could be regarded as "honour" killings.

[premjan]

Household accidents in India are most probably dowry killings, not honor killings.

[Murmur]

Why sick? You find extra marital sex as no problem. Others are horrified by it. What makes you right and others worng?
Couples may have problems with extra-martital sex, but the solution is not flogging a woman like a damn horse or stoning her to death.

You know, if your spouse (oh, I mean wife-- none of this applies to husbands) cheats on you, well, that sucks, its awful, but you either talk about it, or lick your wounds & move on.

You don't fucking torture your wife or seek to have her executed because she may (or may not have) had an extra-marital affair. That's called overkill. (no pun intended)

Last I checked, even people without penises were human beings, not cattle. What's more important: one's ego or the life & dignity of a human being?

Life sucks & is full of complications & pain. But you don't torture or kill someone because they make your life complicated or they make you jealous or hurt you. People that are unwilling to deal directly with there own pain & instead just inflict it on others aren't real men, they're just pathetic.

murmur

[Bloodnf]

My moral objections to your "laws" have nothing to do with the "crime." :rolling:

I don't understand your statement. Can you clarify what you mean?

[Bloodnf]

I hate to step into the middle of a debate, but nevertheless:



Many (most?) muslim countries specifically outlaw adultery, drinking, and gambling (I'm not sure about usuary, but given the rise in demand for "islamic" mortgages in the west, I wouldn't be suprised) and these laws are strictly enforced. Honour killings in these countries may or may not be specifically outlawed, but where they are the enforcement of the law is either non-existent, or fleeting.

This is particularly the case in Pakistan where honour killings were technically outlawed so that the Pakistani government would be seen as complying with international norms on human rights; but the killings themselves that came to the attention of the authorities were either unpunished or punished in a manner more lenient than one would expect in a murder case.



Yes, lets. Recognising that you are opening up a whole new can of worms.



I do hope that you're not putting this forward as an example of fair justice. Note, for instance, that only the evidence of males is considered. Note too, that there must be four of them and they must have witnessed the act of penetration.

One must wonder whether any cases of adultery are - then - ever punished. What, exactly, are these four up-standing male members (pardon me) of society supposed to be doing all the while this vile criminal act - punishable by death - is going on? :huh:

I note too, that you've missed out rape. The same problem that - supposedly - makes it so difficult to try someone for adultery makes it almost impossible to try some one for rape: because there has to be four male witnesses to the act. Again, one must ask: What are these four male witnesses doing whilst the rape is taking place in order for them to witness the act of penetration. It's worse that the old-testament christian declaration that if the woman is heard screaming then a rape has taken place, otherwise its consensual adultery.

Incidentally, you've also omitted what happens if a woman falls pregnant after a case of rape.

First she has to be able to accuse the man of rape. If she can't she can be stoned to death for adultery.

Second, she must find four male witnesses. If she can't, she's given 100 lashes for slander, and stoned to death for adultery.

You see, the problem with the adultery law is that a woman can also be found guilty of adultery by means of becoming pregnant: something that doesn't apply to men.

This is not a question of bigotry. This is not a question of a select few people operating against the wishes of Islam. This a question of Islamic nations justifying brutality and extreme sexual discrimination, and codifying these principles into law.

The fact that laws aren't followed does not make the laws invalid. Laws against Honor Killings should be followed. People who commit these crimes should be punished. But guess what? There are many laws in Pakistan that are not foloowed. All those other things that are forbidden are also not strictly enforced as you say. Unfortunately Pakistan is a corrupt country where the concept of rule of law and justice is weak at best. Still has nothing to do with religion though.

I brought up the laws on adultery and fornication to show that Honor Killings are contrary to the laws. I am not making any value judgements on those laws.

As far as I know, punishments for adultery were historically very rare in Islamic history. Probably because it is very difficult to meet the conditions of proof. Also as far as I can determine, pregnancy is not a valid proof of adultery. After all Islam recognizes Jesus' virgin birth and if it can happen once it can happen again. As to how women are treated now, it once again comes back to the whole weakness of law and justice in muslim (and other) countries at this time.

[Bloodnf]

Couples may have problems with extra-martital sex, but the solution is not flogging a woman like a damn horse or stoning her to death.

You know, if your spouse (oh, I mean wife-- none of this applies to husbands) cheats on you, well, that sucks, its awful, but you either talk about it, or lick your wounds & move on.

You don't fucking torture your wife or seek to have her executed because she may (or may not have) had an extra-marital affair. That's called overkill. (no pun intended)

Last I checked, even people without penises were human beings, not cattle. What's more important: one's ego or the life & dignity of a human being?

Life sucks & is full of complications & pain. But you don't torture or kill someone because they make your life complicated or they make you jealous or hurt you. People that are unwilling to deal directly with there own pain & instead just inflict it on others aren't real men, they're just pathetic.

murmur

That is what modern western culture has decided. Islamic societies have decided that extra marital sex is to be prohibited and punished. I don't see why your judgement is superior to their judgement.

[Murmur]

I brought up the laws on adultery and fornication to show that Honor Killings are contrary to the laws. I am not making any value judgements on those laws.
Perhaps you should make some value judgements on those laws.

According to what you're saying then, the only thing that this man did that was 'wrong' was he didn't have four male witnesses, killed someone other than just the 'fornicating woman' & slit that woma's throat instead of having her stoned. In other words, had all those other requirements been fulfilled, this poor woman deserved to die after all. He just didn't follow due process of law! :banghead:

murmur

[Bloodnf]

Perhaps you should make some value judgements on those laws.

According to what you're saying then, the only thing that this man did that was 'wrong' was he didn't have four male witnesses, killed someone other than just the 'fornicating woman' & slit that woma's throat instead of having her stoned. In other words, had all those other requirements been fulfilled, this poor woman deserved to die after all. He just didn't follow due process of law! :banghead:

murmur


No what he did wrong was murder someone.

[Murmur]

No what he did wrong was murder someone.
But had he fulfilled those other requirements (four male witnesses, etc.) it would be in accordance with the Koran. Then it would have been (religiously) lawful.

Correct?

murmur

[Alethias]

That is what modern western culture has decided. Islamic societies have decided that extra marital sex is to be prohibited and punished. I don't see why your judgement is superior to their judgement.Their punishment of males who commit acts of extra-marital sex is consistently less severe than the punishment of females they commit those acts with. This is prejudicial and wrong even if you agree that the extramarital sex is wrong. If it is wrong, men and women should face the same penalties for it.

SoT

[Glimmung]

Bush should have used that to justify attacking Iraq and thier ilk.

I'm way more disturbed by this being commonplace than I ever was about some weapons program.

Actually Iraq was a pretty secular place until the first Gulf War and to quite a large extent even after that. I have a bunch of relatives working for oil companies and they reported the vast difference between working in Iraq and, say, working in Saudi Arabia. Probably the only country more liberal in the ME was UAE.

-G

[Bloodnf]

But had he fulfilled those other requirements (four male witnesses, etc.) it would be in accordance with the Koran. Then it would have been (religiously) lawful.

Correct?

murmur

No. Because an individual is not allowed to carry out the law. No country or society allows an individual to carry out the law. That would be anarchy.

A justice system is there to make sure the law is carried out in a just, fair and legal manner.

Even when all conditions are fulfilled, only the legal system is authorized to carry out any punishments.

[Bloodnf]

Their punishment of males who commit acts of extra-marital sex is consistently less severe than the punishment of females they commit those acts with. This is prejudicial and wrong even if you agree that the extramarital sex is wrong. If it is wrong, men and women should face the same penalties for it.

SoT

That is the deficiency in justice in those countries again. The rich and the powerful get away with everything and the poor and the weak suffer.

[Murmur]

No. Because an individual is not allowed to carry out the law. No country or society allows an individual to carry out the law. That would be anarchy.

A justice system is there to make sure the law is carried out in a just, fair and legal manner.

Even when all conditions are fulfilled, only the legal system is authorized to carry out any punishments.
Well that's exactly what the Taliban was, right? :huh: And there are instances in Africa where the legal system was an Islamic theocracy & HAVE carried out these very same punishments.

Is the law in the Koran regarding adultery/fornication etc. just or is it not? And also: Should it be a part of the legal system or should it not?

murmur

[Armchair dissident]

The fact that laws aren't followed does not make the laws invalid. Laws against Honor Killings should be followed. People who commit these crimes should be punished. But guess what? There are many laws in Pakistan that are not foloowed. All those other things that are forbidden are also not strictly enforced as you say. Unfortunately Pakistan is a corrupt country where the concept of rule of law and justice is weak at best. Still has nothing to do with religion though.

I would disagree. As far as Shari law is concerned, Pakistan is a noble country that is starting to enforce Shari law wherever possible - with all the brutality that it entails. As far as human dignity, sexual equality and human rights is concerned, of course, Pakistan is a country moving as far from that cause as it can.

I brought up the laws on adultery and fornication to show that Honor Killings are contrary to the laws. I am not making any value judgements on those laws.

And in bringing up laws on adultery and fornication you failed utterly to mention any Shari laws regarding the common Islamic practice of honour killings. The laws that you did mention fall woefully short of international standards of human rights. The laws you failed to mention - those regarding rape - fall short of any form of justice as the word could normally be applied.

In short; you've mentioned abhorrent laws that torture and kill people for their mutually consensual sexual conduct, and you've justified those practices. You've failed to provide any information, or any proof, to support your assertion that "honour killings" are contrary to either Islam or to Shari law.

As far as I know, punishments for adultery were historically very rare in Islamic history. Probably because it is very difficult to meet the conditions of proof. Also as far as I can determine, pregnancy is not a valid proof of adultery (emphasis added).

Then I suggest you re-read Shari law as it is interpreted in various islamic countries, and review the news. I would recommend that you first look at Pakistan and Nigeria

After all Islam recognizes Jesus' virgin birth and if it can happen once it can happen again.

It does?! Are you sure? To be honest, I couldn't quote chapter and verse from the Koran stating that it doesn't accept that; but there's surely a theological problem if Islam recognised Jesus' virgin birth without recognising his divinity. And I do know that Islam does not recognise Jesus' divinity.

Nevertheless. Is your entire response to the problem of challenging a rape that a woman can claim immaculate conception?? Even assuming that such a defense was valid within Shari law - and Islam - it still requires four male witnesses to this immaculate penetration! Explain to me how this defends the Shari - and Islamic - approach to rape? I'm genuinely curious.

As to how women are treated now, it once again comes back to the whole weakness of law and justice in muslim (and other) countries at this time.

It's the law you quoted and defended. It's the law as - apparently - laid down in the Koran. it's the law defended by Imamms, and by believers - including yourself - around the world. It has nothing to do with the weakness of law and justice in muslim countries. It has everything to do with the bigotry, bile and intolerance of those who practice Islam and approve of the Shari laws.

[newtype_alpha]

I would disagree. As far as Shari law is concerned, Pakistan is a noble country that is starting to enforce Shari law wherever possible - with all the brutality that it entails. As far as human dignity, sexual equality and human rights is concerned, of course, Pakistan is a country moving as far from that cause as it can.
Even with my limited knowledge I would have to disagree with this, since I have spoken at some length with a Muslim lady who recently expressed a sense of shock and bemusement at the fact that there are more nudie bars in Karachi than there are in Chicago.

Apparently it happens that Pakistan's urban centers are almost entirely different planet than its rural areas, especially rural areas on the Afghan border; I'm not sure which has a greater population.

[hinduwoman]

Islam does not require honour killings.
The problem is that it does not condemn them; adultery is punishable by death; the men have complete control over female sexuality --- according to Islamic law.

So the culture is butressed by religion. Such killers are usually let off by courts.

When Jordan monarchy tried to ban honour killings they were accused of being too western and having slavish colonial mentality.

[epepke]

The editorials, the newsfest… aren't they made by journalists? Wouldn't it be more to the point if they were made by clergymen?

No; they were made by clergymen, and they were reported by the news.

Learn to pay some attention!

Newspapers have religion sections, and they publish Religion sections at least once a week, and the editorials are almost always done by clergymen.

[premjan]

Even with my limited knowledge I would have to disagree with this, since I have spoken at some length with a Muslim lady who recently expressed a sense of shock and bemusement at the fact that there are more nudie bars in Karachi than there are in Chicago.

That is a pretty surprising fact. I don't think I've ever been to a nudie bar in India (probably do exist I suppose).

[Bloodnf]

Well that's exactly what the Taliban was, right? :huh: And there are instances in Africa where the legal system was an Islamic theocracy & HAVE carried out these very same punishments.

Is the law in the Koran regarding adultery/fornication etc. just or is it not? And also: Should it be a part of the legal system or should it not?

murmur

What does the Tliban or African legal systems have to with Honor Killings?

I maintain that Honor Killings are illegal according to Islamic Law. I don't rcall reports of Honor Killings by the Taliban or African courts.

The law against fornication is the law for Islamic Societies. Its part of being a muslim. Its just as long as it is applied justly with all the restriction and legalities observed for everyone.

[Bloodnf]

Islam does not require honour killings.
The problem is that it does not condemn them; adultery is punishable by death; the men have complete control over female sexuality --- according to Islamic law.

So the culture is butressed by religion. Such killers are usually let off by courts.

When Jordan monarchy tried to ban honour killings they were accused of being too western and having slavish colonial mentality.


Islamic law does not permit Honor killings.

[Alethias]

Islamic law does not permit Honor killings.Then why do modern-day Imam's permit honor killings? and why are Honor killings a problem in muslim countries and not in other countries?

SoT

[Glimmung]

That is a pretty surprising fact. I don't think I've ever been to a nudie bar in India (probably do exist I suppose).

Oh. they definitely do. Not too hard to find in a place like Bombay either.

-G

[Bloodnf]

Then why do modern-day Imam's permit honor killings? and why are Honor killings a problem in muslim countries and not in other countries?

SoT


Which Imam? Honor Killings are a sympton of a lack of knowledge and lack of justice which is widespread in Muslim countries unfortunately?

Still every muslim organization forbids so called Honor Killings.

[Murmur]

What does the Tliban or African legal systems have to with Honor Killings?
I was referring to (in that particular post you are referring to the laws regarding punishments for accused adulterers & fornicators, not honour killings. Under the Taliban & in African countries like Niger these laws (not the honour killings but stonings etc) were enforced. Which means they would fit neatly into this category:
The law against fornication is the law for Islamic Societies. Its part of being a muslim. Its just as long as it is applied justly with all the restriction and legalities observed for everyone.
These were (and in the case of Niger, ARE) Islamic societies-- sharia law being applied by the governemt, not just a renegade vigilante muslim.

Therefore these executions are 'just' according to Islam. I just don't see how a woman can be stoned or whipped for (presumably) having extra-marital sex. There are less violent ways to respond to such situations. Human life & dignity is more important than an abstract ideology. I see no difference in sacrificing humans to molech or some other 'idol' & 'Allah.' All gods are idols when they become more important than human life.

murmur

[River]

honor killings are soo primitive...

I'm not sure where they have their origins (historically)....


--River

[River]

All gods are idols when they become more important than human life....




murmur

....unless human life is dictated by idols

[Avatar]

The law against fornication is the law for Islamic Societies. Its part of being a muslim. Its just as long as it is applied justly with all the restriction and legalities observed for everyone.
A very good reason why Islam needs a Reformation. I fail to see how whipps and stones could be called 'just'.

[River]

A very good reason why Islam needs a Reformation. I fail to see how whipps and stones could be called 'just'.


Why would Islam need a Reformation...if " honour killings' are NOT inherent to Islam?

[hinduwoman]

Islamic law does not permit Honor killings.

So where does the Sharia say that " no male relative shall kill a female relative for having a boyfriend"?

[hinduwoman]

Many Pakistanis probably didn't see the harm in killing daughters that were whoring around; most of them will undoubtedly recognize that killing them before they are old enough to even think about it is insanity

Yahzi, I would not be too sure of that. The state locks up women who had been raped as willing whores and killing of raped daughters who are not whoring around is common. So they will probably appreciate this argument about honour.
In Iran a man beheaded his seven year old daughter on suspicion his friend might have molested her; no great excitement from the masses at this or comment that the man should gone after the friend.

[newtype_alpha]

Why would Islam need a Reformation...if " honour killings' are NOT inherent to Islam?
I'd have to agree with this. It's not Islam that needs the reformation (although an Islamic reformation could accomplish the job) it's Pakistani rural culture that needs the reformation. Cultures are alot harder to reform than religions; with a religious movement there is always room for interpretation, reeducation, dialogue and (sometimes) a change of laws and codes of conducts. Culture is self-regulated, so it can only be reformed if the people in it are receptive to change, which in extremely conservative societies (of which middle-eastern society is one) they aren't usually.

Think of the social reforms in America forty years ago. It didn't take much to modify religious interpretations so that Christians weren't hearing daily sermons about how God created black people to be subordinate to whites. It took a hell of alot longer to convince these same Christians that lynching a black man for whistling at a white woman--or for being accused of whistling at a white woman--was not socially acceptable. There are still parts of the country where this transformation remains incomplete, just as there are places where most people have no idea that such a thing ever went on to begin with. People will cling to their habits and traditions much more strongly than they will ever cling to any religious precept, and you would have the same problem in Pakistan with honor killings even if most Pakistanis were atheists; a backwards atheist doesn't cease to be backwards just because he is an atheist, does he?

Social reform is a painful thing. Religion can be a powerful tool to make it happen. The problem here is that Islam is too amorphous and not sufficiently centralized to be mobilized as a tool for that kind of reform. As Bloodnf already explained, Imams are NOT religious authorities, and in some rural areas like the Pakistan-Afghan border religion, the only requisite for being an Imam is knowing how to read.

[Bloodnf]

A very good reason why Islam needs a Reformation. I fail to see how whipps and stones could be called 'just'.

That's silly reasoning. You find the restrictions not to your liking so you want to change them? Laws dont work that way.

"just" has nothing to do with punishments applied. "Just" has to do with how the laws are applied.

[Bloodnf]

I was referring to (in that particular post you are referring to the laws regarding punishments for accused adulterers & fornicators, not honour killings. Under the Taliban & in African countries like Niger these laws (not the honour killings but stonings etc) were enforced. Which means they would fit neatly into this category:

These were (and in the case of Niger, ARE) Islamic societies-- sharia law being applied by the governemt, not just a renegade vigilante muslim.

Therefore these executions are 'just' according to Islam. I just don't see how a woman can be stoned or whipped for (presumably) having extra-marital sex. There are less violent ways to respond to such situations. Human life & dignity is more important than an abstract ideology. I see no difference in sacrificing humans to molech or some other 'idol' & 'Allah.' All gods are idols when they become more important than human life.

murmur

If the Taliban tried and convicted someone in accordance of the laws of Islam then I see no problem. You feel punishment for Adultery are too severe, but thats just your opinion. Others have different opinions. We have laws that we do not like, but we cannot break them without consequence.

[Bloodnf]

So where does the Sharia say that " no male relative shall kill a female relative for having a boyfriend"?

The law does not need a specific prohibition against every instance of a crime. The law states what is allowed and what is not allowed. We dont need a specific law outlawing " no male relative shall kill a female relative for having a boyfriend while wearing pink underwear on Sunday".

[Agemegos]

So where does the Sharia say that " no male relative shall kill a female relative for having a boyfriend"?

The laws of my state and country have no such specific prohibition either. The case is covered by a general prohibition of murder.

[Agemegos]

No; they were made by clergymen, and they were reported by the news.

Then you might have said so.

Learn to pay some attention!

I can pay all the attention you want, but if you don't mention a fact that you consider central you can't expect me to notice it in your writing. Here is a link to the post of yours to which I was responding http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3014084#post3014084. You made no mention of the newsfest and editorials being produced by clergymen, and you can't rely on any degree of attentiveness to make your readers reliable hallucinate the things you mean but don't write.

Newspapers have religion sections, and they publish Religion sections at least once a week, and the editorials are almost always done by clergymen.

Not in my country. I've never seen a newspaper with a religion section.

[epepke]

Then you might have said so.

What else do you want spelled out in exquisite detail?

As I said, when the Pensacola doctor got shot, there were oodles of responses from clergymen.

[Bloodnf]

What else do you want spelled out in exquisite detail?

As I said, when the Pensacola doctor got shot, there were oodles of responses from clergymen.

Yet I didn't see them in NY. Same as you are not seeing the denunciations against Honor Killings.

[Murmur]

If the Taliban tried and convicted someone in accordance of the laws of Islam then I see no problem. You feel punishment for Adultery are too severe, but thats just your opinion. Others have different opinions. We have laws that we do not like, but we cannot break them without consequence.
Well, the Pol Pot convicted folks in accordance with his laws. That doesn't make him right. More than 'an opinion' is a stake here.

As long as Islam places its ideology in higher value than human life it is nothing more than nihilism dressed in religious robes. If someone wishes to worship a god, fine-- but once one sets about approving such inhumane treatment (assuming one has followed 'due process of law'! :rolleyes: ) & when such laws are carried out that's just approving murder & just nodding your head because some book says so is no alibi for such a monstrous inhuman attitude.

Everyone here reading this thread can reach their own conclusions here. An abstract ideology vs. the dignity of a human being? I choose life. Its sad that choosing life is a heresy.

murmur

[Murmur]

Link: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543392

Emphasis mine below.

Yeah, it starts off all fine:
Sister, it’s a well-known fact that Islam maintains the protection of life and does not sanction any violation against it. In the Glorious Qur’an, Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.� (An-Nisa’: 93)

But then the fine print:
`Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances]: the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community." (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
So as long as due process of law is followed, i.e. as long as it meets these conditions, then you've got your legal loophole for that nice sounding passage of An-Nisa': 93.

Oh, what a relief this is:
“There is no such concept in Islam that is called “honor killing�. Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. Whew! That's a relief-- oh, but wait, there's more to it than just that-- what is the REASON that this is forbodden:
It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings. So what's WRONG about the honour killings is NOT that they violate the earlier prohibition in An-Nisa': 93 but that due process of law is not followed!

It's not the DEED that is wrong, you just gotta do it the right way:
“Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.� (An-Nisa’: 93)

And again, notice the qualifier:
“In Islam, there is no place for unjustifiable killing. Even in case of capital punishment, only the government can apply the law through the judicial procedures. No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge.

Allah Almighty knows best.Indeed he does-- just don't forget to read the fine print.

murmur

[hinduwoman]

The problem here is that you have two world-views clashing and they cannot co-exist.

Either this version of Islam wins or Islam gets reformed.

[premjan]

I wonder if honor killing actually has a well-defined evolutionary payoff (how else do we explain its existence). If we understood this aspect of it, perhaps we could understand what sort of changes to the legal/marriage etc. structure could prevent it.

[Murmur]

Yet I didn't see them in NY. Same as you are not seeing the denunciations against Honor Killings.
Well then you have some catching up to do!

My ex-mother-in-law, a Christian fundamentalist often goes to this website:
Link: http://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles/abortion-murder-doctor.htm


Is It Moral To Murder an Abortion Doctor?
Bible study on abortion.

There are some people who believe that it is morally righteous, in respect of God, to kill an abortion doctor. Their reasoning is that the murder of unborn babies has been prevented; therefore, the "end justifies the means." etc.
And there's no fine print regarding due process of law. According to mainstream Christians in the west, this is plainly murder.

Another link, from mainstream evangelical Christian magazine, Christianity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/111/32.0.html

Shooting an abortionist, then, is unlike incidental killing in the defense of one's family: it involves premeditation and sinful intention.

Oh & it doesn't get any better than this: Here is, of all people, Raph Reed of the Christian Coalition: When David Gunn and Paul Hill killed abortion doctors in Pensacola, Florida, they did more damage to the pro-life cause than many of the proponents of abortion have in recent years. To kill in the name of defending life is hypocrisy, pure and simple. When we allow the violence of abortion to overcome our weapons of mercy and grace, we fall to the level of the abortionist. In a sermon delivered in November 1956 in Montgomery, Alabama, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Always be sure that you struggle with Christian methods and Christian weapons. Never succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter. As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapons of love."

Martin Luther King overcame the violence of segregation and the injustice of Jim Crow through nonviolence and through Christian methods. Those who advocated violence against white segregationists were wrong. Those who advocate violence against abortionists today are wrong. In seeking to promote and defend the sanctity of innocent human life, we must allow mercy to overcome bitterness, justice to overcome hatred, and nonviolence to overcome violence. How we conduct ourselves will ultimately be as important as the principles for which we stand. Pro- life leaders must be vigilant and consistent in denouncing violence as a tactic for their movement. And I am no fan of Ralph Reed! LOL

There is PLENTY more here: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9412/articles/killing.html , which is called: 'Killing Abortionists: A Symposium' from First Things, a major Christian publication.

Now if you DO want to read about Christians on 'justifiable homicide' of abortion doctors, you can find it here: http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html2/jm0029.htm However, this is part of the Christian Identity movement, which is far from the mainstream of Christianity & is regarded as a cult.

murmur

[Murmur]

Either this version of Islam wins or Islam gets reformed.
Yes. Most Christian nutters out there, I mean the truly SCARY ones are people in Christian Identity cults. True, there are are things in the Bible that are just as horrific as certain passages of the Koran, but thankfully most Christians don't go around stoning people or whipping them. Thankfully most Christians don't even WANT that kind of consistency. * It took 'em a long time to get there, & there are some stragglers, but Islam DOES need a major reformation.

* A big personal footnote: For a very brief time in my early 20's I was in the ultra conservative Church of Christ & later got involved in the militant Christian Identity movement which espouses the stoning of homosexuals, adulterers, etc. I was kicked out of the Church of Christ OF ALL DENOMINATIONS (!) for my involvement, even though a the time I believed I was merely following the Bible entirely & consistently. That incident is particularly indicative of how even the most conservative of Christians today aren't going to go around murdering people for adultery or homosexuality. They may be opposed to those things, they may even want to pass laws against them, but by & large most of them are opposed to the DP for such 'sins.'

Islam needs to grow up.

murmur

[kalchiran]

I wonder if honor killing actually has a well-defined evolutionary payoff (how else do we explain its existence). If we understood this aspect of it, perhaps we could understand what sort of changes to the legal/marriage etc. structure could prevent it.


There is no evolutionary pay-off. No living being can afford to lose a fertile female... And no organism does.

The origins of these honor killings is only the male ego supported by religious pezzonovante, to maintain the pure-blood of the community...
But why it is found only in Abrahmic societies predomiantly, can be answered only upon the basic beliefs. and the geographical conditions in which the religion was established.

Only way out is reformation. Islam and for that matter Abrahmics have to change with time. Christians could make progress only when they reformed the religion. Otherwise christianity today would have been same as Islam perhaps worse.

[premjan]

I'm not sure we can confidently say that there is no evolutionary payoff. Basically if there is doubt about the bloodline being pure, then it may make more sense for a male to kill off the offending female than risk that she bear the child of another male (assuming that females are not scarce). This strategy is very common among animals and as animals are apparently the doctrinally perfect Muslims it is no wonder that this behavior is present among humans and Muslim humans in particular.

Probably in conditions where male attrition is high, any surviving male may have his pick of females. This may be the origin of this strategy. Of course a society where male attrition is high will lead to unmarried males performing antisocial acts such as the Taliban.

[kalchiran]

NOWAY

If you are doubtfull about the offspring, then kill the offspring. Why there is need to kill a female???

We cannot assume that Females are not Scarce. Females are scarce. There are very few places in developing world where females are more than males.

Evolutionarily, Males have always been dieing for one reason or the other. Hence perhaps Single man could afford many wives in medival ages. But even females are at great risk of dieing ,especially while giving birth to children. Thus to maintain the population threshold, Females are always protected in almost all mammalian species.
There is no sense to kill a female if there is doubt that the offspring growing in her womb is not legitimate. The simple way is kill the offspring. Alpha Males of many species do this.
NOT EVEN ANIMALS KILL THEIR FEMALES OUT OF THIS DOUBT.

The only reason behind this mentality is the Abrahmic male dominated society and its teachings wherein females are said to be the messengers of devil.

[premjan]

that's a very good point.

[Avatar]

That's silly reasoning. You find the restrictions not to your liking so you want to change them? Laws dont work that way.
If you don't like a law, change it. Welcome to the West. These things aren't handed down from a deity, they're traditions of an ancient people in a time when day-to-day survival was not an easy thing.
"just" has nothing to do with punishments applied. "Just" has to do with how the laws are applied.
I don't know where you get this...a law has to be just (cemmesurate to the crime) or it's either useless or simply outright oppression. Guess what side of the spectrum this set of laws lands on.

[regis]

Yeah, it's a wonder why honour killings persist . . . and isn't it odd that it's in areas of super-patriarchy? Hmmm, I wonder if it has anything to do with property rights? Poor, sad, inadequate, tiny-tiny-dicked boys . . .


:devil1:

[Bloodnf]

Well, the Pol Pot convicted folks in accordance with his laws. That doesn't make him right. More than 'an opinion' is a stake here.

As long as Islam places its ideology in higher value than human life it is nothing more than nihilism dressed in religious robes. If someone wishes to worship a god, fine-- but once one sets about approving such inhumane treatment (assuming one has followed 'due process of law'! :rolleyes: ) & when such laws are carried out that's just approving murder & just nodding your head because some book says so is no alibi for such a monstrous inhuman attitude.

Everyone here reading this thread can reach their own conclusions here. An abstract ideology vs. the dignity of a human being? I choose life. Its sad that choosing life is a heresy.

murmur


What laws were those. Pol Pot killed people capricously with no regard to law or due process. People were killed for who they were, not for what they did.

Everything is abstract ideology. Punishments for drug crimes based on abstract ideology. Punishment for rape based on abstract ideology. Punishment for murder based on abstract ideology. Even the concept of Human Dignity is abstract ideology.

[Bloodnf]

Well then you have some catching up to do!

My ex-mother-in-law, a Christian fundamentalist often goes to this website:
Link: http://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles/abortion-murder-doctor.htm

etc.
And there's no fine print regarding due process of law. According to mainstream Christians in the west, this is plainly murder.

Another link, from mainstream evangelical Christian magazine, Christianity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/111/32.0.html



Oh & it doesn't get any better than this: Here is, of all people, Raph Reed of the Christian Coalition: And I am no fan of Ralph Reed! LOL

There is PLENTY more here: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9412/articles/killing.html , which is called: 'Killing Abortionists: A Symposium' from First Things, a major Christian publication.

Now if you DO want to read about Christians on 'justifiable homicide' of abortion doctors, you can find it here: http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html2/jm0029.htm However, this is part of the Christian Identity movement, which is far from the mainstream of Christianity & is regarded as a cult.

murmur

Once again you have to search to find Christian opponents to these murders. Just as if you search you find muslim opposition to these murders.

[Bloodnf]

If you don't like a law, change it. Welcome to the West. These things aren't handed down from a deity, they're traditions of an ancient people in a time when day-to-day survival was not an easy thing.

I don't know where you get this...a law has to be just (cemmesurate to the crime) or it's either useless or simply outright oppression. Guess what side of the spectrum this set of laws lands on.

Welll guess what even in the west it is not so easy to change laws. And until the Law is changed an individual can not break it without vconsequence.

Your opinion as to whether the law is commiserate with the crime or not. Just law has to do with the law beilng applied fairly not whether you consider the punishment too harsh.

[Avatar]

Welll guess what even in the west it is not so easy to change laws. And until the Law is changed an individual can not break it without vconsequence.
True...but it is still possible to change unjust laws. Not so in the world of religion where someone says: "This is God's Law, how dare you even question its justice!"
Your opinion as to whether the law is commiserate with the crime or not.
Darn straight. I'll trust my opinion over that of some ancient book written by post-stone-age nomads.
Just law has to do with the law beilng applied fairly not whether you consider the punishment too harsh.
If the law was that the Death Penalty was called for against jaywalking, would you say that was a just law? Even if it were applied "fairly", I think most people would agree that this is a wildly inappropriate punishment.

[epepke]

Yet I didn't see them in NY. Same as you are not seeing the denunciations against Honor Killings.

This is actually a valid response, although it's also backpedalling.

I saw oodles of statements about the Pensacola doctor, but then again, I live in Florida. Apparently, lots of Christian clergymen in the area thought it obligatory to give a response. Some were denunciations. Some were "yeah buts" and disturbed me a lot. (You should be familiar with the "yeah but"; I lived in NYC, and the "yeah but" is a cultural fixture.)

So it's possible that there are denunciations in the Islamic or Muslim press that we don't see.

However, that's a very different claim from the earlier one that because it's not part of Islam that Muslim clerics have no obligation to report on it. The only similarity is that both can be used to defend Islam.

Even if it isn't part of Islam, there is no shortage of clerical statements condemning things that aren't part of Islam. So why not this?

[Bloodnf]

This is actually a valid response, although it's also backpedalling.

I saw oodles of statements about the Pensacola doctor, but then again, I live in Florida. Apparently, lots of Christian clergymen in the area thought it obligatory to give a response. Some were denunciations. Some were "yeah buts" and disturbed me a lot. (You should be familiar with the "yeah but"; I lived in NYC, and the "yeah but" is a cultural fixture.)

So it's possible that there are denunciations in the Islamic or Muslim press that we don't see.

However, that's a very different claim from the earlier one that because it's not part of Islam that Muslim clerics have no obligation to report on it. The only similarity is that both can be used to defend Islam.

Even if it isn't part of Islam, there is no shortage of clerical statements condemning things that aren't part of Islam. So why not this?

I did not say that there wasn't Muslim Imams speaking against these crimes. I just said that there is no obligation for them to protest and give denunciations against Honor Killings not being part of Islam just as I dont feel that Christian clergy have an obligation to protest the killing of the abortion doctor or some woman drowning her kids to drive out satan. Sane and intelligent people recognize that these acts are criminal and the criminal justice system should bring the perpetrators to justice.

[epepke]

I did not say that there wasn't Muslim Imams speaking against these crimes. I just said that there is no obligation for them to protest and give denunciations against Honor Killings not being part of Islam just as I dont feel that Christian clergy have an obligation to protest the killing of the abortion doctor or some woman drowning her kids to drive out satan. Sane and intelligent people recognize that these acts are criminal and the criminal justice system should bring the perpetrators to justice.

Well, do "sane and intelligent people" in countries where Sharia law is mentioned in laws of the criminal justice system hold that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal justice system?

Over here we have the separation of church and state. So there's clearly no obligation, but Christian clergymen seem to feel obligated to do it anyway.

Is it so obvious that in countries where there is nowhere near as clear a separation between church and state, let alone countries such as Pakistan that would not exist as separate entities were it not for religion, that there is no obligation?

[Bloodnf]

Well, do "sane and intelligent people" in countries where Sharia law is mentioned in laws of the criminal justice system hold that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal justice system?

Over here we have the separation of church and state. So there's clearly no obligation, but Christian clergymen seem to feel obligated to do it anyway.

Is it so obvious that in countries where there is nowhere near as clear a separation between church and state, let alone countries such as Pakistan that would not exist as separate entities were it not for religion, that there is no obligation?

I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say here.

Certainly the Law in Muslim countries is based on Islam. However the Imams are not clergy. They do not formulate the law and do not enforce the law. Why is there an obligation on them to do anything more than explain Islamic law to the attendees of their mosque or school?

[epepke]

I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say here.

Certainly the Law in Muslim countries is based on Islam. However the Imams are not clergy. They do not formulate the law and do not enforce the law. Why is there an obligation on them to do anything more than explain Islamic law to the attendees of their mosque or school?

Not sure what you're getting at.

Over here, clergy or whatever you want to call them make pronouncements on law all the time.

Someone implements law based on Islam.

Are you asserting that nobody in Muslim countries has even the slightest obligation whatsoever to talk about this kind of thing?

If so, then it says something about how things work in Muslim countries. A bureacracy that protective of its members would make George W. Bush weep with envy.

If not, then I'm sure that any number of people who believe that Islam can do no wrong can post some links, which would be a lot more effective than empty rhetoric.

[premjan]

I guess Islam sorely needs a female prophet to balance things out.

[danrael]

These kinds of acts are the result of unwritten laws hard-wired into the culture; they are called "mores". There is a famous song in Mexico, for example which recounts a true story. The song is called "El Preso Numero Nueve" (Prisoner Number Nine). It tells about a man who discovers his "best friend" in bed with his wife. He kills them both. Not to kill them would be the worst thing he could do: he would be dishonored forever amongst his peer group, and that would be unbearable. When he is questioned about the killings during his trial, he replies that when he dies and must explain his actions before God, he says he would do exactly the same thing all over again, no matter the consequences. There is no feeling of remorse or guilt here, and no need to repent. The more which guided his action overrides any written law.

In the film "Zorba The Greek", a local in a small town has lusted after a beautiful widow for years. She lives apart from the townsfolk. Now along comes a handsome, educated Englishman, and he is in bed with her within a week of his arrival to the town. All the men begin to tease the man who longed to be with her; he finds the situation unbearable, and commits suicide. He is dishonored.

We must understand that, in the minds of these people, their act is totally righteous; to try them for murder or other crimes has no meaning for them. They know they are right to do what they did, and no one will convince them otherwise. Such people are victims as well as perpetrators, but deserve our pity and understanding, rather than our condemnation.

Is it not the same with those who press the buttons (and those who give those orders) high above the skies of Iraq and drop devastation on innocent children and others? Would they also not "do it all over again", in exactly the same way, and without remorse?

Are these really "criminal" acts? Is not a criminal act one where the perpetrator understands that he is committing some wrong, beforehand, yet does so anyhow, whereas the type of act in question involves no sense of wrongdoing, but, in fact, the opposite?

[Bloodnf]

Not sure what you're getting at.

Over here, clergy or whatever you want to call them make pronouncements on law all the time.

Someone implements law based on Islam.

Are you asserting that nobody in Muslim countries has even the slightest obligation whatsoever to talk about this kind of thing?

If so, then it says something about how things work in Muslim countries. A bureacracy that protective of its members would make George W. Bush weep with envy.

If not, then I'm sure that any number of people who believe that Islam can do no wrong can post some links, which would be a lot more effective than empty rhetoric.


Clergy do make pronouncements on law but they do not define it. And especially basic things like murder. The law in Muslim countries might be based on Islam but it is not the "Islamic Clergy" which has formulated the laws and who enforce it.

The only obligation I see is for them to teach what is Islamic in the mosques and schools. I don't see it as their obligation to get out and protest every time someone commits a crime and claims he did it in the name of Islam. I would prefer to let the criminal justice system handle that.

I would have thought that people on an athiest board would want to separate the religous establishment from making or enforcing the law?

[Mughal]

Islam is an evil ideology and one only has to read the islamic scriptures ie the quran and the hadith to know it. To date majority opinions of islamic scholars are very clear as to what islam is or is all about.

Islam does not prohibit honour killings and whatever is not prohibited by islam is allowed. This is the rule of fiqh that has been accepted and used by all muslim scholars ever. Islam does not prohibit slavery hence it is not forbidden but allowed for example.

People who claim to be muslims and come to defend islam on this forum are not accepted muslims by a great majority of muslims. They are heretics and if muslims get their hands on them they will be killed just like any apostate of islam. Islam is what great majority of muslims believe and not what these individuals tell us. Their opinions have no value whatsoever. The main reason is because these people have no uninimity of opinions even amongst themselves. Islam is a community based religion and has no value for individuality.

For more one can see my posts HERE (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/search.php?searchid=914134) and see the discussions we have already had. The quran is full of evil teachings that original muslims bropught about for their own ends and now those teachings are followed as mere dictates without any sense of purpose or direction.

Islam is barbarism from start to finish. It has stopped people from moving with time. That is because each time anyone does things different to what muhammad taught, that person is condemned on the basis of early islamic teachings. The fundamental principle about interpretation of the quran is that no one's opinion is of any value if it goes against what the quran states and what muhammad showed by his examples.

This is the main reason why muslims have been unable to reform islam. Unless people stop judging islam by the quran and the hadith, there is no way anyone can succeed in reforming islam.

[danrael]

Islam is an evil ideology and one only has to read the islamic scriptures ie the quran and the hadith to know it. To date majority opinions of islamic scholars are very clear as to what islam is or is all about.

Islam does not prohibit honour killings and whatever is not prohibited by islam is allowed. This is the rule of fiqh that has been accepted and used by all muslim scholars ever. Islam does not prohibit slavery hence it is not forbidden but allowed for example.

People who claim to be muslims and come to defend islam on this forum are not accepted muslims by a great majority of muslims. They are heretics and if muslims get their hands on them they will be killed just like any apostate of islam. Islam is what great majority of muslims believe and not what these individuals tell us. Their opinions have no value whatsoever. The main reason is because these people have no uninimity of opinions even amongst themselves. Islam is a community based religion and has no value for individuality.

For more one can see my posts HERE (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/search.php?searchid=914134) and see the discussions we have already had. The quran is full of evil teachings that original muslims bropught about for their own ends and now those teachings are followed as mere dictates without any sense of purpose or direction.

Islam is barbarism from start to finish. It has stopped people from moving with time. That is because each time anyone does things different to what muhammad taught, that person is condemned on the basis of early islamic teachings. The fundamental principle about interpretation of the quran is that no one's opinion is of any value if it goes against what the quran states and what muhammad showed by his examples.

This is the main reason why muslims have been unable to reform islam. Unless people stop judging islam by the quran and the hadith, there is no way anyone can succeed in reforming islam.

Hmmm. The similiarities to Christianity are striking, are they not? I recall overhearing a couple of so-called "Christians" discussing a certain Mary, whom they considered a "lukewarm" Christian. By the end of their conversation, they were agreeing that Mary, and others like her, should be stood up against a wall and shot.

As for your comment about there not being any possible way to reform Islam, consider the story of the sinner who came to Jesus and, kneeling before him said: "Oh, Lord, please help me reform the world beginning with myself."

You know, that is a very Buddhist thing to say!