Honor Killings. Why is Islam the main culprit?

[FooYang]

Apostasy simply means leaving Islam and it is actually considered some sort of treason.

Islam means "submission to God", God in Islam being the transcendent absolute. Early "Islam" was not an organized 'religion', you can do mental gymnastics all you want but I'm just stating facts here.
There is nothing to 'apostize' from when the Qur'an as well as the ahadith of Muhammad make it clear that Islam is a personal path not based on adherence to any given group.

I think you're wrong about not being part of Islam.

Think is the key word here, not 'know'.

Take a look here:

I really have no reason to give wikiislam any attention, it's always proven itself to be an anus hair. To use an applicable, yet crude analogy of how crude (and just stupid in general) that site it.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So nothing that you wrote is your actual words.

No because I thought the source would be information enough for you and therefore, I felt that I didn't need to elaborate.

I said that based on a recent survey 91% of honor killings are committed by Muslims.

Ok.

The article appears to deny it:

The article didn't deny it, it merely highlights that honor killings are no more Islamic than the KKK hanging blacks in the name of Christianity. The source clearly indicates that honor killings happen in other parts of the world in different communities that aren't Muslim so we shouldn't view honor killings as something Islamic.

That contradicts all the facts based on actual studies so I asked:
What places is the author of the article talking about?

See here:

It has been found that, in upper Egypt, Coptic families are as likely as Muslims to commit honor killing; Recep Dogan, “Is Honour Killing a ‘Muslim Phenomenon’? Textual Interpretation and Cultural Representations,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 31, no. 3 (2011): 423-440.

According to another source, it's even found to a lesser extent, in Sikhism:

"Once people with such tribal traditions and psychologies travel to the West, the exacting shame-and-honor codes should no longer apply. But apply they do, at least among Muslims and, to a lesser extent, among Sikhs."

Source:https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/258440/honor-killing-phyllis-chesler

From the same source, the author also acknowledges honor killings among Hindus of the caste system as well.

The article also mentions: "Honor crimes are only part of the larger phenomenon of femicide"
I'm not sure I agree with that. Honor killings is not limited to women, therefore, that statement is wrong since femicide refers to crimes exclusively committed against women.

I take it you didn't read my source because it explains what you're looking for:

"The women and girls who are the victims of such violence are attacked because they are perceived to have violated some profound expectation of how women are supposed to act in their society."

Which means enacting the crime of honor killing is the result of extreme patriarchal customs of a given community which are the gender customs that are perceived to have been violated by women. When it comes to the customs of Africans, Asians, Middle Easterners, there is the perceived idea that honor through the family that is violated must be met with punishment.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Never seen you make a post like this in threads about U.S. gun violence.

Because the gun voilance in U.S are made by white Americans, and not Muslims. So no need to point it out in the same way.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Good grief.. Crimes against women in the US are rampant. Women are murdered by husbands and boyfriends all the time.

Indeed and it's a shame.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This seems to me a red herring.

The issue at hand (even in the article) is "honor killings." This involves (to my mind) two components... killing (as in someone actually dies) and honor (as in the killing was done by someone else who felt personal dishonor/disgrace at the victim's action). And then the article makes this turn on a dime and specifically goes after "men," saying that they are loathe to admit that violence against women is a global problem. What? Again... we're talking not about "violence" - but about specific violent actions that lead directly to killing. And we're not talking about men or women - we're talking about ANYONE killed because their family/society saw their otherwise legal personal choices/actions as casting a negative light on said family/society. I understand that this may happen most often to women - I do - but I don't AT ALL see how changing everyone's outlook on violence against women prevents other family members of those women from feeling disgraced/dishonored by certain actions of theirs, and then in some of those cases the feelings of being dishonored leading to those people choosing to kill the perpetrating family member. I don't see the connection.

Are we really going to say that it is an unspoken acceptance of violence against women that is at the root of honor killings? Do all of the situations within which someone feels dishonored enough to kill someone else over it occur when a woman is the one seen as bringing dishonor? And is the honor killing only occurring because violence against women in general maintains some level of "acceptance?"

It seems to me that the person who wrote the article only had very flimsy reasons that Islam should be left out of the discussion regarding "honor killings." Which, to me, says something. I honestly don't know how much Islam or Islamic-based culture is invested in honor killings more or less than any other... but based on the content of this article, I would feel compelled to guess that someone was trying to excuse something they know is a problem by pointing fingers everywhere and anywhere else... it reads like desperation, honestly.

The reason why the writer left out Islam is because Islam is against femicide as well as infanticide.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When did this happen in Arabia?

Been going on for awhile. Gabriel Eglasias even mentions the morality police and sex-based segregation and repression.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not true, historically or textually. There is no such thing as apostasy in early Islam. Apostatize from what? submission from God? well, that is very vague. "Apostasy" is a Catholic thing.
The Qur'an is quite an open text regarding universality, aside from this it doesn't support sectarianism ("Muslim"/"Atheist"/"Christian"/"Jew"), it only speaks of mankind's relation to God (as well as their idiocy), not any special chosen group.

Death for apostates--which is understood and defined as leaving the religion and is in no way ambiguous--existed in Judaism which means it has been a defacto part of Islam since the beginning. And it did reinforce it, much like the Tanakh.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yep, the Qur'an even warns against that kind of tragic stuff. Fitna among a family is one of the worst things you can do in a family, as 'Islam' treats the family as a far more sacred thing than even some other religions. Keeping peace is high priority for any Muslim. The integrity of your family, even if members don't 'believe', is everything. Once you turn against them, you've committed a massive sin.

You do know Muslims can basically, and do, pick and choose their preferred parts of the Quran to enforce their views just as the Christians do with the Bible?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You do know Muslims can basically, and do, pick and choose their preferred parts of the Quran to enforce their views just as the Christians do with the Bible?

Actually observant Muslims typically follow a fiqh or Jurisprudence which depending on the school of thought you follow, has a particular interpretation of Quranic text and law.

 

[Father Heathen]

Because the gun voilance in U.S are made by white Americans, and not Muslims.

Oh, so which is it, then?
Why are we free to criticize and scrutinize some cultures but not others?

 

[FooYang]

You do know Muslims can basically, and do, pick and choose their preferred parts of the Quran to enforce their views just as the Christians do with the Bible?

Yes, but unlike the Bible, the Qur'an does have verses speaking against doing as such. Also, unlike the Bible (which is not a revelation from God, but rather a bunch of narratives/biographies), the Qur'an does emphasize to it's audience to actually contemplate deeply and reflect on the things they read. Not doing so, is the true form of 'blasphemy' according to the Qur'an.

 

[FooYang]

Death for apostates--which is understood and defined as leaving the religion and is in no way--existed in Judaism which means it has been a defacto part of Islam since the beginning. And it did reinforce it, much like the Tanakh.

Judaism is Judaism.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Oh, so which is it, then?
Why are we free to criticize and scrutinize some cultures but not others?

Islam is not only culture. it is a religion and I don't think I am the only one who sees that in today's world with Trump as president, America is way more dangerous than any Islamic country.
Trump look more and more like the evil one, and i do not support him at all.
I do not support terror done by "Muslims" by the way those who do terror in the name of a religion do not follow the teaching them self and know very little about religion in general. So i don't see them as Muslims. They only use it to spread fear

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Quotes are irrelevant when you don't even interpret the root Arabic words properly, you just assume semantics onto translated words. At least get that right first, then we can talk

I have here, to either assume you're being naive, ignorant or just not intelligent. Your responses will make this more apparent.

This is basically, "you cannot trust your own mind, you are stupid, because only Arabic version is correct." Also known as BS. Intelligent people deal in facts and conclusions.

Fact: These writings are translated by Muslims and scholars of Islam. That is, it is the actual Quran. You proceed to tell me that it is incorrect because it is not in Arabic.
Fact: If you say that I cannot trust these translations because this is English, this means you admit that Muslims are giving a false translation to Westerners?
Conclusion: Either you accept the English as a valid translation (because the Quran also says the Quran is infallible and can never be changed), or you admit that taqiyya and contradictions is a thing. One or the other, you cannot have it both ways. So either the Quran is perfect and infallible, in which case, it will not suddenly become flawed by translating it into other languages. Or the Quran is deeply flawed through the process of abrogation and nothing it says can be trusted. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and say the former, in which case, yes what I said about apostates being killed actually is part of Quranic canon.

Your Allah gave you an out-of-order book and told you that you are not worthy to interpret it, that it is perfect and your shouldn't question it. And if you reject it, and leave, you will be killed. This is what we mean by honor killing. But if the Quran is actually true, why does it need its honor defended? The mafia needs to do honor killings because its reputation is tarnished, yet law-abiding citizens do not need to worry about their honor because they have nothing to hide. When you have nothing to hide, why do you need to dissemble to protect your honor or reputation?

 

[Father Heathen]

Islam is not only culture. it is a religion and I don't think I am the only one who sees that in today's world with Trump as president, America is way more dangerous than any Islamic country.
Trump look more and more like the evil one, and i do not support him at all.
I do not support terror done by "Muslims" by the way those who do terror in the name of a religion do not follow the teaching them self and know very little about religion in general. So i don't see them as Muslims. They only use it to spread fear

That didn't answer the question, but okay.

 

[FooYang]

Actually observant Muslims typically follow a fiqh or Jurisprudence which depending on the school of thought you follow, has a particular interpretation of Quranic text and law.

Also remember (if you've studied it) that the Sunni schools of Fiqh emphasize a middle way. Sunni Fiqh is made to accommodate the naturally differing views. Sunnism has four different schools because it deals more with outward aspects of the Din and has a more deliberate scope that it has to take precautions for. Shia Fiqh has only two basic schools, as it doesn't have as many problems to take precautions for.
The reasons that there are schools of Fiqh are to not cause tension but to rather account for human fallibility. This is more necessary in Islam than in other religions because Islam has the Qur'an, which is 'word of God', which means Muslims have to take extra precaution not to abuse said book. There have to be precautions put in place so that productive intellectual discource can preceed within the Muslim ummah without strife or fitna, hence Fiqh schools.

Keep in mind that Fiqh is not theology or philosophy, which is another area of Islamic intellectual tradition.

 

[FooYang]

This is basically, "you cannot trust your own mind because only Arabic version is correct." Also known as BS.

No, you're simply just applying false assumed associations with certain words, which is just intentionally misleading. Please don't do that, be intellectually honest, aye?

Also, I don't appreciate your proselytizing, keep that out too if you're able. Thanks

 

[FooYang]

You proceed to tell me that it is incorrect because it is not in Arabic.

Also, this is a deliberate strawman. I'll just make it clear to this thread that this is infact the opposite of what I'm doing, which is to make more clear what the Qur'an is saying in English.
From the stuff you've said here, I sense you're ideologically bent but whatever, you probably don't know any better.

But since you bring it up, yes it is unavoidable that the Qur'an is difficult to translate to English. Aside from how English readings tend to be quite dry simultaneously (ever heard an English speaker say "the Qur'an is soooo boring"? This however doesn't mean that we can't try to better our understanding. Even the best translations have their errors and bad uses of semantics. Aside from this, the mood of various passages aren't often conveyed well between translations, but is to be expected between any two languages that are the polar opposite of each other.
However, you're using this as a tactic to both discredit what I'm saying and to blindly assume that you yourself are right without even trying to pay attention to those various verses you quoted. (and neither was even talking about family dispute or fitna among family members)

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I don't think you understand what a strawman is.

A strawman is when you take a small chunk of what someone says out of context, and distort, attacking the easiest part of an argument rather than attacking the whole.

You quite literally said...

Quotes are irrelevant when you don't even interpret the root Arabic words properly, you just assume semantics onto translated words.

And then called me naive, unintelligent, and ignorant.

I don't know Hebrew or Greek either, yet as a Christian, I study the Bible. They happen to believe the Word of God is the Word of God. If a deity is all-powerful, he is able to speak coherently to followers in any language. If a deity's words can only be interpreted in a single language, does this not make him limited?

 

[FooYang]

Leaving aside your once again irrelevant non-sequiturs.

he is able to speak coherently to followers in any language.

Historically, according to the Qur'an, God has reveled to Prophets since the very beginning of time, you can guarantee that Adam or Noah did not speak English, nor Hebrew, nor Greek, etc.

If a deity's words can only be interpreted in a single language, does this not make him limited?

Language changes, cultural references to particular words also radically change over time. We have to take these things into serious consideration when translating a text. It's not hard to understand, nor does it have a baring on whether a text is revealed from God, it's gonna happen anyway.
These are just hurdles that need to be tackled.

Besides, have you ever read a Medieval English text? (without it being updated into modern English)

Anyone who's even thought about it seriously for five minutes should know for instance that any instance of the word "Islam" in the Qur'an should not be transliterated (and instead be translated as "Submitters to God", without specifying what even that entails) because the identifier of this religious 'group' following the revelation given to Prophet Muhammad were come to be known as such, at a much later time.
Anyone that knows Arabic will likewise see problems with the way "unbeliever" or "disbeliever" is often conveyed in the Qur'an, because it's definitely never referring to the modern "religious/atheist" paradigm we've adopted. Even in the ahadith it never speaks in such terms.
There are many things like this which are important to know, or else you're just crucifying whatever chance you have of understanding what the text is actually saying.